In a posting to his company's forum early Thursday morning, Marsh said he would discount any reports of a seven-figure cash payment. "We did agree to a one time payment," he wrote, "however we did not agree to pay a 7 figure cash payment as reported in the media."
You can clearly see from the exact literal quote from Marsh, he is not even slightly disputing that the deal is worth 7 figures. However, he is disputing that there was 7 figures of *CASH* in the deal.
It's entirely possible that BOTH SCO and Marsh are telling the truth (shock/horror, is this one for the record books). Perhaps it's several thousand cash and the rest in stock or other non-cash value?
Does the spearmint lose its flavor
On the bedpost over night?
If you pull it out like rubber
Will it snap right back and bite?
If you paste it on the left side
Will you find it on the right?
Does the spearmint lose its flavor
On the bedpost over night?
A patent was filed early 2001. The 'problem' is that soon after that, a company took a license on this technology, and required to keep confidentiality. This implies I can not show pictures, or give details or comments about the way this works. I even had to edit some of the pictures on this site to make sure this was respected. And off course there is a money side to it. I hope you understand.
You licensed your patent to a company and allowed them to include draconian exclusivity clauses?
All I can say is I sure hope you are now *really friendly* with your bankers in Switzerland otherwise you got *badly screwed*.
I wonder if the forking argument itself (please say that correctly:-) has gathered sufficient momentum
Eye'm from Eyerlnd, ewe insensitive clod! Me mothr made me kiss the Blarney stone when eye wuz young, and eye've never been able to forget its gritty flavor. As sure as they're leprechauns in Eyerlnd, you know eye'm always forking careful to forking say things correctly.
That IBMs specs for the successor to the parent of G5 PPC chips are that it consumes MAJORLY less power for a given clockspeed. (er, I dunno, from memory something like 30% of the power)
So as a long-term plan, this is A Smart Move.
The x86 crew are producing ever more power-hungry CPUs with each generation, on the other hand IBM is busily rolling out technology which goes in the opposite direction while still beating x86 architecture CPUs even with both hands tied behind its back.
Think in terms of them bringing out the xBox3, same basic platform (PPC) 30% of the power needs, significantly faster CPU overall. The time to migrate architectures is *now*, before all the *new features* (ie PC replacement type functionality) have been developed.
Who knows, perhaps one day we'll see the return of MS Supported OS and Apps on PPC?
IBM scores being the reborn center of The PC. MS scores as they have multiple architecture support. Apple might even score, and sell you a Mac you could load Windows on (yeah, there are all kinds of kinky people out there with some of the weirdest fetishes).
Intel and AMD? Well they'll need to pickup their CPU design skills and put out a quality processor instead of beating each other around the head and shoulders with market-speak.
Of course if you actually bothered to read what I'd written, you'd have noticed that I explicitly stated that I was NOT talking about companies whose business models are based around "R&D, Patent, and License".
That's PERFECTLY fine, valid, good, and worthwhile.
There ARE companies who've built their business around doing literally nothing with their patents other than litigating. (ie failing/refusing to license technologies, let alone actually productizing them themselves)
Seriously there outta be a 'statute of limitations' on patents - if after (say) 10 years (once-off, explicitly never-to-be-extended-by-acts-of-government-or-god) you've failed to productize it yourself or license it to others to productize, said patent becomes Public Domain and *anyone* can go out and do something with the technology.
License is ten cents per decoder, according to the MS website.
This automatically excludes any open-source (ie FREE) implementations, as either the end-users (??) or the distributors (most likely) would be held responsible for unlicensed copies.
Yeah it's only Ten Cents, but it's a Big Legal Stick that The Monopoly can BEAT you with.
What part of "free" doesn't make sense to you here?
ten Cents per copy fee means that you cannot distribute a WM9 decoder with your OpenSource OS.
There's a ten cent fee per copy.
Who dya think is going to pay that fee? The Developer? The Distributer? The End-User?
THAT's what this is all about - Microsoft Locking out OpenSource from HD-DVD. If you don't support *all* the codecs, then you're not "officially" supporting the HD-DVD standard.
Given the publicly stated Microsoft Policy of Embrace And Extend is this the first step in The Monopoly making a land-grab and successfully screwing up yet another boon to our lives?
And before you caffeine-freak mods cut off my air-supply, I'm hoping there'll be some rational commentary here.
I realise all they're currently doing is mandating that some form of Monopoly-Tech be one of the several supported codecs, but seriously - is this a sign that MS is "moving in on" DVDs and is there any scope for them to (in some way) take ownership of key aspects in a way that "Us Geeks" (ie The Thinkers, as opposed to The Sheep) would not be happy with?
