Well then I'm guessing 10 years ago was probably the last time you bought a printer then. You are hard pressed to find any modern printer that DOESN'T support postscript.
Check the specs on what you have nearby. You' will probably be surprised.
The beauty of english is the ability to create alternative forms, all of which are equally valid. In this case the gatory factory has been hard at work since 1860, even if it is a surprise to you.
Apple stone walled KDE for a couple years until their own lawyers pointed out to them that they had to ad-hear to the GPL.
Then they dumped their changes back to KDE in a way calculated to be unusable, unlike EVERY OTHER DEVELOPER who contributes diff, and patches with documentation. You DO know that such is the standard way to contribute don't you? (I'm guessing No.)
Their submissions for the next couple years amounted to emptying a file cabinet on KDE's door step and wishing them luck.
Finally Apple cleaned up their act, and spread the word that they were being good GPL citizens. Enough fanbois bought that act for people like you to get away with making the post above.
Like I say, it was open source GPL in many different Linux distros for years before Apple got involved. Since it was GPL, just what did Apple buy? Oh, they bought the developer. Figuratively and Literally, and pretty much induced him to walk away from his own GPL declaration "Just for them"..
Copyright 1997-2006 by Easy Software Products
44141 AIRPORT VIEW DR STE 204
HOLLYWOOD, MARYLAND 20636 USA
Voice: +1.301.373.9600
Email: cups-info@cups.org
WWW: http://www.cups.org/
Introduction
The Common UNIX Printing System^TM, ("CUPS^TM"), is provided under the
GNU General Public License ("GPL") and GNU Library General Public
License ("LGPL"), Version 2, with exceptions for Apple operating
systems and the OpenSSL toolkit. A copy of the exceptions and licenses
follow this introduction.
The GNU LGPL applies to the CUPS and CUPS Imaging libraries located in
the "cups" and "filter" subdirectories of the CUPS source distribution
and in the "cups" include directory and library files in the binary
distributions. The GNU GPL applies to the remainder of the CUPS
distribution, including the "pdftops" filter which is based upon Xpdf.
For those not familiar with the GNU GPL, the license basically allows
you to:
* Use the CUPS software at no charge.
* Distribute verbatim copies of the software in source or binary
form.
* Sell verbatim copies of the software for a media fee, or sell
support for the software.
What this license does not allow you to do is make changes or add
features to CUPS and then sell a binary distribution without source
code. You must provide source for any changes or additions to the
software, and all code must be provided under the GPL or LGPL as
appropriate. The only exceptions to this are the portions of the CUPS
software covered by the Apple operating system license exceptions
outlined later in this license agreement.
The GNU LGPL relaxes the "link-to" restriction, allowing you to develop
applications that use the CUPS and CUPS Imaging libraries under other
licenses and/or conditions as appropriate for your application, driver,
or filter.
License Exceptions
In addition, as the copyright holder of CUPS, Easy Software Products
Cups was already opensource when they bought it. The didn't have much choice. Webkit same deal. It was GPL when they grabbed it, and after a fairly long fight they decided to give their changes back to the KDE community from which it sprang.
This might be one of those patents that a company like Apple files for defense purposes especially with their CUPS and Bonjour work
THEIR CUPS?
Michael Sweet, who owns Easy Software Products, started developing CUPS in 1997. The first public betas appeared in 1999. The original design of CUPS used the LPD protocol, but due to limitations in LPD and vendor incompatibilities, the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) was chosen instead. CUPS was quickly adopted as the default printing system for several Linux distributions, including Red Hat Linux.[citation needed] In March 2002, Apple Inc. adopted CUPS as the printing system for Mac OS X 10.2. In February 2007, Apple Inc. hired chief developer Michael Sweet and purchased the CUPS source code.
But in reality, virtually every postscript printer came with a PPD, and that PPD was all you ever needed to get a postscript printer running on linux. A PPD file is non OS specific.
But given Apple's overly litigagatory stance on any thing they (claim to) develop, I just don't see any of their suggestions getting accepted. I can't see anyone opening themselves up for that kind of lawsuit until or unless Apple puts it all under the GPL or some other free license.
Postscript is free and everybody uses it. It pretty much renders page preparation a non issue, because virtually all postscript printers will use the default PPD in a pinch, albeit with somewhat more limited capabilities. Printers do have different capabilities and you must make allowance for that, but postscript handled that very nicely.
