Next thing you know they'll be thinking that it's OK to read a book or listen to a radio.
Hell, next thing you know they'll be thinking it's OK to think.
Then where will the poor media conglomerates be?
These screwballs tried to hack a POCSAG pager to dump data to the AT&T Safari laptop in the late eighties or early nineties. When they failed to accomplish anything useful (because they were incompetent) AT&T went with the SkyTel Link, which was a superior pre-existing product which actually worked.
Wireless networking carrying all network traffic was developed at the University of Hawaii and was a precursor of the ARPA internet with the transport layer being the "ether". Other wireless ARPA subnets (PRNET and SATNET) were integrated into the internet on August 27, 1976, with a message originating in a mobile station connected via packet radio ot the landline ARPANET.
Information about the mobile network station originating that message has been preserved here. The first inter-network spanning message was, of course, an e-mail.
The various packet and satnet Class A domains are defined back to at least RFC790 issued in 1981, The infamous TCP:99 "metagram relay" port doesn't seem to appear until RFC820 in 1986,
Also of interest is Vint Cerf's RFC773 of October 1980.
I'm pretty sure that Windows 95 was a task manager / GUI layer running on top of DOS 7.
The Kernel was rather Mach-like with tightly bound cruft layers, and came out with WIN NT (the even more crashy and useless series 3.xx) circa 1993. A marvel of "engineering" that will soon bind in even more helpful utilities for the burgeoning malware community. Too darn bad.
1125. False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden
(a)
Civil action.
(1)
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--
(A)
is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B)
in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
(2)
As used in this subsection, the term "any person" includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this Act in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(3)
In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this Act for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.
Who the hell is Bill Hilf, and what kind of drugs is he smoking?
TFAs in the Bangkok Post, if that's any hint.
Oh, Bill Hilf? Some kind of nutter I'd guess (if the quites are accurate).
"NTFS uses ACLs, the brilliant part of VMS that Cutler rewrote for NT."
Spare us the rah-rah crap and take a look at the handle fanboy.
If you need fine grained control over access it's a handy discretionary band-aid and available on many platforms including those with mandatory access controls. The fact that some implementation of ACLs are implemented in NT"FS" doesn't mean it's a filesystem or securable; no matter how hard you troll.
One of the markets in "Intellectual Property" in which it claims to hold monopoly power due to rightfully issued patents is "clocking technology", specifically for synchronous DRAM busses. Before the Chief Administrative Law Judge appointed by the FTC they made argument of their specific ownership of "source synchronous clocking technologies".
Does Rambus have any valid patents on source synchronous clocking methods, systems or devices to accomplish that practice?
I also know what clocking method is employed in Rambus' commercial RDRAMS. Does Rambus have any patents on that?
Here's what Rambus has patents on:
"FIG. 8b illustrates how each device 51, 52 receives each of the two bus clock signals at a different time (because of is propagation delay along the wires), with constant midpoint in time between the two bus clocks along the bus. At each device 51, 52, the rising edge 55 of Clock153 is followed by the rising edge 56 of Clock254. Similarly, the falling edge 57 of Clock153 is followed by the falling edge 58 of Clock254. This waveform relationship is observed at all other devices along the bus. Devices which are closer to the clock generator have a greater separation between Clock1 and Clock2 relative to devices farther from the generator because of the longer time required for each clock pulse to traverse the bus and return along line 54, but the midpoint in time 59, 60 between corresponding rising or falling edges in fixed because, for any given device, the length of each clock line between the far end of the bus and that device is equal. Each device must sample the two bus clocks and generate its own internal device clock at the midpoint of the two."
Ok, so the Rambus devices that are patented generate clocks that are aligned in phase with each other along the extent of the bus.
A source synchronous clocking system would have clocks that vary in phase along a bus in a fashion nearly equal to the phase variation of the data that are transmitted with the clock.
