"Apparently prior art means nothing to the patent office."
Not exactly. They just have a different definition than most people. To the patent office, only patents are prior art.
Patent reviewers spend roughly four hours on each patent application. They don't have time to do things like look out in the world for prior art. They simply look in their patent database and whatever other places their tools search (e.g. engineering and science journals). In this case, Microsoft put their work in the database first. Now Apple will spend millions invalidating that patent (if they even bother--easier just to narrow the patent, since I'm sure they already have cross licensing agreements with Microsoft).
The confusion is that the Apple is actually trying to get a patent. It's not Microsoft but the patent office that is saying that Microsoft has prior art. In that case, you're correct, Creative's prior art is as much of a problem as Microsoft's.
Another point of confusion is that Apple is not claiming "prior art" in this case. They would like to claim a lack of art prior to theirs, which is different.
"If Apple claims prior art, and then another company (like Creative) claims prior art, then what happens?"
The patent is invalidated twice?
Prior art from Creative is just as useful to Apple as prior art from Apple. The company that does *not* want prior art is Microsoft, as it invalidates their patent. Microsoft is claiming *first* art, essentially. Any prior art invalidates the Microsoft claim. I.e. Creative having earlier prior art would *help* Apple's claim (that Microsoft did not have the first art--required to get the patent).
"No, it's too early for any private company to even think about such things."
You better hurry up and tell http://www.blueorigin.com/ that. They have that billion dollars in available startup capital (both Amazon's Bezos and Microsoft's Allen are involved).
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html also explains this. I.e. that using the GPL for a unique library is preferred by the FSF *because* of the problems it causes for non-GPLed projects.
Even better than calling them, when it changes, have it run a windows update like wizard that says, "Now updating IEx to Firefox." Make this happen automatically and be sure to reboot the computer afterwards (not for functional reasons; just for the warm fuzzy feeling of making changes so important that the computer needs to reboot).
Making it more difficult for the US to import labor (H-1b visas) is counterproductive. Overall, the US is currently a net *exporter* of services. Your proposal would actually reduce US exports, since it leaves those resources in other countries. Then we don't get tax revenues, etc. from them.
"Free trade is good -- only when we are trading with other societies that maintain (relatively) free markets."
This is simply not true. Free trade is very good to the US for two reasons:
1. It allows us to trade goods that are easy for us to make (e.g. wheat) for goods that aren't (e.g. textiles).
2. As the provider of the world currency, we get seignorage. I.e. other people send us stuff without asking for stuff in return.
Reducing imports does not help the US. It just means that we have less stuff (and are therefore poorer). Increasing exports *only* helps the US in that it allows us to increase imports. Other than that, we would be better off using that production capacity to make stuff for Americans.
If you are looking for work to do in the US, don't try to export. Build stuff for Americans. Ideally, build something that we already have (e.g. envelopes or petroleum) but cheaper. On large enough scale, this causes deflation. What happens when there is deflation? The Fed pumps money into the economy.
"Then the rest of New York State outside of the New York City Metro area makes up less than 1 million people"
By your same source, Buffalo and Syracuse *each* have more than a million people in their respective metropolitan areas.
Most of the 10.5 million people who live in the NYC metropolitan statistical area (MSA) but not in the city itself live outside of NY state, e.g. NJ. Probably only one to three million actually live in NY state. The source you cite also has a map which shows a substantial population in NJ suburbs of NYC.
This is also true of Philadelphia, Kansas City, and other cities that are near the borders of their states. MSAs are not restricted to single states.
I just wanted to point out that dealing with a dick who does not properly communicate his requirements is one of the most real world relevant parts of the interview (queue up obligatory, "Especially at Microsoft" jokes).
"Situation 2: Our company creates a product, let's say an appliance, with lots of our own code inside, and some GPL'ed code, such as libraries. The libraries itself are unmodified and are merely used by our code. What is the correct legal action to take? Nothing, as GPL'ed code has not been modified?"
Modification is irrelevant in the GPL. Modify or modify not, as you choose; it makes no difference.