Avoiding highways and using side roads raises the ire of the locals. Now, instead of sitting in a traffic jam, we can (without fear of getting lost) cut through the adjacent neighborhoods.
Not necessarily.
When people planned trips with gas station maps they never left the freeway. Biggest risk they would take is a US Route. When the freeway bypassed small towns those towns died.
Now with Nav units, and Google maps people will actually choose (horrors) State Highways (yup) when traveling. Recently we were delighted to find some great little towns with nice shops along our route when we deliberately set the the GPS to take us off the freeway via US routes and State routes. The distance was shorter, the view better, and the total time ended up about the same, because there is so little traffic and fewer traffic cops.
Folks in the restaurant in this one out of the way little berg in eastern Oregon said they saw a lot of people who found the place via Google maps or their GPS, and business had actually picked up since Street View car mapped the entire route. They were glad to have the business as was the local hotel.
When see the type of highway you will be driving on the back routes are far more fun, and the GPS makes sure you don't end up sleeping in the car.
Given that both pharmacies and pizza delivery have for decades told people electronically (i.e. by phone) when something will be ready for pickup or will arrive, merely moving the communications medium to the Internet does not make the idea new.
Easy when you live just down the block.
Pretty hard when you ship across country to an address that might be 50 miles from the nearest UPS/FedEx office. Until you have an exhaustive database of geo-coded streets (Google Maps) and history of ACTUAL cross country deliver times, its strictly guess work.
The fact that it the notification was delivered electronically was NOT what they were patenting. Go read the patent.
As one of the first companies to have a good nation wide database of geo-codeed street addresses, its clear that google was in a good position to come up with a means to determine what addresses are close to each other via a computer, and then be able to measure actual (as opposed to estimated) transit times.
If it were obvious, or trivial it would have been in wide use in 2007.
Retrospect is not the best lens with which to view the advancement of technology.
This one contained a more real-time estimate based on ACTUAL transit times to similar geographic locations. This was not common in 2007. Back then you got a best guess.
Yeah, but you're describing an incremental improvement to a process that's been in place for most of the last decade.
Is that really the intent of a patent? I'm inclined to think not.
However, the trend seems to be to patent something people have been doing for years but with one more component. That doesn't make for a novel invention, that makes for a minor refinement.
And of course you are free to use such systems minus this one improvement.
The wright brothers patented their airplane. Does that mean that boeing and airbus have nothing to patent?
The technology of the world progresses by baby steps.
Measuring ACTUAL delivery times of packages to NEARBY addresses is neither trivial or obvious. No one else did so back in 2007.
Had you read the patent you would have seen that systems from UPS and DHL were already in place when this patent was filed back in 2007.
But those just guessed on the delivery time based on plane flights and truck time etc.
This one contained a more real-time estimate based on ACTUAL transit times to similar geographic locations. This was not common in 2007. Back then you got a best guess.
I understand that its fun to poke fun at Google and the patent office. And its a whole lot easier than reading the actual patent isn't it?
I kinda wonder if Google didn't apply for this patent just to show how thoroughly bad the patent system is broken. I mean, come on, this patent is absolutely ridiculous. It can't be that Google doesn't know about it already
Oh, come on. It was filed in 2007, not last week.
If you had read it, rather than rushing in to bad mouth google, you would have seen that there were elements that were unique back in 2007.
This is Google poking fun at the patent office. They probably have hundreds of these in the pipeline, all with the same purpose: find out "How stupid a patent can you get?"
It could be, but they filed this in 2007. That is long before Google was on its current anti-patent abuse crusade. I doubt even Google was prescient enough to predict in 2007 that they would be bad mouthing the entire patent trolling industry in 2011.
There is one interesting difference (which the summary and the linked article fail to mention):
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the arrival prediction module is further adapted to determine actual delivery times for previous shipments to locations geographically proximate to the shipping address specified by the customer.
We have all received shipment notifications via email, some of which were automated as far back as 1995 ( found in my saved mail folder from that date). But these were at best notifications of shipping and best guesses on transit time.
The patent examiner even cited news releases from DHL and UPS showing similar technology was in use a year before this filing and the filing itself cites patents issued dating back to 2000 which, in turn, were filed in 1996.
All the cited patents simply notified of a shipment being sent, some included an estimate of delivery, but none cited measured delivery time based on similar shipments to nearby addresses.
Because this patent was in fact issued, the examiner must have thought that some aspect of it was dissimilar enough from existing practices to warrant the patent.