If the ground is two feet away from you and approaching at speed, you're falling and about to die.
RADAR doesn't track "the speed" of an object, but actually only measures its distance (and we get the {relative} speed by calculating change in distance over time).
RADAR is probably going to have a hard time giving you the speed of what amounts to an infinitely large something which is a constant distance from you.
And while we're at it, because it's only tracking distance, and you're looking "at the ground, two feet ahead" anytime you approach a speedbump it'll "see something with rapidly decreasing distance", ditto when you crest a rise or drive through a ditch. So you'll get some ludicrously unbelievable false-readings (if you were merely calculating the speed).
Obviously these are not issues for most current/typical uses of RADAR. In an aircraft, anything approaching you rapidly is an issue, ditto where the RADAR from a fixed location.
Pointing RADAR at the ground from a few feet away is really quite pointless, if you haven't already realised it's there you've got bigger problems than knowing *exactly* how fast it's approaching you.
In the microwave region where this device is working at, signals are best radiated using a "dish" type antenna. This chip no doubt does not come with this dish.
The article specifically states that the chip implements a phased-array of antennas. And that those antennas are actually physically on the chip itself.
This is one reason why this solution will be cheap to implement - it does ALL the RF work for you, you simply connect "a computer" to the resultant datastream and interpret it how you like.
Clearly the USPTO cares little to not-at-all as to the actual content of a patent request, as long as what it describes hasn't been patented already.
They're quite happy to rubber-stamp "First Post" on almost any document no matter how trivial, irrelevant, or land-grabbing the actual verbiage and let the courts fight it out amongst themselves.
I guess someone way-back decided that Lawyers in the US didn't have enough work to justify their existence (not to mention their hourly rates)
These days there's a virtual plague of lawyers, we'd be feeding them RAT POISON if someone hadn't made it illegal already.
TradeMark is actually quite sane and legitimate (in this specific example). This was his catchphrase, so naturally HE should be the one to use it. Just as if it were a logo or a product name, in market-speak it identifies his "brand".
Why you think this has anything to do with braindead overly broad patents is beyond me.
that's a dumb as the Aussie who re-patented the wheel
As an Aussie I would like to point out that said patent was filed with the specific intention of how mindless and overly general patents will be approved even though there's a bazillion trillion reasons why they should be thrown out with much hilarity.
Your point is all great in theory - And what do you suppose we should do about companies who do nothing but come up with ideas to patent so that they can sue the pants off companies trying to make a buck bu innovating?
I mean specifically companies who file patents (or just 'acquire' them) with less than zero intention of themselves turning the 'idea' into a marketable product, and less than zero intention of licensing said 'ideas' to companies who would LOVE to turn them into products.
Every third day there's Yet Another LawSuit filed by "Jim Bobs Tech Patent Company" which has ZERO business (let alone INCOME) other than lawsuits they've filed "protecting" their patents.
Is THIS the state of affairs your previous "patent system" is supposed to encourage?
I guess that includes China, which seems to be into violating its citizens in other ways.
Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US
on
Buzzword du Jour: DRM
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Doesn't work though.
The US is already forcing its DMCA style rules on *all* its trading partners.
Where exactly are you going to go?
Either you're "a friend" (and accept US laws as your own) or you're part of the "Axis of Evil".
DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US
on
Buzzword du Jour: DRM
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
DRM will be patented, copyrighted and/or trade-secreted
DMCA makes "working it out for yourself" illegal
US Government (after pressure from MS and Big Media) will pass laws saying non-DRM computing is (effectively) illegal (These days I'd guess it'll be wrapped up in "HomeLand Security" issues, most likely)
OpenSource DRM solutions will not exist (see points 1 & 2)
ALL OpenSource solutions (because they do not include DRM) therefore become effectively illegal
The *only* question here is "how long before this becomes a reality?".
Slashdot Mirror
In a posting to his company's forum early Thursday morning, Marsh said he would discount any reports of a seven-figure cash payment. "We did agree to a one time payment," he wrote, "however we did not agree to pay a 7 figure cash payment as reported in the media."
You can clearly see from the exact literal quote from Marsh, he is not even slightly disputing that the deal is worth 7 figures. However, he is disputing that there was 7 figures of *CASH* in the deal.
It's entirely possible that BOTH SCO and Marsh are telling the truth (shock/horror, is this one for the record books). Perhaps it's several thousand cash and the rest in stock or other non-cash value?
