One slightly large problem with your arguement. They haven't defended this patent in the almost 22 years since they filed for the patent. If I remember correctly, if you don't defend it, you lose the right to defend it in the future. We've seen some case on Salshdot in which this was proven. It is the companies responsibility to keep track of the patents they own and defend them. I don't see how they can selectively defend a patent 21+ years after they file for it. They not sueing AOL Time Warner. They are not sueing Microsoft. It is took little too late. BT should chalk this up to experience and pay better attention to the patents.
I know they have 15000+ plus, but again it is there responcibility. If they have to create a department to do this, then it is time they do so.
Actually, there is a more appropriate toy. I couldn't remember the name, but after a lot of searching on the web, I found it's name. It was called Capsella, and it was around in either the late 1970s or the 1980s (or both). You bought a bunch of interconnecting parts (most looked like clear spheres with pipes coming out of them that had gears and stuff inside). You would then connect them to motorize your creation. This was before Lego Mind Storm, but Lego Mind Sotrm is far more complicated. The basic idea is the same as what they are trying to do with these robots. I always wanted one as a kid.
I have one big question. Under what aithority does this comapny have ANY power to audit anyone? They are not a government agencies. They have no official power. What they are doing is just the same as racketeering. They just don't have the power to do it. IANAL, but I would suggest companies counter sue the BSA and related companies for illegal racketeering. We as people, and companies, should not give up our rights so easily withiout a fight. The BSA is really a dog that's all bark and very little bite!
"A good way to begin your exploration of this issue is to understand that Delphi, and Borland C++ 5.0 use the same 32-bit compiler. The difference is simply in how the language is parsed. Delphi parses Object Pascal, tokenizes it, and then passes it on to the compiler. Borland C++ 5.0 parses C++, tokenizes it, and then passes it on to the compiler. Underneath the hood, Delphi 2.0, C++ Builder and Borland C++ are very similar tools. The difference is in how the syntax of the language looks before it is parsed and tokenized.
Delphi finishes its compile and link cycles faster than Borland C++ simply because Pascal is easier to parse, and because Delphi supports a simpler, and more flexible type of binary file (DCUs are easier to make than OBJs.)
Since C++Builder uses the same compiler as Delphi, the road is obviously at least half way open to finding compatibility between Delphi and C++. The next stone on the path is laid by C++Builder's advantageous use of the Delphi VCL."
The above section demonstrates that Delphi and C++ Builder use a type of common language. Once the Delphi code and C++ Builder code have been parsed and tokenized, they get passed to the same compiler. Microsoft took this idea, and combined it with the virtual machine concept (most recently used in Java) to get the CIL idea.
You said they don't use an intermediate language of any kind, but as you should be able to see from the above text, they actually do. The difference is Borland kept this idea in the background. They just focused marketing the idea that two development environments work well together.
The code name for C++ Builder was Sci-Fi as stated by Brian Long, who used to work for Borland UK. According to an opinion section in his article for The Delphi Magazine, C++ Builder was already being planned during Delphi's original development. He also makes a comment as to why the project was called Sci-Fi, but I will let you look those up because they are irrelevant to my point here. To me at least, it becomes obvious that they wanted some common point for both languages. They paths may have varied some since then, but I would guess that they still use the same compiler. No, they don't have an interpreter, but interpreters were not that popular until Java came along and brought interpreters back into the spotlight.
Very rarely does Microsoft actual create new idea. They tend to rehash old ideas with a new twist, and then they call it their own.
I would like to further add that CIL (Common Intermediate Language) is one of the few aspects of the.NET ( and Borland C++ Build and Delphi) that I actually like. This simple idea could increase productivity exponentially on all projects, especially open source projects, if all compilers produced CIL code with meta data and packaged other programs to extract the needed informaiton to use the code segment/component in any particular langauge. For example, if Borland C++ build came with a program to generate the headers needed to use any CIL code produced by anybody.
The time wasted on learning new languages just to work with a given project would be removed. That time could then be refocused on newer sections of the code. Granted you would have to learn the a new language if you want to look at the actual code, but it wouldn't be necessary.
The strengths of various languages could easily be combined. You could write various code segments in the language tjat was best suited for the task, and then use that code in all the other languages you program in with very little effort and fuss.