So an officer can't arrest you and search you without a warrant is that what you are claiming?
Look, Son, cut and paste jobs just don't cut it in an adult world.
To complete your education, go out right now, find a cop, and punch him in the face. I guarantee you will be arrested without a warrant, searched without a warrant, taken to jail, and searched again, without a warrant.
Did you miss that word Unreasonable in your little cut and past job?
The constitution does not protect you from search and seizure, it protects you from UNREASONABLE search and seizure.
Unreasonable is a pretty slippery word. Customs can seize your cell phone when you enter the US without even leveling a charge or having any real suspicion. Simply because courts have found it is "reasonable" that the United States may defend its borders and control the flow of goods into the country.
You allege that you can body cavity search someone for merely being arrested.
7) The mere fact of an arrest does not allow a strip search or body cavity search just because the person was arrested;
Tell you what... You and the good professor go out and take a swing at a cop someplace and see who comes out being right. Being booked into county jail you will be strip searched. Why? because they can't have some gang banger's homeboys getting tossed in jail for spitting on a cop and thereby smuggling in weapons.
Here's your jump suit. Step over there and strip down and put it on. Deputy Jones will watch you. What? A legal degree? Tell it to the judge.
True, you are usually told immediately what you are being charged with, and then you are cuffed, and searched, and if they find illegal substances in your pockets MORE charges are added on.
And that's just the preliminary search. After the ride in the squad car it happens all over again.
I'm sure there are lesser standards for simple infractions (drunk and disorderly types of stuff) as opposed to crimes like assault, burglary, etc. But if they take you in, they have to search you.
Otis doesn't get to wander into the Mayberry jail and lock himself in any more.
Slashdot Mirror
Well then I'm guessing 10 years ago was probably the last time you bought a printer then.
You are hard pressed to find any modern printer that DOESN'T support postscript.
Check the specs on what you have nearby. You' will probably be surprised.
Especially when litigatory IS a word, in common usage for over 150 years.
http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1735&context=vulr
Good catch. I tend to save my best spelling for those that pay me. ;-)
The beauty of english is the ability to create alternative forms, all of which are equally valid. In this case the gatory factory has been hard at work since 1860, even if it is a surprise to you.
Litigatory actually predates litigious by well over a hundred years.
Your chronology and your facts are wrong.
Apple stone walled KDE for a couple years until their own lawyers pointed out to them that they had to ad-hear to the GPL.
Then they dumped their changes back to KDE in a way calculated to be unusable, unlike EVERY OTHER DEVELOPER who contributes diff, and patches with documentation. You DO know that such is the standard way to contribute don't you? (I'm guessing No.)
Their submissions for the next couple years amounted to emptying a file cabinet on KDE's door step and wishing them luck.
Finally Apple cleaned up their act, and spread the word that they were being good GPL citizens. Enough fanbois bought that act for people like you to get away with making the post above.
Like I say, it was open source GPL in many different Linux distros for years before Apple got involved.
Since it was GPL, just what did Apple buy? Oh, they bought the developer. Figuratively and Literally,
and pretty much induced him to walk away from his own GPL declaration "Just for them"..
Copyright 1997-2006 by Easy Software Products
44141 AIRPORT VIEW DR STE 204
HOLLYWOOD, MARYLAND 20636 USA
Voice: +1.301.373.9600
Email: cups-info@cups.org
WWW: http://www.cups.org/
Introduction
The Common UNIX Printing System^TM, ("CUPS^TM"), is provided under the
GNU General Public License ("GPL") and GNU Library General Public
License ("LGPL"), Version 2, with exceptions for Apple operating
systems and the OpenSSL toolkit. A copy of the exceptions and licenses
follow this introduction.
The GNU LGPL applies to the CUPS and CUPS Imaging libraries located in
the "cups" and "filter" subdirectories of the CUPS source distribution
and in the "cups" include directory and library files in the binary
distributions. The GNU GPL applies to the remainder of the CUPS
distribution, including the "pdftops" filter which is based upon Xpdf.
For those not familiar with the GNU GPL, the license basically allows
you to:
* Use the CUPS software at no charge.
* Distribute verbatim copies of the software in source or binary
form.
* Sell verbatim copies of the software for a media fee, or sell
support for the software.
