I, personally, enjoyed your article, and found it very informative. It's unfortunate that so much energy was expended by the zealots who do not understand the value of your work.
I've been looking into these issues myself, in order to protect my own designs, and was REALLY hoping for some intelligent conversation about the merits of various techniques, and other ideas. Instead, I heard only people screaming at how wrong it was to hide this information. OK, then, folks, I'd like to please have the contents of your inbox. Nothing to hide?
Is ANYONE on this board interested in discussing the technical feasibility and merits of protecting design IP? I sure am.
To start: I'm dealing with SRAM-based (cheap) FPGAs and DSPs all the time, and it's very difficult to protect the software from reverse-engineering. The best I can do, I find, is to encrypt the code on the ROM, then use a PIC to decode it on the fly to the processor (or FPGA). If the traces to the processor are buried, it is difficult to retrieve the code.
The free-ip.com solution won't work, because it's trivial to program a device to mimic the LFSR (just store and replay the sequence!). The remedy proposed was to use a very long sequence, so it's impractical in RAM. Fine, but then you'd need to wait a LONG time to cycle through those steps. Any other ideas?
He certainly sounded more reasonable about the matter than you did. I'm surprised he gave your ignorant and inflammatory letter any consideration whatsoever.
This is a very useful article describing techniques to protect the designs that you or your company have worked very hard to create. There are a lot of unscrupulous companies who would love nothing better than to *steal* (yes, it is theft) your designs, rather than generating their own. The article outlines various countermeasures against this.
It doesn't surprise me that the zealots on this board scream like bloody hell every time someone feels like protecting their hard work. But many fail to realize that open-source and code sharing is a choice - it is most certainly NOT obligatory.
If you choose not to share your work, you have every right to make it difficult for others to steal. That's why I lock my house, use encryption, and use a non-trivial root password. Why on earth is security for embedded devices any less important than it is for PC's?
Their web site is severely deficient of details. While it is expected that for proprietary reasons, there would be some secrecy involved, the near-complete lack of information draws this whole thing into question.
Of course, the entire reason for having the story (both for CNN and Slashdot, and the Sacchi award, for that matter) are only for "gee-whiz" appeal. Anyone looking for a rational exploration and supported claims will be, as usual, entirely disappointed.
Tillotson joined Charmed Technology in February 2000 as a sensory designer. Her focus is the introduction of smell technology to wearable computing and digital fashion. Jenny is responsible for setting up the London Sensory Design Lab(TM)....
Through the addition of smell technology and pheromones to the world of fashion design, clothing and accessories, Jenny is creating a whole new 'multi-sensorial' environment.
Sorry, honey, all of the clothing I own is already saturated with my own patented HebGb(TM) pheremone blend. Most of my geek friends have gone far beyond, carefully refining their UltraStink(TM) and MegaStink(TM) bioengineered pheremone capsules, which are now strong enough to elicit responses from over 10m away (depending on prevailing winds), as well as strip paint.
It's ok to get excited, but let's keep our pants on over this.
There's still substantial doubt (and no hard evidence) that black holes actually exist. It's unclear if this experiment will lead to more evidence either way, but we'll have to wait and see what we get after wading through the pop-appeal stories.
You, as an employee, have an obligation to the people you hired to assist in any way to maintain the strength of their patents. If you waver in this in any way, they should fire you on the spot, because you're interests are not those of your employer's.
That being said, however, you also have an obligation to disclose to the patent office/any/ information which you have which may undermine the claim of 'uniqueness' - which from your statement, looks like is in question.
If it is in fact not unique, compile a list of published prior art, and give it to the patent attorney. If you don't, and instead suppress it, not only do you waste the company's money (the patent will be thrown out), but you also perjure yourself when you sign the disclosure document.
If the company ignores the prior art you cite, and proceeds to file a patent anyway, you should quit, as the hucksters would be misleading their investors (and customers), and don't deserve your services anyway.