"Stating that the product uses that GPL'ed library, which can be downloaded from the authors site?"
No, this won't work unless the interface is non-GPLed (e.g. where you have an open source library that has identical methods to some closed source library). The more common case is for the interface to be covered under the GPL as well.
"Making the full sourcecode, i.e. the libraries code and our own code, publicly available?"
Yes, this is generally your only option in most situations. Note: if you distribute the source of your program and the library with all distributions (i.e. no binary only distributions), you do not have to offer the source separately.
"And why is your project LGPL only? Why can't it be GPL? If you aren't worried about it being closed up, give it to the XViD people and let them use it."
Dude, if the project is LGPL, it can be used in GPLed products. The GPL is strictly *more* restrictive than the LGPL. LGPL programs are inherently dual licensed (i.e. can be redistribute under either the LGPL or the GPL). XViD could bundle his project with theirs now.
The GP is saying that he wants closed source projects to be able to link against his code...that's what using the LGPL (rather than the GPL) means.
In the case of drivers, it's also worth noting that you may not need source. You ship the driver with your project so that people can use it. This saves people from having to download the driver separately. A purely binary redistribution is acceptable in that case. With many drivers, the driver will be free beer to redistribute. You have to pay to make modifications.
Presumably people can still use the XViD driver in this case -- they just need to obtain and install it themselves. This means that casual users won't bother to do so.
This is, in fact, a real cost to using the GPL over a BSD license (or the LGPL). You lose potential users. The FSF acknowledges this in its discussion of when to use the GPL vs. when to use the LGPL. In general, they recommend using the GPL when something is unique (i.e. not available under other licenses). They recommend using the LGPL when something is available under other licenses for exactly this reason: it allows people who would otherwise choose software using a different license to choose the LGPLed version instead. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
It's easier to just use the first letter of each word: tB8wlSy! (The big bad wolf likes snakes. Yuk!) is as secure and easy to remember as your phrase but shorter to type. The hardest part would be remembering the capitalization.
The first letter of every word passwords are proven cryptographically strong. I'm not sure that the same can be said of Pass Phrases. They have internal logic that could potentially be revealing. Plus, they are easier to observe. I.e. if I'm watching you type your password, it's easier to pick up that you are writing a phrase. No single letter of the first letter password says anything about the other letters, but your phrase has hints all over.
Hmm...aren't there some european countries in Microsoft's Shared Source initiative? If the contract is voided and they have the source, couldn't they fork it into an open source project? Or a closed source project, but that's not as fun.
Sure, people wouldn't legally be allowed to use it in the US (the copyright would still be valid here), but the other five billion people would be able.
"If for economic reasons IBM is outsourcing jobs to india"
That raises a side issue that a lot of people here are missing. Europe's currency is way high against the dollar. It's quite possible that they are moving the jobs to the cheaper *US*. I.e. instead of cutting jobs in the US so as to make room for cheaper workers in India, they have chosen to cut workers in the expensive EU.
If enough companies did that, the Euro would stop rising versus the Dollar. I.e. the exchange rate may finally be beginning to have an effect.
"So, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that every time technology changes in a big way, the public should give up a little bit of freedom."
Uhm...giving up what freedom? What he said was that they should not offer commercial skip; they should offer fast forward. That's how TV + VCR works (and incidentally, how TiVo works) now.
In a way, commercial skip takes away freedom. Studies have shown that most people prefer commercials to paying for content. That's why most stations are free but have commercials. With commercial skip, people lose that option (unless you add a call home when a commercial is actually watched).
It's also worth pointing out that people have better recall of commercials that we fast forward. As a result, fast forward is a win both for watchers (saves waiting for the show) and for advertisers (improves impact of commercial). Commercial skip is a loss for both (watchers lose free TV; advertisers no longer reach watchers).
"Interesting though that they can't offer that for standard TV-over-the-air. People could be doing the ironing, having sex or whatever. Yet the advertisers seem happy that x million homes were tuned into that channel, Doesn't matter if you weren't watching."