What this license does not allow you to do is make changes or add
features to CUPS and then sell a binary distribution without source
code. You must provide source for any changes or additions to the
software, and all code must be provided under the GPL or LGPL as
appropriate. The only exceptions to this are the portions of the CUPS
software covered by the Apple operating system license exceptions
outlined later in this license agreement.
The GNU LGPL relaxes the "link-to" restriction, allowing you to develop
applications that use the CUPS and CUPS Imaging libraries under other
licenses and/or conditions as appropriate for your application, driver,
or filter.
License Exceptions
In addition, as the copyright holder of CUPS, Easy Software Products
Cups was already opensource when they bought it. The didn't have much choice. Webkit same deal. It was GPL when they grabbed it, and after a fairly long fight they decided to give their changes back to the KDE community from which it sprang.
This might be one of those patents that a company like Apple files for defense purposes especially with their CUPS and Bonjour work
THEIR CUPS?
Michael Sweet, who owns Easy Software Products, started developing CUPS in 1997. The first public betas appeared in 1999. The original design of CUPS used the LPD protocol, but due to limitations in LPD and vendor incompatibilities, the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) was chosen instead. CUPS was quickly adopted as the default printing system for several Linux distributions, including Red Hat Linux.[citation needed] In March 2002, Apple Inc. adopted CUPS as the printing system for Mac OS X 10.2. In February 2007, Apple Inc. hired chief developer Michael Sweet and purchased the CUPS source code.
Cups was Open Source for 6 years before Apple supposedly bought it.
Well patents expiring helped a lot.
But in reality, virtually every postscript printer came with a PPD, and that PPD was all you ever needed to get a postscript printer running on linux. A PPD file is non OS specific.
But given Apple's overly litigagatory stance on any thing they (claim to) develop, I just don't see any of their suggestions getting accepted.
I can't see anyone opening themselves up for that kind of lawsuit until or unless Apple puts it all under the GPL or some other free license.
Postscript is free and everybody uses it. It pretty much renders page preparation a non issue, because virtually all postscript printers will use the default PPD in a pinch, albeit with somewhat more limited capabilities. Printers do have different capabilities and you must make allowance for that, but postscript handled that very nicely.
Yes, you, do have to infring all claims to be in violation.
You've been wrong about that this whole time, which is why you think this particular patent, and similar ones are so ridiculous.
Do some research.
Avoiding highways and using side roads raises the ire of the locals. Now, instead of sitting in a traffic jam, we can (without fear of getting lost) cut through the adjacent neighborhoods.
Not necessarily.
When people planned trips with gas station maps they never left the freeway. Biggest risk they would take is a US Route.
When the freeway bypassed small towns those towns died.
Now with Nav units, and Google maps people will actually choose (horrors) State Highways (yup) when traveling. Recently we were delighted to find some great little towns with nice shops along our route when we deliberately set the the GPS to take us off the freeway via US routes and State routes. The distance was shorter, the view better, and the total time ended up about the same, because there is so little traffic and fewer traffic cops.
Folks in the restaurant in this one out of the way little berg in eastern Oregon said they saw a lot of people who found the place via Google maps or their GPS, and business had actually picked up since Street View car mapped the entire route. They were glad to have the business as was the local hotel.
When see the type of highway you will be driving on the back routes are far more fun, and the GPS makes sure you don't end up sleeping in the car.
Try updating your maps. Its not the Garmin's fault.
Given that both pharmacies and pizza delivery have for decades told people electronically (i.e. by phone) when something will be ready for pickup or will arrive, merely moving the communications medium to the Internet does not make the idea new.
Easy when you live just down the block.
Pretty hard when you ship across country to an address that might be 50 miles from the nearest UPS/FedEx office.
Until you have an exhaustive database of geo-coded streets (Google Maps) and history of ACTUAL cross country deliver times, its strictly guess work.
The fact that it the notification was delivered electronically was NOT what they were patenting. Go read the patent.
But that doesn't mean every baby step should be patentable. Patents are (or should be) for the occasional big leap.
I'm not sure you get to make that decision. There is no definition of big.
Trivial and obvious to one skilled in the art is the definition we have, See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness
As one of the first companies to have a good nation wide database of geo-codeed street addresses, its clear that google was in a good position to come up with a means to determine what addresses are close to each other via a computer, and then be able to measure actual (as opposed to estimated) transit times.
If it were obvious, or trivial it would have been in wide use in 2007.
Retrospect is not the best lens with which to view the advancement of technology.
