Patents provide exclusive, limited time rights to inventors in exchange for disclosing the details for future public use. By patenting an invention, you are binding yourself to that social contract. At the end of the patent, the use of the invention necessarily becomes public. That's simply part of the overall bargain.
Lego exhibited a lack of good faith in the matter - I would argue that they should be penalized by revocation of any/all still outstanding patents, to compensate the public for lost opportunity and the costs of fighting their illegitimate attempts at maintaining exclusive control over this invention. (Although I recognize that there's likely no legal basis for revoking patents as punishment).
from Microsoft, albeit in a slightly different order.
Microsoft has historically "embraced" open industry standards by adding proprietary extensions, making its user's data worthless outside of the MS world.
In this case, I suspect they'll end up releasing, but still maintaining control over the office formats. If not there already, they'll make sure there's the ability to store proprietary objects (or meta-data, or whatever the current popular nomenclature is) in the now "open" format. They'll then simply move on to placing more and more document content in these proprietary closed objects, while claiming they're using an "open format."
so one can reasonably expect it to be served at any temperature up to boiling. Simple physics limits the maximum temperature. McDonald's is not, and cannot be, at fault for serving "too hot" coffee, regardless of the serving temperature others use. The OP burned themselves.
for this little thing called the US Constitution, which provides free speech guarantees, and which this law certainly infringes. IP is just another form of communications.
one writes their own changes to the EULA before breaking the shrinkwrap. If contracts where one party has no choice are valid, make sure that one party is the other guy.
Myself, I just paste a stick over the offending EULA with a replacement contract, such as:
"By allowing the purchaser to break the shrinkwrap seal, the software vendor and all associated parties explicitly agree that the following license agreement replaces and overrides all others:
1) The user can use the enclosed media and any software and/or data contained thereon for any and all purposes.
2) The user has authorization from the copyright holder to make copies for any purpose the user desires.
3) The user has a right to full support of the software, including but not limited to, access to any and all revisions, corrections, or enhancements which may be made to it in the future."
I then give them a few seconds to respond before I proceed to open the software, consumating said license.
Thanks for playing the non-negitiable "shrinkwrap license" game. You have lost.
"it's normal Red Book audio on the first session, and a second data session that only computers see.... it is also know to contain a bad/malformed Table of Contents...this malformed TOC is what makes it "not a CD" in Philips eyes."
You seem confused - which is it? A CD or not?
If the TOC isn't valid, it doesn't meet the spec, and isn't a CD. If it meets the CD specs, then a PC won't have any problem reading it without the software.
as you pointed out, it says "CD." "CD" is a trademark, and can only be used (per Philips) to describe optical media meeting certain standards. In the case of audio CDs, that would be the "Red Book." As this piece of plastic clearly does not meet that standard, it should not be have been called a CD.
It is (legally) safe to assume that anything called a copy protected CD has only benign protection, such as the copy protection offered by copyright law. Anything which uses technical means of copy protection is not a CD.
Tim Berners-Lee's HTML (which not coincidentally uses Ted's term "hypertext") implemented a small subset of Ted's vision. It was of course based on SGML, the offspring of GML, which was also created by a US national, Charles Goldfarb.
They're not violating any US Patent, as they'll presumably be producing in Taiwan. They're only "violating" the Taiwanese patent, if any. But then again, "they" are the Taiwanese government and people.
The US has done basically the same thing with US patents which have "national security" implications. In the US, the Constitutional authority for patents lies in Congress, so Congress is perfectly free to decide whether patent protection should/is offered for such things. I don't profess to know such specifics about Taiwan.
that only applies to the perception of the emitted light itself. However, objects illuminated by such a light source may appear to be significantly different in color than they would under a broad spectrum white light, since they may reflect light in narrow bands not matching those of the source.
Combining narrow spectrum RGB sources can work to produce whatever perceived color you want, as in a display. It does not work for all reflective lighting needs, so a solid state broad spectrum source still fills a need.
"This claim is probably too general to survive reeximanation, though. It basically amounts to 'transferring data and information about how the data is structured together'. I'm sure somebody with a better knowledge of IT history than me can very easily name some prior art for that one."
nor did I say or imply that it does. Lack of QoS is why VoIP across the Internet will not replace traditional telephony services, at least for those who care about call quality and reliability.
VoIP has a place withing network domains under a single administrative control - i.e. If Skype were to also offer ISP service using their own network, they could then offer workable QoS, and reasonable SLAs.
it's QoS. There are simply no guarantees for delay and latency on the Internet. Given the lack of financial incentives for one ISP to honor QoS markings coming in from another ISP, it's very unlikely that end-to-end QoS will ever happen in the existing Internet model.
why should banks be forced to implement stonger security for web transactions, when there is no such requirement for the far more frequent means of access?
My "assumption" is not an assumption, but a fact - not one card in my wallet is "smart," and I doubt the vast majority of authorization terminals are capable of taking advantage of smartcards, even if they were. Ipso facto, the combination of mag stripe and PIN is considered secure enough for millions of transactions per day.