Even New Scientist (which should NOT be construed as a reliable source of objective scientific information) admits that there is no evidence that exposure to microwave radiation at typical cell phone levels causes any risk to the health.
Despite the many studies that have been done, and the significant alarmist attitude of the vocal anti-radiation zealots, there is still no evidence of risk associated with the use of cell phones. Period.
So, why the stories? It does get people to read it, doesn't it? Especially when the authors play of people's paranoia ("don't panic . . . but watch this space"). Please.
One of the greatest misconceptions propagated by the credit card industry is that the consumer is liable for charges incurred on a stolen credit card.
Read your agreements carefully; most of my cards hold me with little if any liability (the worst is $50 maximum). The rest of the bill is footed by the credit card company/issuer, not the consumer. When the credit card company denies a charge to 'verify security', it is not doing so for 'your protection', as they say, but for their own.
So, if the credit card numbers were indeed stolen and used illicitly (which is not clearly the case), it's the credit card companies who have something to worry about, not the consumers.
Regardless, Western Union should have had more secure systems; I'm sure this is very embarassing.
Jeez, I use more care when sending email to my mom than the editors here do with posting stories. I think the editors here have gotten pretty lax:
1) Wrong link in paragraph
2) "C|Net had a story about."
3) "wan't" ??
I can understand wanting to post submissions verbatim, but PLEASE at least proofread them and perform slight edits before posting them. Your salaries should easily justify a proofread and spellcheck of the stories you post. We know you're not in high school any more.
Core technology borrowed from MIT?
on
Techno Jacket
·
· Score: 3
If they used this technology, which it looks like they did, don't you think the students at MIT who did the original work should be given credit for it?
Then again, looking at the monstrosity Levis/Philips came up with, the students are probably happy not to have been associated with it.:)
Convenient because they cannot argue that they are providing any more objective value than as simple entertainment, and they cannot guilt people into supporting ill-conceived social programs, either. Makes it easy.
Their most successful recent project was the Pathfinder web page, with image updates. What was that good for? Entertainment. And damned expensive entertainment, at that.
The NEA is the same thing; providing some level of entertainment for a very limited audience, not at "the government's" expense, but at your and my expense. If people aren't willing to freely pay an artist for the privelage for seeing their work, why are they willing to allow the government to demand the money from everyone?
If anything, they should do something like what the Discover channel is doing. Private, independent funding of interesting projects and explorations for the benefits of its viewers. Simple, clean, just.
Perhaps they, as well as the public as represented through congress, will reconsider the enormous amount of our hard-earned money we're giving to NASA for missions that are of little value beyond simple entertainment. And that's when things work - the streak of dismal failures they're building is a tremendous and expensive embarassment.
Yes, there have been a few commercially viable innovations which came out of the space prgram. But at what cost? Are those inventions really worth the billions spent? To whom?
If NASA cannot provide enough value to the world to pay it's/own/ bills, it shouldn't exist. I'm tired of being forced to fork over money I work hard for in the interests of supporting an ill-defined pseudoscience entertainment legion.
Here's a good question that this site has inspired:
Say I've registered my domain name under a crappy site (such as Network Solutions). Is there a way to re-register, or transfer the registration to another company's domain, or am I stuck with these schmucks forever?
Let's subject them to a little bit of their own medicine, and turn them in to their own task force! I am highly concerned that their actions are a danger to themselves and others, and they must be dealt with immediately in a harsh and brutal manner. Let's begin with:
* Jack Trlica, Pinkerton Director of Marketing
* North Carolina Governor James B. Hunt, Jr.
* James M. Powell, III, PSG Senior Vice President
Everybody call the WAVE toll-free tip line (1-888-960-9600) and make sure these sick people are brainwa^H^H^H^H^H^H helped!!
It is unsurprising to hear that NASA is at it again, spinning questionable material in an effort to entice and entertain the masses. The masses, dazed and stupid (before and) after seeing that new mars movie, link these two events together, and clamor for congress to spend more money on the failing and irrelevant NASA program.