Yeah, but you're describing an incremental improvement to a process that's been in place for most of the last decade.
Is that really the intent of a patent? I'm inclined to think not.
However, the trend seems to be to patent something people have been doing for years but with one more component. That doesn't make for a novel invention, that makes for a minor refinement.
And of course you are free to use such systems minus this one improvement.
The wright brothers patented their airplane.
Does that mean that boeing and airbus have nothing to patent?
The technology of the world progresses by baby steps.
Measuring ACTUAL delivery times of packages to NEARBY addresses is neither trivial or obvious. No one else did so back in 2007.
Yeah, rush in and blame google for nonsense in the patent office.
Oh, thank you for the cut and paste. Why I might never have known the content without your diligent efforts.
Had you read the patent you would have seen that systems from UPS and DHL were already in place when this patent was filed back in 2007.
But those just guessed on the delivery time based on plane flights and truck time etc.
This one contained a more real-time estimate based on ACTUAL transit times to similar geographic locations. This was not common in 2007. Back then you got a best guess.
I understand that its fun to poke fun at Google and the patent office. And its a whole lot easier than reading the actual patent isn't it?
Excuse me, but what content did you supply that was not in the summary?
I kinda wonder if Google didn't apply for this patent just to show how thoroughly bad the patent system is broken. I mean, come on, this patent is absolutely ridiculous. It can't be that Google doesn't know about it already
Oh, come on.
It was filed in 2007, not last week.
If you had read it, rather than rushing in to bad mouth google, you would have seen that there were elements that were unique back in 2007.
Hint:: see claim #16.
This is Google poking fun at the patent office. They probably have hundreds of these in the pipeline, all with the same purpose: find out "How stupid a patent can you get?"
It could be, but they filed this in 2007. That is long before Google was on its current anti-patent abuse crusade. I doubt even Google was prescient enough to predict in 2007 that they would be bad mouthing the entire patent trolling industry in 2011.
There is one interesting difference (which the summary and the linked article fail to mention):
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the arrival prediction module is further adapted to determine actual delivery times for previous shipments to locations geographically proximate to the shipping address specified by the customer.
We have all received shipment notifications via email, some of which were automated as far back as 1995 ( found in my saved mail folder from that date). But these were at best notifications of shipping and best guesses on transit time.
The patent examiner even cited news releases from DHL and UPS showing similar technology was in use a year before this filing and the filing itself cites patents issued dating back to 2000 which, in turn, were filed in 1996.
All the cited patents simply notified of a shipment being sent, some included an estimate of delivery, but none cited measured delivery time based on similar shipments to nearby addresses.
Because this patent was in fact issued, the examiner must have thought that some aspect of it was dissimilar enough from existing practices to warrant the patent.
So an officer can't arrest you and search you without a warrant is that what you are claiming?
Look, Son, cut and paste jobs just don't cut it in an adult world.
To complete your education, go out right now, find a cop, and punch him in the face.
I guarantee you will be arrested without a warrant, searched without a warrant, taken to jail, and searched again, without a warrant.
Did you miss that word Unreasonable in your little cut and past job?
Exactly right.
The constitution does not protect you from search and seizure, it protects you from UNREASONABLE search and seizure.
Unreasonable is a pretty slippery word. Customs can seize your cell phone when you enter the US without even leveling a charge or having any real suspicion. Simply because courts have found it is "reasonable" that the United States may defend its borders and control the flow of goods into the country.
You allege that you can body cavity search someone for merely being arrested.
7) The mere fact of an arrest does not allow a strip search or body cavity search just because the person was arrested;
Tell you what... You and the good professor go out and take a swing at a cop someplace and see who comes out being right. Being booked into county jail you will be strip searched. Why? because they can't have some gang banger's homeboys getting tossed in jail for spitting on a cop and thereby smuggling in weapons.
Here's your jump suit. Step over there and strip down and put it on. Deputy Jones will watch you. What? A legal degree? Tell it to the judge.
True, you are usually told immediately what you are being charged with, and then you are cuffed, and searched, and if they find illegal substances in your pockets MORE charges are added on.
And that's just the preliminary search. After the ride in the squad car it happens all over again.
I'm sure there are lesser standards for simple infractions (drunk and disorderly types of stuff) as opposed to crimes like assault, burglary, etc. But if they take you in, they have to search you.
Otis doesn't get to wander into the Mayberry jail and lock himself in any more.