Wouldn't it make more sense to first require smartcards and readers to be implemented, as such transactions are far more frequent than Internet ones? The whole thing stinks of someone from a firm invested in biometrics or some other pillar of TFA convincing the Feds to implement this rule, with an expectation of increased sales.
"You can't just look at a smartcard and have it do you any good, you have to be in physical posession of it."
The question was about common ATM/credit/debit cards, which are NOT smart, but have a simple, easily read/written mag stripe. Possession of a card w/mag strip associated with an account cannot safely be assumed to indicate possession of a unique object, it could easily be a copy. Copies could be easily acquired by any retail sales clerk, and as you say - "they'll never know." That makes it logically no different than a piece of paper with information on it. That PIN is often only 4 numerical digits long, far less secure than most password requirements.
So I'll ask for the THIRD time, why is a mag stripe/PIN considered secure enough, while the combination of both unique and personally unidentifiable username and password are not?
It is very frustrating when people who seem like they should know this subject matter post information which adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
having to know both username and password count as two factor ID?
The wikipedia link claims that TFA contrasts to a system where only the password need be known. That may be a problem with some systems where the username is essentially public (i.e. *nix), but for online banking access, the username need not be easily guessed or based on any personal information, just unique.
Isn't requiring two non-obvious pieces of information (non-personally identifiable username + password) a form of two factor ID? (yes, I know the traditional mantra of "something you have/know")
If not, why is an ATM card and PIN considered to be, knowing the ease with which mag stripes can be copied? It's not like there should be high confidence the ATM card stripe is proof of possession of a unique object, as might be the case with a SecureID or retinal scan.
"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." - http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html (emphasis added)
"with each airship being able to support an area of 60 kilometres, there would only need to be 'a handful' to offer complete coverage in the UK, he added."
No one has pointed out that these are nano airships! An area of 60 Km^2 is a circle with a diameter of less then 9 Km, which means quite a large number to cover England, let alone the whole UK. This also means that the wireless equipment is smaller still.
What the original comment totally missed is that it is not a video iPod, it is an iPod with video. It has everything expected of an iPod, and more (smaller size, bigger screen, more storage, more battery life).
Whether or not selling videos for it becomes successful, it's simply a new and improved iPod, and that alone is enough.
Now, if the video capabilities successfully create a market, Apple wins even more. It doesn't make sense for them to ignore that unproven market, when it's obvious that competitors won't. If the market doesn't materialize, Apple has only lost some relatively minor development costs and a couple of bucks/unit in COG.
Making.com and other TLD's have only local significance will breaks things (not necessarily all things, but some things). It also means that anyone who wants to maintain a consistent.com address would have to deal with potentially hundreds of domain authorities, at significant additional expense and with the likely result that they end up NOT owning some, leading to massive confusion.
If, on the other hand, some central authority acts as a clearinghouse for all those country authorities, how does that significantly differ with what's already in place? There's still a global DNS oligarchy.
Finally, what you wish can already be done much more efficiently from the DNS servers within an organization - just base the response on where the request comes from.
Slashdot Mirror
Lego exhibited a lack of good faith in the matter - I would argue that they should be penalized by revocation of any/all still outstanding patents, to compensate the public for lost opportunity and the costs of fighting their illegitimate attempts at maintaining exclusive control over this invention. (Although I recognize that there's likely no legal basis for revoking patents as punishment).
MSCEs dress better than *nix sysadmins, too!
Microsoft has historically "embraced" open industry standards by adding proprietary extensions, making its user's data worthless outside of the MS world.
In this case, I suspect they'll end up releasing, but still maintaining control over the office formats. If not there already, they'll make sure there's the ability to store proprietary objects (or meta-data, or whatever the current popular nomenclature is) in the now "open" format. They'll then simply move on to placing more and more document content in these proprietary closed objects, while claiming they're using an "open format."
so one can reasonably expect it to be served at any temperature up to boiling. Simple physics limits the maximum temperature. McDonald's is not, and cannot be, at fault for serving "too hot" coffee, regardless of the serving temperature others use. The OP burned themselves.
for this little thing called the US Constitution, which provides free speech guarantees, and which this law certainly infringes. IP is just another form of communications.
Myself, I just paste a stick over the offending EULA with a replacement contract, such as:
"By allowing the purchaser to break the shrinkwrap seal, the software vendor and all associated parties explicitly agree that the following license agreement replaces and overrides all others:
1) The user can use the enclosed media and any software and/or data contained thereon for any and all purposes.
2) The user has authorization from the copyright holder to make copies for any purpose the user desires.
3) The user has a right to full support of the software, including but not limited to, access to any and all revisions, corrections, or enhancements which may be made to it in the future."
I then give them a few seconds to respond before I proceed to open the software, consumating said license.
Thanks for playing the non-negitiable "shrinkwrap license" game. You have lost.
You seem confused - which is it? A CD or not?