What a bunch of crap. I wouldn't be surprised if NASA underwrote the movie, and had their PR people specificly in sync with the movie folks at a very early phase.
NASA exists for one reason - and that is to do what's necessary to generate more funding for NASA. If hyping questionable data, leveraging off of pop culture, and sending elderly celebrities into space brings in the dough, they'll do it.
I'm a scientist in mind and heart, and space travel does fascinate me. But NASA is little more than a very expensive entertainment troupe, paid for with your and my tax dollars.
If Disney went to Congress to ask for money to build a new theme park, would you support it?
On nearly all laptops you can use an external monitor at the same time as the LCD - but only with the same image. I think the author was clearly talking about two separate images; i.e. a large desktop.
If there's a way, could you fill us in? I'm a happy 3500 owner who would really love to take advantage of this 21" currently connected to my unix box...
For CmdrTaco to essentially decry this company as a scam is entirely inappropriate. He, and this website, are owned by a close competitor, so comments like these not only have no objectivity, but should be viewed as highly suspicious and manipulative.
When it comes down to it, there really are only slight differences between the behavior of LinuxOne and that of VA systems, RedHat, and the others. None of them have, or will have, profits to justify their market valuations, and all are based on essentially the same platform: Making Money from Linux.
So what is so different about this company? That they don't have the alliance with a bunch of hip linux hackers, or the requisite early marketing hype. They certainly have comparable profits.
The Linux as IPO fantasy is playing out again and again, just as e-commerce did. But, as with e-commerce, the ones who make real profits will be few and far between.
But to hear scathing remarks posing as journalism about a competitor in their industry makes my stomach churn. I certainly didn't hear this kind of criticism regarding VA or the others. You've already cashed in.
Moderators: While I do expect this view to be unpopular, please evaluate its merits for discussion (and rational defense) before emotionally slamming it as 'flamebait'.
While I generally don't hold "Time Magazine" in very high regard (being barely a step up from the tabloid), this sort of award reinforces my distaste for pop-news, particularly when it has anything to do with technology.
Now, of course Time magazine's strategy is to capitalize from this tech hype, so Bezos is an easy choice. Enough people will buy the magazine just because they envy the new computer-billionaires.
Let us consider Bezos' accomplishments:
1) Generating a huge, moneylosing web site to sell various products over the internet.
2) Convincing thousands of investors to hand over billions of dollars to support it.
3) Generating more baseless 'net-hype than anyone before him.
4) Deciding to do battle against competitors with stupid and obvious patents, rather than with thoughtful, innovative business strategies and by providing more value to their customers.
He's never created any value whatsoever for his stockholders, but he's certainly gotten them to convince others to invest - sounds like a big ponzi scheme to me.
When it's all said and done, it looks like their best engineered, most innovatively created, and best marketed product is..... their stock.
For this, I would suggest bestowing the first "Huckster of the year" award upon Bezos.
While I do see QCAD as a valuable, useful tool, and I encourage its development, a GPL'd CAD program is simply unlikely to have the robustness of a commercial package required to earn the trust and support of commercial enterprises. CAD is a serious, serious business, and small, subtle bugs can lead to extremely expensive (or dangerous) mistakes. A word processor, etc. simply doesn't have such a stringent requirement.
There are some excellent candidates of UNIX CAD software which could be ported to Linux, however:
1. ProEngineer - Long a staple of high-end CAD houses and universities. Robust and powerful.
2. SDRC Ideas - My favorite - Is smart enough to understand 'design intent', so you aren't forced to constrain every dimension, as you are in ProE (last I checked). Also does very nice motion animation when performing actions. Arguably more of a powerhouse package (included lots of multi-user project management and FEM).