That's one of the advantages of TiVo. It's possible to detect when someone is fast forwarding (and therefore watching) the ads. However, it's worth noting that they do research on viewer stats in general. I.e. they know that a Nielsen estimate of twenty million people means that only (for example) eleven million are watching on average.
Some TV show producer should team up with TiVo to distribute TiVo files over bitTorrent instead of relying on the networks. TiVo already has the call home capability to make this work. They'd just need to add a bitTorrent client.
I don't see anything about TiVo's leadership quitting. Co-founder Mike Ramsay is still there: http://www.tivo.com/5.1.asp
My argument isn't based in the potential of new products. Those are just the icing. The primary argument is that TiVo continues to sign new customers. In particular, contrary to popular belief, not even the largest cable company is succeeding in offering alternatives to TiVo that customers want.
"Plus, if there really is "balance in the Force," doesn't that mean there are still two Sith out there somewhere?"
I don't think that Lucas understands the word "balance." Balance in his terms is good conquering by destroying evil (also how the director of "The Wizard of Earthsea" interpreted it; part of why Le Guin rejected it as an interpretation of her work).
What's really funny is how similar that definition is to the Sith's definition. I.e. both the Jedi and the Sith perceive victory as peace caused by the elimination of their enemies.
Notice how it was Yoda who really pushed Anakin towards the dark side by telling him that he should simply accept Padme's death. By doing so, Yoda added to the pressure that Sidious/Palpatine was applying (presumably he was the one who was offering that vision of the future to Anakin, just as he planned the mother's murder).
At least I think that was the intent. It's hard to say, since the writing, direction, and acting really didn't live up to what the story seemed to be trying to accomplish.
Yes, but the niche players aren't really competitors. That's like saying that Harley Davidson is a competitor of GM. Yes, both produce wheeled vehicles, but people looking for a motorcycle aren't going to settle for a Chevette instead.
The question is if there is room for two general purpose services in DVD rental by mail. Wal-mart apparently decided that there wasn't room for three.
It's also quite possible that it might turn into a regional business. Blockbuster will dominate LA because it has a warehouse there; meanwhile, Netflix will dominate Sacramento.
A side note is that your scenario suggests a new market for Netflix. They should offer fulfillment and site management services to niche organizations. Much like Amazon does for Target, etc. That could be what kills Greencine, a competitor with their focus that uses the Netflix distribution system for economies of scale.
"Windows Server is just a small fragment of the Internet server market"
At least it's profitable. More than can be said for Windows CE, MSN, and the XBox.
"WebTV crashed and burned"
I'm fairly certain that this was intentional. Microsoft makes about $50 a unit on desktop OS sales. Why would they want to promote a cheap alternative (yes, WebTV cost more than $50; however, I suspect the margin was lower than that; desktop OS sales, they hardly have to pay for the media, much less hardware).
Ok, let's accept that Google is a monopoly. It doesn't matter. It's not illegal to be/have a monopoly. It's illegal to *abuse* one's monopoly. Microsoft leveraged their monopoly in their desktop OS to stomp competitors. What has Google done with their "monopoly?" They link to Yahoo Maps and Mapquest right next to the Google Maps link.
Speed. Mapquest hits the server every time you change the map (even a little). Google maps doesn't always. This may not be important to you, but it is critical to the way that I use a map program. Click and drag may seem like a small thing, but it makes certain things much easier (e.g. scanning along a path).
Besides, Google maps has signs that cast shadows. That's just cool.
Google maps is not the money maker there anyway. Google maps is just part of the content that makes Google local (the Google yellow pages) work. Paid advertising in a free index works in print. Internet advertising is a natural progression. Lower overhead; same revenue potential.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/ ...it misspelled *three* months.
"Apparently prior art means nothing to the patent office."
Not exactly. They just have a different definition than most people. To the patent office, only patents are prior art.
Patent reviewers spend roughly four hours on each patent application. They don't have time to do things like look out in the world for prior art. They simply look in their patent database and whatever other places their tools search (e.g. engineering and science journals). In this case, Microsoft put their work in the database first. Now Apple will spend millions invalidating that patent (if they even bother--easier just to narrow the patent, since I'm sure they already have cross licensing agreements with Microsoft).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/10/microsoft_ apple_patent/ gives a better explanation than the post.