Slashdot was also spotted recently fielding an article entitled:
Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight?
Does the spearmint lose its flavor
On the bedpost over night?
If you pull it out like rubber
Will it snap right back and bite?
If you paste it on the left side
Will you find it on the right?
Does the spearmint lose its flavor
On the bedpost over night?
If I were carrying $1,000 in twenties, I wouldn't want to advertise that fact to those around me.
50 x 20 = 1000
Is that a stack of cash in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
I guess it's gotta be better than a roll of dimes.
I wonder if perhaps the larger mass and therefore momentum of the full-size chopper has anything to do with it?
A patent was filed early 2001. The 'problem' is that soon after that, a company took a license on this technology, and required to keep confidentiality. This implies I can not show pictures, or give details or comments about the way this works. I even had to edit some of the pictures on this site to make sure this was respected. And off course there is a money side to it. I hope you understand.
You licensed your patent to a company and allowed them to include draconian exclusivity clauses?
All I can say is I sure hope you are now *really friendly* with your bankers in Switzerland otherwise you got *badly screwed*.
Forking thins the hurd (-1, terrible joke)
Forking is natural. Without it there wouldn't be a hurd needing thinning in the first place. (-2, *really* terrible joke)
I wonder if the forking argument itself (please say that correctly :-) has gathered sufficient momentum
Eye'm from Eyerlnd, ewe insensitive clod! Me mothr made me kiss the Blarney stone when eye wuz young, and eye've never been able to forget its gritty flavor. As sure as they're leprechauns in Eyerlnd, you know eye'm always forking careful to forking say things correctly.
That IBMs specs for the successor to the parent of G5 PPC chips are that it consumes MAJORLY less power for a given clockspeed. (er, I dunno, from memory something like 30% of the power)
So as a long-term plan, this is A Smart Move.
The x86 crew are producing ever more power-hungry CPUs with each generation, on the other hand IBM is busily rolling out technology which goes in the opposite direction while still beating x86 architecture CPUs even with both hands tied behind its back.
Think in terms of them bringing out the xBox3, same basic platform (PPC) 30% of the power needs, significantly faster CPU overall. The time to migrate architectures is *now*, before all the *new features* (ie PC replacement type functionality) have been developed.
Who knows, perhaps one day we'll see the return of MS Supported OS and Apps on PPC?
IBM scores being the reborn center of The PC. MS scores as they have multiple architecture support. Apple might even score, and sell you a Mac you could load Windows on (yeah, there are all kinds of kinky people out there with some of the weirdest fetishes).
Intel and AMD? Well they'll need to pickup their CPU design skills and put out a quality processor instead of beating each other around the head and shoulders with market-speak.
Sounds to me like this sux for nobody.
Of course if you actually bothered to read what I'd written, you'd have noticed that I explicitly stated that I was NOT talking about companies whose business models are based around "R&D, Patent, and License".
) you've failed to productize it yourself or license it to others to productize, said patent becomes Public Domain and *anyone* can go out and do something with the technology.
That's PERFECTLY fine, valid, good, and worthwhile.
There ARE companies who've built their business around doing literally nothing with their patents other than litigating. (ie failing/refusing to license technologies, let alone actually productizing them themselves)
Seriously there outta be a 'statute of limitations' on patents - if after (say) 10 years (once-off, explicitly never-to-be-extended-by-acts-of-government-or-god
Why am I not at all surprised to find that the DVDForum website uses Dynamic HTML in its navigation which fails to render under (for example) FireFox?
Anyone want to comment whether the navigation (ie menu on the left) works under other browsers?
License is ten cents per decoder, according to the MS website.
This automatically excludes any open-source (ie FREE) implementations, as either the end-users (??) or the distributors (most likely) would be held responsible for unlicensed copies.
Yeah it's only Ten Cents, but it's a Big Legal Stick that The Monopoly can BEAT you with.
Score+1 for Microsoft vs OpenSource.
Glurk! A ten cent per copy license fee means that you cannot legally deploy this without paying Microsoft ten cents.
IN theory a developer can write a program for it, but either the distributors or the end users legally owe The Monopoly some money.
Expect some Fresh New Lawsuits.
What part of "free" doesn't make sense to you here?
ten Cents per copy fee means that you cannot distribute a WM9 decoder with your OpenSource OS.
There's a ten cent fee per copy.
Who dya think is going to pay that fee? The Developer? The Distributer? The End-User?
THAT's what this is all about - Microsoft Locking out OpenSource from HD-DVD. If you don't support *all* the codecs, then you're not "officially" supporting the HD-DVD standard.