Back when I was actively using Ideas, there was a lot of support for a linux port on their mailing lists. I don't know what became of it, but it would be worth encouraging SDRC to develop a port. I can't imagine it would require a whole lot of work, and could certainly have a userbase comparable to the other Unix flavors.
I felt that they showed a great deal of constraint, given the tremendous extent that the judge agreed with the prosecution. I am also surprised by the lack of spin they have (so far) put on the story, as their responses were quite predictable, and did not contain many of the tactics they're known for.
They plainly pointed out their strategy, in very clear terms. As we all know, this was a 'finding of fact', and there is still a long ways to go before a judgement is made about how these facts will apply to the law. The battle has just begun.
I was a bit amused by the links on Microsoft's page for downloading the entire decision:
About six months ago, I received a letter from an attorney describing a class action suit that had been imposed on Fujitsu, which I believe had to do with eventual failure of the batteries. (I did notice that my battery didn't hold a charge, even after just two years of moderate use). They offered either a free new battery, or a (whopping) 16Mb RAM upgrade. I took the battery.
It would be interesting to hear from a lawyer regarding this issue; if software/hardware bugs can be construed as illustrative of a 'defective' product, and whether there is such a history of these cases. It's a bit surprising that Toshiba backed down so easily from something that could have (probably) been fought.
Maybe some similar lawyers are licking their chops with the prospect of going after Microsoft. I can't say I'd mind, to tell you the truth. I'm not one for trivial lawsuits, but I'm also sick and tired of buying buggy software, and being told to live with it.
Absolutely not. These moves are purely defensive, and contain absolutely no intent of extorting these names to other companies. The names have to do with MY work, and my work alone, and were chosen without any regard whatsoever to other companies or trade names.
Slashdot Mirror
I, personally, enjoyed your article, and found it very informative. It's unfortunate that so much energy was expended by the zealots who do not understand the value of your work.
I've been looking into these issues myself, in order to protect my own designs, and was REALLY hoping for some intelligent conversation about the merits of various techniques, and other ideas. Instead, I heard only people screaming at how wrong it was to hide this information. OK, then, folks, I'd like to please have the contents of your inbox. Nothing to hide?
Is ANYONE on this board interested in discussing the technical feasibility and merits of protecting design IP? I sure am.
To start: I'm dealing with SRAM-based (cheap) FPGAs and DSPs all the time, and it's very difficult to protect the software from reverse-engineering. The best I can do, I find, is to encrypt the code on the ROM, then use a PIC to decode it on the fly to the processor (or FPGA). If the traces to the processor are buried, it is difficult to retrieve the code.
The free-ip.com solution won't work, because it's trivial to program a device to mimic the LFSR (just store and replay the sequence!). The remedy proposed was to use a very long sequence, so it's impractical in RAM. Fine, but then you'd need to wait a LONG time to cycle through those steps. Any other ideas?
- HEbGb
He certainly sounded more reasonable about the matter than you did. I'm surprised he gave your ignorant and inflammatory letter any consideration whatsoever.
This is a very useful article describing techniques to protect the designs that you or your company have worked very hard to create. There are a lot of unscrupulous companies who would love nothing better than to *steal* (yes, it is theft) your designs, rather than generating their own. The article outlines various countermeasures against this.
It doesn't surprise me that the zealots on this board scream like bloody hell every time someone feels like protecting their hard work. But many fail to realize that open-source and code sharing is a choice - it is most certainly NOT obligatory.
If you choose not to share your work, you have every right to make it difficult for others to steal. That's why I lock my house, use encryption, and use a non-trivial root password. Why on earth is security for embedded devices any less important than it is for PC's?
Their web site is severely deficient of details. While it is expected that for proprietary reasons, there would be some secrecy involved, the near-complete lack of information draws this whole thing into question.
Of course, the entire reason for having the story (both for CNN and Slashdot, and the Sacchi award, for that matter) are only for "gee-whiz" appeal. Anyone looking for a rational exploration and supported claims will be, as usual, entirely disappointed.