If the TOC isn't valid, it doesn't meet the spec, and isn't a CD. If it meets the CD specs, then a PC won't have any problem reading it without the software.
as you pointed out, it says "CD." "CD" is a trademark, and can only be used (per Philips) to describe optical media meeting certain standards. In the case of audio CDs, that would be the "Red Book." As this piece of plastic clearly does not meet that standard, it should not be have been called a CD. It is (legally) safe to assume that anything called a copy protected CD has only benign protection, such as the copy protection offered by copyright law. Anything which uses technical means of copy protection is not a CD.
http://www.xanadu.com/
Tim Berners-Lee's HTML (which not coincidentally uses Ted's term "hypertext") implemented a small subset of Ted's vision. It was of course based on SGML, the offspring of GML, which was also created by a US national, Charles Goldfarb.
http://www.sgmlsource.com/history/roots .htm
Free speech includes talking in English, Pig Latin, AES, or private, as desired.
It doesn't appear that Taiwan honors foreign patents via treaty: http://www.bpmlegal.com/pctco.html http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/plt/ , but I may be wrong.
The US has done basically the same thing with US patents which have "national security" implications. In the US, the Constitutional authority for patents lies in Congress, so Congress is perfectly free to decide whether patent protection should/is offered for such things. I don't profess to know such specifics about Taiwan.
Combining narrow spectrum RGB sources can work to produce whatever perceived color you want, as in a display. It does not work for all reflective lighting needs, so a solid state broad spectrum source still fills a need.
Name______________
Address________________
Cit y___________ State____ ZIP________
Phone number_______________
A "car," to most people, is something which is self propelled. Maybe this is the world's smallest skateboard?
VoIP has a place withing network domains under a single administrative control - i.e. If Skype were to also offer ISP service using their own network, they could then offer workable QoS, and reasonable SLAs.
it's QoS. There are simply no guarantees for delay and latency on the Internet. Given the lack of financial incentives for one ISP to honor QoS markings coming in from another ISP, it's very unlikely that end-to-end QoS will ever happen in the existing Internet model.
Now I know. The cheap bastards are waiting for free phone service.
My "assumption" is not an assumption, but a fact - not one card in my wallet is "smart," and I doubt the vast majority of authorization terminals are capable of taking advantage of smartcards, even if they were. Ipso facto, the combination of mag stripe and PIN is considered secure enough for millions of transactions per day.
Wouldn't it make more sense to first require smartcards and readers to be implemented, as such transactions are far more frequent than Internet ones? The whole thing stinks of someone from a firm invested in biometrics or some other pillar of TFA convincing the Feds to implement this rule, with an expectation of increased sales.
The question was about common ATM/credit/debit cards, which are NOT smart, but have a simple, easily read/written mag stripe. Possession of a card w/mag strip associated with an account cannot safely be assumed to indicate possession of a unique object, it could easily be a copy. Copies could be easily acquired by any retail sales clerk, and as you say - "they'll never know." That makes it logically no different than a piece of paper with information on it. That PIN is often only 4 numerical digits long, far less secure than most password requirements.
So I'll ask for the THIRD time, why is a mag stripe/PIN considered secure enough, while the combination of both unique and personally unidentifiable username and password are not?
It is very frustrating when people who seem like they should know this subject matter post information which adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
The wikipedia link claims that TFA contrasts to a system where only the password need be known. That may be a problem with some systems where the username is essentially public (i.e. *nix), but for online banking access, the username need not be easily guessed or based on any personal information, just unique.
Isn't requiring two non-obvious pieces of information (non-personally identifiable username + password) a form of two factor ID? (yes, I know the traditional mantra of "something you have/know")
If not, why is an ATM card and PIN considered to be, knowing the ease with which mag stripes can be copied? It's not like there should be high confidence the ATM card stripe is proof of possession of a unique object, as might be the case with a SecureID or retinal scan.
"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." - http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html (emphasis added)
No one has pointed out that these are nano airships! An area of 60 Km^2 is a circle with a diameter of less then 9 Km, which means quite a large number to cover England, let alone the whole UK. This also means that the wireless equipment is smaller still.
Good luck finding one when they blow away.
Is that like going to McDonald's, ordering a Chicken Sandwich, and getting an Egg McMuffin?
Whether or not selling videos for it becomes successful, it's simply a new and improved iPod, and that alone is enough.
Now, if the video capabilities successfully create a market, Apple wins even more. It doesn't make sense for them to ignore that unproven market, when it's obvious that competitors won't. If the market doesn't materialize, Apple has only lost some relatively minor development costs and a couple of bucks/unit in COG.
Making .com and other TLD's have only local significance will breaks things (not necessarily all things, but some things). It also means that anyone who wants to maintain a consistent .com address would have to deal with potentially hundreds of domain authorities, at significant additional expense and with the likely result that they end up NOT owning some, leading to massive confusion.
If, on the other hand, some central authority acts as a clearinghouse for all those country authorities, how does that significantly differ with what's already in place? There's still a global DNS oligarchy.
Finally, what you wish can already be done much more efficiently from the DNS servers within an organization - just base the response on where the request comes from.