The confusion is that the Apple is actually trying to get a patent. It's not Microsoft but the patent office that is saying that Microsoft has prior art. In that case, you're correct, Creative's prior art is as much of a problem as Microsoft's.
Another point of confusion is that Apple is not claiming "prior art" in this case. They would like to claim a lack of art prior to theirs, which is different.
"If Apple claims prior art, and then another company (like Creative) claims prior art, then what happens?"
The patent is invalidated twice?
Prior art from Creative is just as useful to Apple as prior art from Apple. The company that does *not* want prior art is Microsoft, as it invalidates their patent. Microsoft is claiming *first* art, essentially. Any prior art invalidates the Microsoft claim. I.e. Creative having earlier prior art would *help* Apple's claim (that Microsoft did not have the first art--required to get the patent).
Or am I misunderstanding your question?
"No, it's too early for any private company to even think about such things."
You better hurry up and tell http://www.blueorigin.com/ that. They have that billion dollars in available startup capital (both Amazon's Bezos and Microsoft's Allen are involved).
Wanna be a rocket scientist? They're hiring...
Google has offices in Kirkland, WA. Easier to poach employees from Microsoft and Amazon that way.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html also explains this. I.e. that using the GPL for a unique library is preferred by the FSF *because* of the problems it causes for non-GPLed projects.
Even better than calling them, when it changes, have it run a windows update like wizard that says, "Now updating IEx to Firefox." Make this happen automatically and be sure to reboot the computer afterwards (not for functional reasons; just for the warm fuzzy feeling of making changes so important that the computer needs to reboot).
Making it more difficult for the US to import labor (H-1b visas) is counterproductive. Overall, the US is currently a net *exporter* of services. Your proposal would actually reduce US exports, since it leaves those resources in other countries. Then we don't get tax revenues, etc. from them.
"Free trade is good -- only when we are trading with other societies that maintain (relatively) free markets."
This is simply not true. Free trade is very good to the US for two reasons:
1. It allows us to trade goods that are easy for us to make (e.g. wheat) for goods that aren't (e.g. textiles).
2. As the provider of the world currency, we get seignorage. I.e. other people send us stuff without asking for stuff in return.
Reducing imports does not help the US. It just means that we have less stuff (and are therefore poorer). Increasing exports *only* helps the US in that it allows us to increase imports. Other than that, we would be better off using that production capacity to make stuff for Americans.
If you are looking for work to do in the US, don't try to export. Build stuff for Americans. Ideally, build something that we already have (e.g. envelopes or petroleum) but cheaper. On large enough scale, this causes deflation. What happens when there is deflation? The Fed pumps money into the economy.
"Then the rest of New York State outside of the New York City Metro area makes up less than 1 million people"
By your same source, Buffalo and Syracuse *each* have more than a million people in their respective metropolitan areas.
Most of the 10.5 million people who live in the NYC metropolitan statistical area (MSA) but not in the city itself live outside of NY state, e.g. NJ. Probably only one to three million actually live in NY state. The source you cite also has a map which shows a substantial population in NJ suburbs of NYC.
This is also true of Philadelphia, Kansas City, and other cities that are near the borders of their states. MSAs are not restricted to single states.
"You're probably thinking of dinodiesel, not biodiesel."
2 202.html
Someone else in the thread posted http://www.brightsurf.com/news/oct_02/AGU_news_10
Note that the problem is unburned carbon. This is just as much a problem in biodiesel as in well diesel.
"(but less of a dick about it)."
I just wanted to point out that dealing with a dick who does not properly communicate his requirements is one of the most real world relevant parts of the interview (queue up obligatory, "Especially at Microsoft" jokes).
"Situation 2: Our company creates a product, let's say an appliance, with lots of our own code inside, and some GPL'ed code, such as libraries. The libraries itself are unmodified and are merely used by our code. What is the correct legal action to take? Nothing, as GPL'ed code has not been modified?"