From their website :
...
Tillotson joined Charmed Technology in February 2000 as a sensory designer. Her focus is the introduction of smell technology to wearable computing and digital fashion. Jenny is responsible for setting up the London Sensory Design Lab(TM).
Through the addition of smell technology and pheromones to the world of fashion design, clothing and accessories, Jenny is creating a whole new 'multi-sensorial' environment.
Sorry, honey, all of the clothing I own is already saturated with my own patented HebGb(TM) pheremone blend. Most of my geek friends have gone far beyond, carefully refining their UltraStink(TM) and MegaStink(TM) bioengineered pheremone capsules, which are now strong enough to elicit responses from over 10m away (depending on prevailing winds), as well as strip paint.
Could the flash on their website be ANY worse? It takes over 3 minutes to just navigate past the intro! Jeez.
It's ok to get excited, but let's keep our pants on over this.
There's still substantial doubt (and no hard evidence) that black holes actually exist. It's unclear if this experiment will lead to more evidence either way, but we'll have to wait and see what we get after wading through the pop-appeal stories.
You, as an employee, have an obligation to the people you hired to assist in any way to maintain the strength of their patents. If you waver in this in any way, they should fire you on the spot, because you're interests are not those of your employer's.
/any/ information which you have which may undermine the claim of 'uniqueness' - which from your statement, looks like is in question.
That being said, however, you also have an obligation to disclose to the patent office
If it is in fact not unique, compile a list of published prior art, and give it to the patent attorney. If you don't, and instead suppress it, not only do you waste the company's money (the patent will be thrown out), but you also perjure yourself when you sign the disclosure document.
If the company ignores the prior art you cite, and proceeds to file a patent anyway, you should quit, as the hucksters would be misleading their investors (and customers), and don't deserve your services anyway.
[IANAL, standard disclaimers apply..]
Even New Scientist (which should NOT be construed as a reliable source of objective scientific information) admits that there is no evidence that exposure to microwave radiation at typical cell phone levels causes any risk to the health.
Despite the many studies that have been done, and the significant alarmist attitude of the vocal anti-radiation zealots, there is still no evidence of risk associated with the use of cell phones. Period.
So, why the stories? It does get people to read it, doesn't it? Especially when the authors play of people's paranoia ("don't panic . . . but watch this space"). Please.
One of the greatest misconceptions propagated by the credit card industry is that the consumer is liable for charges incurred on a stolen credit card.
Read your agreements carefully; most of my cards hold me with little if any liability (the worst is $50 maximum). The rest of the bill is footed by the credit card company/issuer, not the consumer. When the credit card company denies a charge to 'verify security', it is not doing so for 'your protection', as they say, but for their own.
So, if the credit card numbers were indeed stolen and used illicitly (which is not clearly the case), it's the credit card companies who have something to worry about, not the consumers.
Regardless, Western Union should have had more secure systems; I'm sure this is very embarassing.
Jeez, I use more care when sending email to my mom than the editors here do with posting stories. I think the editors here have gotten pretty lax:
1) Wrong link in paragraph
2) "C|Net had a story about."
3) "wan't" ??
I can understand wanting to post submissions verbatim, but PLEASE at least proofread them and perform slight edits before posting them. Your salaries should easily justify a proofread and spellcheck of the stories you post. We know you're not in high school any more.
I remember reading about computers and circuits being embedded into clothing being developed at the MIT Media Lab a few years ago. They had, in fact, a Levi's jeans jacket that played music when you touched the buttons (which were actually just metallic thread). They might have had embedded networking, as well.
:)
If they used this technology, which it looks like they did, don't you think the students at MIT who did the original work should be given credit for it?
Then again, looking at the monstrosity Levis/Philips came up with, the students are probably happy not to have been associated with it.
Convenient because they cannot argue that they are providing any more objective value than as simple entertainment, and they cannot guilt people into supporting ill-conceived social programs, either. Makes it easy.