This technology could be improved by adding a layer to compile the CIL code down to native machine code (even if the whole process ends up being CIL Compiler - Native Byte Code Compile - Linker - final native executable). Imagine being able to use portions of the KDE or GNome libraries interchangeably! You could utilize the work of both group and make interoperable components easier without worry about what language it was compiled in. The efforts of both groups could be combine easier and avoid the divided efforts that current exist.
In short this is one of the next step in Soft Engineering/Programming (along with Apest Orient Programming). This code help change the focus of programming/software engineer away from language specific programming to generic concept programming and thinking.
The CIL idea is not new. If I remember correctly is used in Borkands C++ Builder & Delphi to some extent. C++ Builder compilers down to the same thing as Delphi and if I remember correctly they use the same linker. It has been a long time since I was delving into the depths of C++ Builder, but I do vaguely remember the common compilation. You can use Delphi Components in C++ Builder, and this is why. The only difference is that Borland never made this a big marketing issue.
If they haven't sold it, Microsoft used to, and probably still does, own a chunk of Borland (as reported here on 6/8/99). From the press release linked to in the slashdot article, "... announced the completion of a set of strategic technology and licensing agreements that will be the foundation for a long-term alliance between the two companies", and "... $25 million purchase by Microsoft of shares of Inprise [what Borland was called for a while] preferred stock". I beleive this is where they got this ideas behind CIL and combined it with the Java virtual Machine model.
I would like to go a little further in clarifying this request. KDE3, QT3, and the most relevant versions of gnome from a C/C++ perspective.
I like to see books with a lot of meat and less fluff. There needs to be more books with good examples, and not just books where the examples are taken from the online text. I want the code examples to demostrate the concept(s) being learned. I am sick of reading a book only to learn the program examples to demonstrate the concept(s) were taken from online text provided with the code and/or libraries. These examples tend to be out of date and/or very simple examples that a monkey could figure out.
Another topic would be ODBC 3.x on Unix platforms. I have a general book on ODBC, but it isn't a good resource for programming ODBC on Unix platforms.
At the very least there could have been a picture of the final product showing the cover with plexiglass. I know I wouldn't do this unless I had an old harddrive lieing around I wanted to tinker with from time to time.
Re:Only popular w/single people, I bet
on
Berlin's Robotic Pub
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
That would be just the start. What's to stop bill collects from doing the same thing? What about stalkers and other crazy people?
I bet law inforcement will like it. If they need to track down someone who frequents the bar, they can just get an e-mail!
I bet insurance companies would love it too becuase what's to stop the owner from recording what people are drinking? If you get in an accident, they could just check up on you and see how many you had too drink.
If the information is being stored on what you drink, it could then be sold to Health insurance companies. The health insurance companies can then charge based on the good, and bad, practices you have on drinking. They could, and probably would, use it as a cost saver.
I hope they don't go the.NET direction. I haven't gotten to read the hotbits column yet because it's Slashdoted aleady, but I see several problems with his statement.
First I think his statement was more political than technical. I think he see the money that is possible through the.NET framework. You can charge just about everybody to develop it. Microsoft is charging developers fees to develop on.NET. Why you Ximian be different? Look at the place Ximian will be in it GNome 4.0 does tie into.NET. They will be the ones that control code because they control the only NON-Microsoft version of.NET. The stand to make big bucks off this if they pull it off.
I don't see how buying into Microsoft's vision of.NET as the future will help Linux on the Desktop. We will be playing even more of a catchup game. Look at the companies that have had to rely on Microsoft releasing key information for the products of these companies to work on Windows. Microsoft has a history of withholding key information until they have the edge by already having a product out that supports there "standard".
I think Miguel has become a follower--especially of Microsoft. I think he has lost his forward vision. I think he should step back from all leadership positions he has on Gnome (if any) and let others take over. His statements in the interview smell of someone buying into marketing hype because they lost their independant thought and no longer truely see a goal.
With that said, the is one thing I like about the.NET framework. The ability of all the compilers in Visual Studio to compile/translated down to a common language before compiling. That could definately be use to build APIs for multiple languages at once! It would need to be well thought out, but I think that would be a good goal to aim for in the long run. If I remember correctly, Borland C++ Builder compiled into a Pascal derivative first. There are a lot of possibilities with this design of compilers.