Here's what H&F patented:
"In the preferred embodiment, two sets of these delay lines are used, one to generate the true value of the internal device clock 73, and the other to generate the complement 74 without adding any inverter delay. The dual circuit allows generation of truly complementary clocks, with extremely small skew. The complement internal device clock is used to clock the `even` input receivers to sample at time 127, while the true internal device clock is used to clock the `odd` input receivers to sample at time 125. The true and complement internal device clocks are also used to select which data is driven to the output drivers. The gate delay between the internal device clock and output circuits driving the bus in slightly greater than the corresponding delay for the input circuits, which means that the new data always will be driven on the bus slightly after the old data has been sampled."
So they use the SAME clock to operate both the input samplers and output drivers in the system they "invented" in 1990 and that everybody and their cat infringes on? Or do you claim otherwise? Did they claim otherwise before the USPTO and in Federal District court?
Interesting.....
"One important part of the input/output circuitry generates an internal device clock based on early and late bus clocks. Controlling clock skew (the difference in clock timing between devices) is important in a system running with 2 ns cycles, thus the internal device clock is generated so the input sampler and the output driver operate as close in time as possible to midway between the two bus clocks."
So "clock skew" is the difference in clock timing between devices? Hummm. They're not suggesting that clocks have no skew from device to device along their Rambus, are they? But that's stupid, because the data that they're trying to latch with their "input samplers" does have timing skew from device to device"
A source synchronous clocking scheme would have a timing skew due to time of
ummmm, let's see....
VMS --> WNT --> XOS
THat's it! the next stage of operating system evolution,! We'll call it XOS... Nah doesn't have pizazz.
Uh,,,, OSX! Yeah that's it we'll call it OSX! the bestest Mickey Soft operating system evahrr!
The logic behind the antitrust laws is as the parent poster stated, the protection of the consumer is the issue, if competition is in fact negatively impacted by the conspirators actions then relief is appropriate.
Your analogy in the case of Rambus fails, however. Rambus has not built "gas stations" and arranged to fill people's tanks with some comodoty (gasoline or DRAM). Rambus is licensing a "gasification system" which allegedly makes your car go faster and involves a special configuration of pumps, islands, hoses, nozzles and attendants integrated into a single "novel" whole as a single product. The fact that the cost of "gasification" to the licensee (the gas station owner) and the lack of any preceptable improvement in performance of the customer's car in spite of significant added costs (and there are, beyond just the licensing demands of Rambus) are and were of no concern to Rambus.
Frankly, even if the "cartel" of RAM producers are forced to pay patent damages and "antitrust" damages to Rambus, they STILL save (and the consumer saves as well) by NOT having to produce, package, test and distribute RDRAM (or any other crap RAM that Rambus is trying to pump and hype today).
RDRAM came with a 15 to 20% penalty in die area, increases in mask and opset counts, high packaging and testing costs and no provable benefit even as a dedicated cache line stuffer compared to more conventional architectures (which Rambus is converging toward on every iteration of it's "product"). That accounts only for savings in the DRAM end of the Rambus "invention" by the way, there's also a tax to be paid at the "master" end of the bus which they expect to extract for every CPU.
The public is greatly benefited by the demise of B, C and DRDRAM and would be even more greatly benefited by the demise of Rambus and their stock and litigation scams.
It's entertaining that that this kind of nonsense could be promoted on a site so dedicated to dicussion and understnding of technology. The notion that anyone had anything to invent in the alleged firld of "wireless e-mail" is preposterous, and a distortion of anything resembling reality. The beginnings of the ARPA internet are to be found in the ALOHA net work of the University of Hawaii, which networked Universities in the Hawaiian islands wirelessly and developed the basic shared-channel packet based communication system that was continued in development by literally thousands of honest, hardworking, patriotic citizens to the benefit of our nation and to provide for the national defense.