Their most successful recent project was the Pathfinder web page, with image updates. What was that good for? Entertainment. And damned expensive entertainment, at that.
The NEA is the same thing; providing some level of entertainment for a very limited audience, not at "the government's" expense, but at your and my expense. If people aren't willing to freely pay an artist for the privelage for seeing their work, why are they willing to allow the government to demand the money from everyone?
If anything, they should do something like what the Discover channel is doing. Private, independent funding of interesting projects and explorations for the benefits of its viewers. Simple, clean, just.
NASA needs to go away.
Perhaps they, as well as the public as represented through congress, will reconsider the enormous amount of our hard-earned money we're giving to NASA for missions that are of little value beyond simple entertainment. And that's when things work - the streak of dismal failures they're building is a tremendous and expensive embarassment.
/own/ bills, it shouldn't exist. I'm tired of being forced to fork over money I work hard for in the interests of supporting an ill-defined pseudoscience entertainment legion.
Yes, there have been a few commercially viable innovations which came out of the space prgram. But at what cost? Are those inventions really worth the billions spent? To whom?
If NASA cannot provide enough value to the world to pay it's
Here's a good question that this site has inspired:
Say I've registered my domain name under a crappy site (such as Network Solutions). Is there a way to re-register, or transfer the registration to another company's domain, or am I stuck with these schmucks forever?
HeB
Let's subject them to a little bit of their own medicine, and turn them in to their own task force! I am highly concerned that their actions are a danger to themselves and others, and they must be dealt with immediately in a harsh and brutal manner. Let's begin with:
* Jack Trlica, Pinkerton Director of Marketing
* North Carolina Governor James B. Hunt, Jr.
* James M. Powell, III, PSG Senior Vice President
Everybody call the WAVE toll-free tip line (1-888-960-9600) and make sure these sick people are brainwa^H^H^H^H^H^H helped!!
Or, submit through the web here!
Anyone know which schools their kids attend???
I travel constantly with my laptop, and I've been using Scramdisk to keep all of my sensitive data encrypted.
It is unsurprising to hear that NASA is at it again, spinning questionable material in an effort to entice and entertain the masses. The masses, dazed and stupid (before and) after seeing that new mars movie, link these two events together, and clamor for congress to spend more money on the failing and irrelevant NASA program.
What a bunch of crap. I wouldn't be surprised if NASA underwrote the movie, and had their PR people specificly in sync with the movie folks at a very early phase.
NASA exists for one reason - and that is to do what's necessary to generate more funding for NASA. If hyping questionable data, leveraging off of pop culture, and sending elderly celebrities into space brings in the dough, they'll do it.
I'm a scientist in mind and heart, and space travel does fascinate me. But NASA is little more than a very expensive entertainment troupe, paid for with your and my tax dollars.
If Disney went to Congress to ask for money to build a new theme park, would you support it?
Are you sure?
On nearly all laptops you can use an external monitor at the same time as the LCD - but only with the same image. I think the author was clearly talking about two separate images; i.e. a large desktop.
If there's a way, could you fill us in? I'm a happy 3500 owner who would really love to take advantage of this 21" currently connected to my unix box...
For CmdrTaco to essentially decry this company as a scam is entirely inappropriate. He, and this website, are owned by a close competitor, so comments like these not only have no objectivity, but should be viewed as highly suspicious and manipulative.
When it comes down to it, there really are only slight differences between the behavior of LinuxOne and that of VA systems, RedHat, and the others. None of them have, or will have, profits to justify their market valuations, and all are based on essentially the same platform: Making Money from Linux.
So what is so different about this company? That they don't have the alliance with a bunch of hip linux hackers, or the requisite early marketing hype. They certainly have comparable profits.
The Linux as IPO fantasy is playing out again and again, just as e-commerce did. But, as with e-commerce, the ones who make real profits will be few and far between.