I don't think Microsoft studied the history of the gaming systems market. Anybody remember some of the failed systems. I beleive there was the NeoGeo. The wasn't a whole lot of games out for the system. THe graphic rocked for the time, but the just wasn't that many games. (Of course, I am also ignoring the high cost of the system.) Sega also had a few failed systems becuase they just didn't have the games.
The PS II has been estimated to have 400+ games including PS I & PS II games. I know the XBox doesn't have that much games out. There are more likely to be games I like when there is a lot of them. I know I am thinking about getting a PS II. I won't consider an XBox. It just isn't worth playing the waiting game for games!
One important question has yet to be answered. How will having some rising from the Earth effect the spin of the Earth and it's orbit on both a short term and long term effect? I would like that studied before we consider building on of these things. For once I would like to have the results up front!
Did you expect an unbiased opinion from someone who writes primarily Mac articles? I am with you though. I want a good sized manual that actually tells me something, and not a one page document that says somethign like connect the pretty imacs like this.
According to the article, the cost for one of these new D-VCRs is $1,995!!!! Why would I pay $1,995 to get a new VCR when I can pay $200 to $500 to get a DVD Player???? This is insane. This will never take off. The price is too high for my budget. Also, why would I want to buy a digit VCR that only plays Prerecorded D-VHS tapes? You can play regular tape, and I bet you can record like a normal VCR, but I noticed that the article doesn't mention that this new VCR can record Digital quality signals and maintain the digital quality. Why would I want to pay $1,995 and not get the ability to record digital? I think this will be another DIVX.
I am more concerned with the new security issues that Microsoft will intorduce when they tie SQL-Server into the Operating System. They have yet to tie a major product that existed seperately into the operating system that didn't produce at least a few security problems, and then look at all the security problems that SQL-Server had in the past.
I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure red Hat doesn't make the Database the Files System. On Windows, and most computers, the Database (SQL-Server, Oracle, et. al.) stores it data via the file system in some arrangement of files.
If I understood the article correctly Microsoft is going to flip that relationship. The file system would be Front end to the Database. This would mean if Oracle did, or could, produce a database it would have to do one of two things. First it could run on top of the File System which would make the file system a go-between between Oracle and the RDBMS (probalble a SQL-Server derivative). The other possiblity would be to Have Oracle interact directly with the RDBMS. Either way, what's the point of having a Database run on top of a database? I think that would be one the reasons Oracle file a lawsuit against Microsoft. It isn't that much different than what they did to Netscape and AOL (with the tie in of MSN).
The article referenced another article that went into more detail.
My point is that it doesn't say it won't do that. If yahoo is trying to get more revenue flow, they might do that. Sometimes being silent on something is the same as saying you will. People, and companies, are sometimes silent in the hopes that you might not equate one, or more, things.
Don't forget that yahoo started doing a pay-for-placement in the listing (mentioned in the article). Given that. Yahoo wants to charge people searching for the given criteria to see the result. That translates to the results you paid for will show who has paid us the most to be seen by you.
I'd say they have done a fews things in the past few years. To name just one, they have tied MSN to the operating system. I am sure that will come up in this trial.
I don't know of a lot of cities in my area that would want one of these things. I don't think the cost is covering stuff like weather maintenance--such as clearing the tracks for snow & ice during winter months (obviously where it snows).
Plus how many communities want a huge track like this in there neighborhood? People complain about Cellphone towers being an eye sore now. I think people will complain about the tracks for this device being an eye sore.
Then there are the scams. The only thing a scam artist would have to do is place a false keyboard on top of the regular one and combine it with a small device to read the magnetic strip and then the criminal would have all your card information. More than likely the payment will be done with a credit card to use current info structures.
I don't think this will take off. I think it is a great idea, but I honestly don't think it will take off.
Actually, if you had read the article the software was created in 1993. So, no, it's not new. I am not convinced these tools work all the time. Let me get his straight, some Professors making too much money now have a program to their work for them? I am in the wrong line of work. IANAL, but I doubt a Univeristy would win if a student sued over this unless all results are checked by a human. You knwo there is going to be some Profs that don't perform a human check and inocents will get blamed for something they didn't do.