By the late seventies, globe spanning networks comunicating both wired and wirelessly had benefited freely from these technologies for scientific, edcutational and defense purposes and our armed forces were developing field systems for command, control and communication that provided for vastly greater capability than these alleged "inventors" are capable of describing to this day. The "inventors could have become aware of these facts simply by having any interest whatsoever in computer data networking, since these developments were widely and notoriously published. See for instance this publication from 1987:
If these alleged "inventors" had gone to their public library, they would have had access to all of the information that they purport to "teach" in their patents. The fact that the judge in this case ignored and suppressed the testimony and evidence presented by the actual inventors of wireless data internetworking (including Dr. Norm Abramson the primary investigator in the development of ALOHAnet) and the actual ownership of the technologies enabling "wireless e-mail" by the People of the United States makes this case a travesty of the highest order and an insult to the judicial system.
It does co-star Darl's old IKON buddy and "Haloween memo" author Mike Anderer.
There must be SCO IP in that, burn it.
Oh, nevermind their "server" (you call THAT a server) just melted down anyway.
MS has a quarter trillion in market cap to maintain and had darn well better maintain it. If revenue doesn't grow and grow faster than the current rate the market will be quite unhappy. And the market has _real_ money, not some miserable few billion.
Probably not that, but they have in their initial filing against IBM submitted as "Exhibit D" two separate documents: "Ammendment X" between Novell, IBM and the Santa Cruz Operation (now Tarantella), and SOFT-2538, a boilerplate reference only source code license. If they are purporting that these are a single document, a court might frown on that.
Slashdot Mirror
Use Microsoft Windows instead of an operating system. Although it had been supposed to be an operating system in a previous life.
Come on, get with it.
You can use "Gov't computers" to find out all kinds of stuff once you know that "Joe" is actually "Sam".
http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/onlinedockets/DocketDR.aspx?STYPE=1&PAR=DR19970476&STARTDATE=01/01/1900&ENDDATE=01/01/2100&PARTY=D,1
I wonder what this is all about?
OBAL 3/28/1997 COST APPLIED TO : BATTERED WOMEN (3%) - COUNTY (10000230)
Then what did we need this zSeries mainframe for?
Next thing you know they'll be thinking that it's OK to read a book or listen to a radio. Hell, next thing you know they'll be thinking it's OK to think. Then where will the poor media conglomerates be?
"[Insert filetype here] can be used to compromise your Windows box!"
These screwballs tried to hack a POCSAG pager to dump data to the AT&T Safari laptop in the late eighties or early nineties. When they failed to accomplish anything useful (because they were incompetent) AT&T went with the SkyTel Link, which was a superior pre-existing product which actually worked.
Wireless networking carrying all network traffic was developed at the University of Hawaii and was a precursor of the ARPA internet with the transport layer being the "ether". Other wireless ARPA subnets (PRNET and SATNET) were integrated into the internet on August 27, 1976, with a message originating in a mobile station connected via packet radio ot the landline ARPANET.
Information about the mobile network station originating that message has been preserved here. The first inter-network spanning message was, of course, an e-mail.
The various packet and satnet Class A domains are defined back to at least RFC790 issued in 1981, The infamous TCP:99 "metagram relay" port doesn't seem to appear until RFC820 in 1986,
Also of interest is Vint Cerf's RFC773 of October 1980.
http://rfc.net/rfc0773.html
Now GET OFF MY LAWN, ya snotty little whippersnappers.
I'm pretty sure that Windows 95 was a task manager / GUI layer running on top of DOS 7. The Kernel was rather Mach-like with tightly bound cruft layers, and came out with WIN NT (the even more crashy and useless series 3.xx) circa 1993. A marvel of "engineering" that will soon bind in even more helpful utilities for the burgeoning malware community. Too darn bad.
I ascribe to the concept.
Now you can stop asking why the '65 Rambler Classic 770 is up on blocks in the driveway.
Now explain to me why Massasoit doesn't come and kick me off his land. Or better yet, count coup on an idiot like TFAs author.
15 USC
1125. False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden
(a)
Civil action.
(1)
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--
(A)
is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B)
in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
(2)
As used in this subsection, the term "any person" includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this Act in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(3)
In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this Act for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.