But to hear scathing remarks posing as journalism about a competitor in their industry makes my stomach churn. I certainly didn't hear this kind of criticism regarding VA or the others. You've already cashed in.
Moderators: While I do expect this view to be unpopular, please evaluate its merits for discussion (and rational defense) before emotionally slamming it as 'flamebait'.
While I generally don't hold "Time Magazine" in very high regard (being barely a step up from the tabloid), this sort of award reinforces my distaste for pop-news, particularly when it has anything to do with technology.
Now, of course Time magazine's strategy is to capitalize from this tech hype, so Bezos is an easy choice. Enough people will buy the magazine just because they envy the new computer-billionaires.
Let us consider Bezos' accomplishments:
1) Generating a huge, moneylosing web site to sell various products over the internet.
2) Convincing thousands of investors to hand over billions of dollars to support it.
3) Generating more baseless 'net-hype than anyone before him.
4) Deciding to do battle against competitors with stupid and obvious patents, rather than with thoughtful, innovative business strategies and by providing more value to their customers.
He's never created any value whatsoever for his stockholders, but he's certainly gotten them to convince others to invest - sounds like a big ponzi scheme to me.
When it's all said and done, it looks like their best engineered, most innovatively created, and best marketed product is..... their stock.
For this, I would suggest bestowing the first "Huckster of the year" award upon Bezos.
While I do see QCAD as a valuable, useful tool, and I encourage its development, a GPL'd CAD program is simply unlikely to have the robustness of a commercial package required to earn the trust and support of commercial enterprises. CAD is a serious, serious business, and small, subtle bugs can lead to extremely expensive (or dangerous) mistakes. A word processor, etc. simply doesn't have such a stringent requirement.
There are some excellent candidates of UNIX CAD software which could be ported to Linux, however:
1. ProEngineer - Long a staple of high-end CAD houses and universities. Robust and powerful.
2. SDRC Ideas - My favorite - Is smart enough to understand 'design intent', so you aren't forced to constrain every dimension, as you are in ProE (last I checked). Also does very nice motion animation when performing actions. Arguably more of a powerhouse package (included lots of multi-user project management and FEM).
Back when I was actively using Ideas, there was a lot of support for a linux port on their mailing lists. I don't know what became of it, but it would be worth encouraging SDRC to develop a port. I can't imagine it would require a whole lot of work, and could certainly have a userbase comparable to the other Unix flavors.
- hebgb
I felt that they showed a great deal of constraint, given the tremendous extent that the judge agreed with the prosecution. I am also surprised by the lack of spin they have (so far) put on the story, as their responses were quite predictable, and did not contain many of the tactics they're known for.
They plainly pointed out their strategy, in very clear terms. As we all know, this was a 'finding of fact', and there is still a long ways to go before a judgement is made about how these facts will apply to the law. The battle has just begun.
I was a bit amused by the links on Microsoft's page for downloading the entire decision:
- Word format (851k)
- Wordperfect format (438k)
HebGb
About six months ago, I received a letter from an attorney describing a class action suit that had been imposed on Fujitsu, which I believe had to do with eventual failure of the batteries. (I did notice that my battery didn't hold a charge, even after just two years of moderate use). They offered either a free new battery, or a (whopping) 16Mb RAM upgrade. I took the battery.
It would be interesting to hear from a lawyer regarding this issue; if software/hardware bugs can be construed as illustrative of a 'defective' product, and whether there is such a history of these cases. It's a bit surprising that Toshiba backed down so easily from something that could have (probably) been fought.
Maybe some similar lawyers are licking their chops with the prospect of going after Microsoft. I can't say I'd mind, to tell you the truth. I'm not one for trivial lawsuits, but I'm also sick and tired of buying buggy software, and being told to live with it.
HebGb
Absolutely not. These moves are purely defensive, and contain absolutely no intent of extorting these names to other companies. The names have to do with MY work, and my work alone, and were chosen without any regard whatsoever to other companies or trade names.