Modification is irrelevant in the GPL. Modify or modify not, as you choose; it makes no difference.
"Stating that the product uses that GPL'ed library, which can be downloaded from the authors site?"
No, this won't work unless the interface is non-GPLed (e.g. where you have an open source library that has identical methods to some closed source library). The more common case is for the interface to be covered under the GPL as well.
"Making the full sourcecode, i.e. the libraries code and our own code, publicly available?"
Yes, this is generally your only option in most situations. Note: if you distribute the source of your program and the library with all distributions (i.e. no binary only distributions), you do not have to offer the source separately.
"And why is your project LGPL only? Why can't it be GPL? If you aren't worried about it being closed up, give it to the XViD people and let them use it."
l .html
Dude, if the project is LGPL, it can be used in GPLed products. The GPL is strictly *more* restrictive than the LGPL. LGPL programs are inherently dual licensed (i.e. can be redistribute under either the LGPL or the GPL). XViD could bundle his project with theirs now.
The GP is saying that he wants closed source projects to be able to link against his code...that's what using the LGPL (rather than the GPL) means.
In the case of drivers, it's also worth noting that you may not need source. You ship the driver with your project so that people can use it. This saves people from having to download the driver separately. A purely binary redistribution is acceptable in that case. With many drivers, the driver will be free beer to redistribute. You have to pay to make modifications.
Presumably people can still use the XViD driver in this case -- they just need to obtain and install it themselves. This means that casual users won't bother to do so.
This is, in fact, a real cost to using the GPL over a BSD license (or the LGPL). You lose potential users. The FSF acknowledges this in its discussion of when to use the GPL vs. when to use the LGPL. In general, they recommend using the GPL when something is unique (i.e. not available under other licenses). They recommend using the LGPL when something is available under other licenses for exactly this reason: it allows people who would otherwise choose software using a different license to choose the LGPLed version instead. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgp
It's easier to just use the first letter of each word: tB8wlSy! (The big bad wolf likes snakes. Yuk!) is as secure and easy to remember as your phrase but shorter to type. The hardest part would be remembering the capitalization.
The first letter of every word passwords are proven cryptographically strong. I'm not sure that the same can be said of Pass Phrases. They have internal logic that could potentially be revealing. Plus, they are easier to observe. I.e. if I'm watching you type your password, it's easier to pick up that you are writing a phrase. No single letter of the first letter password says anything about the other letters, but your phrase has hints all over.
Hmm...aren't there some european countries in Microsoft's Shared Source initiative? If the contract is voided and they have the source, couldn't they fork it into an open source project? Or a closed source project, but that's not as fun.
Sure, people wouldn't legally be allowed to use it in the US (the copyright would still be valid here), but the other five billion people would be able.
I can dream can't I?
"If for economic reasons IBM is outsourcing jobs to india"
That raises a side issue that a lot of people here are missing. Europe's currency is way high against the dollar. It's quite possible that they are moving the jobs to the cheaper *US*. I.e. instead of cutting jobs in the US so as to make room for cheaper workers in India, they have chosen to cut workers in the expensive EU.
If enough companies did that, the Euro would stop rising versus the Dollar. I.e. the exchange rate may finally be beginning to have an effect.
"So, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that every time technology changes in a big way, the public should give up a little bit of freedom."
Uhm...giving up what freedom? What he said was that they should not offer commercial skip; they should offer fast forward. That's how TV + VCR works (and incidentally, how TiVo works) now.
In a way, commercial skip takes away freedom. Studies have shown that most people prefer commercials to paying for content. That's why most stations are free but have commercials. With commercial skip, people lose that option (unless you add a call home when a commercial is actually watched).
It's also worth pointing out that people have better recall of commercials that we fast forward. As a result, fast forward is a win both for watchers (saves waiting for the show) and for advertisers (improves impact of commercial). Commercial skip is a loss for both (watchers lose free TV; advertisers no longer reach watchers).