Who the hell is Bill Hilf, and what kind of drugs is he smoking? TFAs in the Bangkok Post, if that's any hint. Oh, Bill Hilf? Some kind of nutter I'd guess (if the quites are accurate).
"NTFS uses ACLs, the brilliant part of VMS that Cutler rewrote for NT."
Spare us the rah-rah crap and take a look at the handle fanboy.
If you need fine grained control over access it's a handy discretionary band-aid and available on many platforms including those with mandatory access controls. The fact that some implementation of ACLs are implemented in NT"FS" doesn't mean it's a filesystem or securable; no matter how hard you troll.
The sky is falling.
Novell actually does quite well in competition where the playing field is relatively level. Don't underestimate their cunning either.
One of the markets in "Intellectual Property" in which it claims to hold monopoly power due to rightfully issued patents is "clocking technology", specifically for synchronous DRAM busses. Before the Chief Administrative Law Judge appointed by the FTC they made argument of their specific ownership of "source synchronous clocking technologies".
Does Rambus have any valid patents on source synchronous clocking methods, systems or devices to accomplish that practice?
I also know what clocking method is employed in Rambus' commercial RDRAMS. Does Rambus have any patents on that?
Here's what Rambus has patents on:
"FIG. 8b illustrates how each device 51, 52 receives each of the two bus clock signals at a different time (because of is propagation delay along the wires), with constant midpoint in time between the two bus clocks along the bus. At each device 51, 52, the rising edge 55 of Clock153 is followed by the rising edge 56 of Clock254. Similarly, the falling edge 57 of Clock153 is followed by the falling edge 58 of Clock254. This waveform relationship is observed at all other devices along the bus. Devices which are closer to the clock generator have a greater separation between Clock1 and Clock2 relative to devices farther from the generator because of the longer time required for each clock pulse to traverse the bus and return along line 54, but the midpoint in time 59, 60 between corresponding rising or falling edges in fixed because, for any given device, the length of each clock line between the far end of the bus and that device is equal. Each device must sample the two bus clocks and generate its own internal device clock at the midpoint of the two."
Ok, so the Rambus devices that are patented generate clocks that are aligned in phase with each other along the extent of the bus.
A source synchronous clocking system would have clocks that vary in phase along a bus in a fashion nearly equal to the phase variation of the data that are transmitted with the clock.
Here's what H&F patented:
"In the preferred embodiment, two sets of these delay lines are used, one to generate the true value of the internal device clock 73, and the other to generate the complement 74 without adding any inverter delay. The dual circuit allows generation of truly complementary clocks, with extremely small skew. The complement internal device clock is used to clock the `even` input receivers to sample at time 127, while the true internal device clock is used to clock the `odd` input receivers to sample at time 125. The true and complement internal device clocks are also used to select which data is driven to the output drivers. The gate delay between the internal device clock and output circuits driving the bus in slightly greater than the corresponding delay for the input circuits, which means that the new data always will be driven on the bus slightly after the old data has been sampled."
So they use the SAME clock to operate both the input samplers and output drivers in the system they "invented" in 1990 and that everybody and their cat infringes on? Or do you claim otherwise? Did they claim otherwise before the USPTO and in Federal District court?
Interesting.....
"One important part of the input/output circuitry generates an internal device clock based on early and late bus clocks. Controlling clock skew (the difference in clock timing between devices) is important in a system running with 2 ns cycles, thus the internal device clock is generated so the input sampler and the output driver operate as close in time as possible to midway between the two bus clocks."
So "clock skew" is the difference in clock timing between devices? Hummm. They're not suggesting that clocks have no skew from device to device along their Rambus, are they? But that's stupid, because the data that they're trying to latch with their "input samplers" does have timing skew from device to device"
A source synchronous clocking scheme would have a timing skew due to time of
ummmm, let's see.... VMS --> WNT --> XOS THat's it! the next stage of operating system evolution,! We'll call it XOS... Nah doesn't have pizazz. Uh,,,, OSX! Yeah that's it we'll call it OSX! the bestest Mickey Soft operating system evahrr!