Given the publicly stated Microsoft Policy of Embrace And Extend is this the first step in The Monopoly making a land-grab and successfully screwing up yet another boon to our lives?
And before you caffeine-freak mods cut off my air-supply, I'm hoping there'll be some rational commentary here.
I realise all they're currently doing is mandating that some form of Monopoly-Tech be one of the several supported codecs, but seriously - is this a sign that MS is "moving in on" DVDs and is there any scope for them to (in some way) take ownership of key aspects in a way that "Us Geeks" (ie The Thinkers, as opposed to The Sheep) would not be happy with?
If the ground is two feet away from you and approaching at speed, you're falling and about to die.
RADAR doesn't track "the speed" of an object, but actually only measures its distance (and we get the {relative} speed by calculating change in distance over time).
RADAR is probably going to have a hard time giving you the speed of what amounts to an infinitely large something which is a constant distance from you.
And while we're at it, because it's only tracking distance, and you're looking "at the ground, two feet ahead" anytime you approach a speedbump it'll "see something with rapidly decreasing distance", ditto when you crest a rise or drive through a ditch. So you'll get some ludicrously unbelievable false-readings (if you were merely calculating the speed).
Obviously these are not issues for most current/typical uses of RADAR. In an aircraft, anything approaching you rapidly is an issue, ditto where the RADAR from a fixed location.
Pointing RADAR at the ground from a few feet away is really quite pointless, if you haven't already realised it's there you've got bigger problems than knowing *exactly* how fast it's approaching you.
In the microwave region where this device is working at, signals are best radiated using a "dish" type antenna. This chip no doubt does not come with this dish.
The article specifically states that the chip implements a phased-array of antennas. And that those antennas are actually physically on the chip itself.
This is one reason why this solution will be cheap to implement - it does ALL the RF work for you, you simply connect "a computer" to the resultant datastream and interpret it how you like.
It just plain makes sense, when you think about it.
Ah Queensland - filled with the wait-a-while (also known as the Lawyer Vine) and stinging trees.
I'll never forget it.
Clearly the USPTO cares little to not-at-all as to the actual content of a patent request, as long as what it describes hasn't been patented already.
They're quite happy to rubber-stamp "First Post" on almost any document no matter how trivial, irrelevant, or land-grabbing the actual verbiage and let the courts fight it out amongst themselves.
I guess someone way-back decided that Lawyers in the US didn't have enough work to justify their existence (not to mention their hourly rates)
These days there's a virtual plague of lawyers, we'd be feeding them RAT POISON if someone hadn't made it illegal already.
TradeMark is actually quite sane and legitimate (in this specific example). This was his catchphrase, so naturally HE should be the one to use it. Just as if it were a logo or a product name, in market-speak it identifies his "brand".
Why you think this has anything to do with braindead overly broad patents is beyond me.
that's a dumb as the Aussie who re-patented the wheel
As an Aussie I would like to point out that said patent was filed with the specific intention of how mindless and overly general patents will be approved even though there's a bazillion trillion reasons why they should be thrown out with much hilarity.
Your point is all great in theory - And what do you suppose we should do about companies who do nothing but come up with ideas to patent so that they can sue the pants off companies trying to make a buck bu innovating?
I mean specifically companies who file patents (or just 'acquire' them) with less than zero intention of themselves turning the 'idea' into a marketable product, and less than zero intention of licensing said 'ideas' to companies who would LOVE to turn them into products.
Every third day there's Yet Another LawSuit filed by "Jim Bobs Tech Patent Company" which has ZERO business (let alone INCOME) other than lawsuits they've filed "protecting" their patents.
Is THIS the state of affairs your previous "patent system" is supposed to encourage?
I guess that includes China, which seems to be into violating its citizens in other ways.
Doesn't work though.
The US is already forcing its DMCA style rules on *all* its trading partners.
Where exactly are you going to go?
Either you're "a friend" (and accept US laws as your own) or you're part of the "Axis of Evil".
- DRM will be patented, copyrighted and/or trade-secreted
- DMCA makes "working it out for yourself" illegal
- US Government (after pressure from MS and Big Media) will pass laws saying non-DRM computing is (effectively) illegal
- OpenSource DRM solutions will not exist (see points 1 & 2)
- ALL OpenSource solutions (because they do not include DRM) therefore become effectively illegal
The *only* question here is "how long before this becomes a reality?".(These days I'd guess it'll be wrapped up in "HomeLand Security" issues, most likely)