"Interesting though that they can't offer that for standard TV-over-the-air. People could be doing the ironing, having sex or whatever. Yet the advertisers seem happy that x million homes were tuned into that channel, Doesn't matter if you weren't watching."
That's one of the advantages of TiVo. It's possible to detect when someone is fast forwarding (and therefore watching) the ads. However, it's worth noting that they do research on viewer stats in general. I.e. they know that a Nielsen estimate of twenty million people means that only (for example) eleven million are watching on average.
Some TV show producer should team up with TiVo to distribute TiVo files over bitTorrent instead of relying on the networks. TiVo already has the call home capability to make this work. They'd just need to add a bitTorrent client.
"TiVo traded DirecTV for Comcast (a downgrade)"
Comcast is bigger than DirecTV. Plus, it's not true: http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000360038927/
DirecTV and TiVo are still together.
I don't see anything about TiVo's leadership quitting. Co-founder Mike Ramsay is still there: http://www.tivo.com/5.1.asp
My argument isn't based in the potential of new products. Those are just the icing. The primary argument is that TiVo continues to sign new customers. In particular, contrary to popular belief, not even the largest cable company is succeeding in offering alternatives to TiVo that customers want.
"Plus, if there really is "balance in the Force," doesn't that mean there are still two Sith out there somewhere?"
I don't think that Lucas understands the word "balance." Balance in his terms is good conquering by destroying evil (also how the director of "The Wizard of Earthsea" interpreted it; part of why Le Guin rejected it as an interpretation of her work).
What's really funny is how similar that definition is to the Sith's definition. I.e. both the Jedi and the Sith perceive victory as peace caused by the elimination of their enemies.
Notice how it was Yoda who really pushed Anakin towards the dark side by telling him that he should simply accept Padme's death. By doing so, Yoda added to the pressure that Sidious/Palpatine was applying (presumably he was the one who was offering that vision of the future to Anakin, just as he planned the mother's murder).
At least I think that was the intent. It's hard to say, since the writing, direction, and acting really didn't live up to what the story seemed to be trying to accomplish.
Yes, but the niche players aren't really competitors. That's like saying that Harley Davidson is a competitor of GM. Yes, both produce wheeled vehicles, but people looking for a motorcycle aren't going to settle for a Chevette instead.
The question is if there is room for two general purpose services in DVD rental by mail. Wal-mart apparently decided that there wasn't room for three.
It's also quite possible that it might turn into a regional business. Blockbuster will dominate LA because it has a warehouse there; meanwhile, Netflix will dominate Sacramento.
A side note is that your scenario suggests a new market for Netflix. They should offer fulfillment and site management services to niche organizations. Much like Amazon does for Target, etc. That could be what kills Greencine, a competitor with their focus that uses the Netflix distribution system for economies of scale.
"Windows Server is just a small fragment of the Internet server market"
At least it's profitable. More than can be said for Windows CE, MSN, and the XBox.
"WebTV crashed and burned"
I'm fairly certain that this was intentional. Microsoft makes about $50 a unit on desktop OS sales. Why would they want to promote a cheap alternative (yes, WebTV cost more than $50; however, I suspect the margin was lower than that; desktop OS sales, they hardly have to pay for the media, much less hardware).
Ok, let's accept that Google is a monopoly. It doesn't matter. It's not illegal to be/have a monopoly. It's illegal to *abuse* one's monopoly. Microsoft leveraged their monopoly in their desktop OS to stomp competitors. What has Google done with their "monopoly?" They link to Yahoo Maps and Mapquest right next to the Google Maps link.
"IMHO its no better or worse than mapquest."
Speed. Mapquest hits the server every time you change the map (even a little). Google maps doesn't always. This may not be important to you, but it is critical to the way that I use a map program. Click and drag may seem like a small thing, but it makes certain things much easier (e.g. scanning along a path).
Besides, Google maps has signs that cast shadows. That's just cool.
Google maps is not the money maker there anyway. Google maps is just part of the content that makes Google local (the Google yellow pages) work. Paid advertising in a free index works in print. Internet advertising is a natural progression. Lower overhead; same revenue potential.