With dynamic OLE licensing 6.23.0 That's my vote.
The logic behind the antitrust laws is as the parent poster stated, the protection of the consumer is the issue, if competition is in fact negatively impacted by the conspirators actions then relief is appropriate. Your analogy in the case of Rambus fails, however. Rambus has not built "gas stations" and arranged to fill people's tanks with some comodoty (gasoline or DRAM). Rambus is licensing a "gasification system" which allegedly makes your car go faster and involves a special configuration of pumps, islands, hoses, nozzles and attendants integrated into a single "novel" whole as a single product. The fact that the cost of "gasification" to the licensee (the gas station owner) and the lack of any preceptable improvement in performance of the customer's car in spite of significant added costs (and there are, beyond just the licensing demands of Rambus) are and were of no concern to Rambus. Frankly, even if the "cartel" of RAM producers are forced to pay patent damages and "antitrust" damages to Rambus, they STILL save (and the consumer saves as well) by NOT having to produce, package, test and distribute RDRAM (or any other crap RAM that Rambus is trying to pump and hype today). RDRAM came with a 15 to 20% penalty in die area, increases in mask and opset counts, high packaging and testing costs and no provable benefit even as a dedicated cache line stuffer compared to more conventional architectures (which Rambus is converging toward on every iteration of it's "product"). That accounts only for savings in the DRAM end of the Rambus "invention" by the way, there's also a tax to be paid at the "master" end of the bus which they expect to extract for every CPU. The public is greatly benefited by the demise of B, C and DRDRAM and would be even more greatly benefited by the demise of Rambus and their stock and litigation scams.
If so, how do I avoid contaminating my mind with them?
It's entertaining that that this kind of nonsense could be promoted on a site so dedicated to dicussion and understnding of technology. The notion that anyone had anything to invent in the alleged firld of "wireless e-mail" is preposterous, and a distortion of anything resembling reality. The beginnings of the ARPA internet are to be found in the ALOHA net work of the University of Hawaii, which networked Universities in the Hawaiian islands wirelessly and developed the basic shared-channel packet based communication system that was continued in development by literally thousands of honest, hardworking, patriotic citizens to the benefit of our nation and to provide for the national defense.
a npsc2.pdf
By the late seventies, globe spanning networks comunicating both wired and wirelessly had benefited freely from these technologies for scientific, edcutational and defense purposes and our armed forces were developing field systems for command, control and communication that provided for vastly greater capability than these alleged "inventors" are capable of describing to this day. The "inventors could have become aware of these facts simply by having any interest whatsoever in computer data networking, since these developments were widely and notoriously published. See for instance this publication from 1987:
http://www.gordon.army.mil/AC/articles/fiedler/df
If these alleged "inventors" had gone to their public library, they would have had access to all of the information that they purport to "teach" in their patents. The fact that the judge in this case ignored and suppressed the testimony and evidence presented by the actual inventors of wireless data internetworking (including Dr. Norm Abramson the primary investigator in the development of ALOHAnet) and the actual ownership of the technologies enabling "wireless e-mail" by the People of the United States makes this case a travesty of the highest order and an insult to the judicial system.
Praise the Goddess!
It does co-star Darl's old IKON buddy and "Haloween memo" author Mike Anderer. There must be SCO IP in that, burn it. Oh, nevermind their "server" (you call THAT a server) just melted down anyway.
MS has a quarter trillion in market cap to maintain and had darn well better maintain it. If revenue doesn't grow and grow faster than the current rate the market will be quite unhappy. And the market has _real_ money, not some miserable few billion.
Probably not that, but they have in their initial filing against IBM submitted as "Exhibit D" two separate documents: "Ammendment X" between Novell, IBM and the Santa Cruz Operation (now Tarantella), and SOFT-2538, a boilerplate reference only source code license. If they are purporting that these are a single document, a court might frown on that.
See: http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitD.qxd.pdf
P.S. For a prize find the linux kernel source on "SCO"'s website.
Thats what Skousen is about. Might not help with this crew. BTW, its the modules.