It shoudln't be protected period. It is a common word used both in and out of the computer industry to represent a viewing area (usually smaller than the total area). I used the windows on my car to see the road, does that make my car an illegal use of windows? (I know I am exagerating a bit, but it is to get a point across). Windows is too generic a term to have one company control who can use it!
Stress the idea that the money freed up can go to other things. List what ever needs more money in your area. It would be a good idea to work up some potential number forecasts that show potential money that can me gainned and realocated elsewhere.
Windows as a term in programming represents some sort of viewing area (with some variations on the exact meaning). The name has similar meaning to the windows we use to look out of a window! How can Microsoft sue over that? Or, may I should ask why are they not sueing all the book makers, language creators, and companies that use windows as a term to represent the viewable area of an image, graphic, or other graphical representation on screen? There books written to discuss these things.
I think this falls under illegal monopoly maintence!
Slashdot Mirror
One slightly large problem with your arguement. They haven't defended this patent in the almost 22 years since they filed for the patent. If I remember correctly, if you don't defend it, you lose the right to defend it in the future. We've seen some case on Salshdot in which this was proven. It is the companies responsibility to keep track of the patents they own and defend them. I don't see how they can selectively defend a patent 21+ years after they file for it. They not sueing AOL Time Warner. They are not sueing Microsoft. It is took little too late. BT should chalk this up to experience and pay better attention to the patents.
I know they have 15000+ plus, but again it is there responcibility. If they have to create a department to do this, then it is time they do so.
Actually, there is a more appropriate toy. I couldn't remember the name, but after a lot of searching on the web, I found it's name. It was called Capsella, and it was around in either the late 1970s or the 1980s (or both). You bought a bunch of interconnecting parts (most looked like clear spheres with pipes coming out of them that had gears and stuff inside). You would then connect them to motorize your creation. This was before Lego Mind Storm, but Lego Mind Sotrm is far more complicated. The basic idea is the same as what they are trying to do with these robots. I always wanted one as a kid.
I have one big question. Under what aithority does this comapny have ANY power to audit anyone? They are not a government agencies. They have no official power. What they are doing is just the same as racketeering. They just don't have the power to do it. IANAL, but I would suggest companies counter sue the BSA and related companies for illegal racketeering. We as people, and companies, should not give up our rights so easily withiout a fight. The BSA is really a dog that's all bark and very little bite!
It may be called a different thing, but C++ Builder and Delphi have done this for years. I am including a selection from the February 26, 1997 white paper on C++ Builder tilted, "C++Builder, 1, Borland C++Builder White Paper: Application Development with C++Builder and Delphi" (under the heading "Some Theory on Linking Object Pascal and C++Builder Code"):
"A good way to begin your exploration of this issue is to understand that Delphi, and Borland C++ 5.0 use the same 32-bit compiler. The difference is simply in how the language is parsed. Delphi parses Object Pascal, tokenizes it, and then passes it on to the compiler. Borland C++ 5.0 parses C++, tokenizes it, and then passes it on to the compiler. Underneath the hood, Delphi 2.0, C++ Builder and Borland C++ are very similar tools. The difference is in how the syntax of the language looks before it is parsed and tokenized.
Delphi finishes its compile and link cycles faster than Borland C++ simply because Pascal is easier to parse, and because Delphi supports a simpler, and more flexible type of binary file (DCUs are easier to make than OBJs.)
Since C++Builder uses the same compiler as Delphi, the road is obviously at least half way open to finding compatibility between Delphi and C++. The next stone on the path is laid by C++Builder's advantageous use of the Delphi VCL."
The above section demonstrates that Delphi and C++ Builder use a type of common language. Once the Delphi code and C++ Builder code have been parsed and tokenized, they get passed to the same compiler. Microsoft took this idea, and combined it with the virtual machine concept (most recently used in Java) to get the CIL idea.
You said they don't use an intermediate language of any kind, but as you should be able to see from the above text, they actually do. The difference is Borland kept this idea in the background. They just focused marketing the idea that two development environments work well together.
The code name for C++ Builder was Sci-Fi as stated by Brian Long, who used to work for Borland UK. According to an opinion section in his article for The Delphi Magazine, C++ Builder was already being planned during Delphi's original development. He also makes a comment as to why the project was called Sci-Fi, but I will let you look those up because they are irrelevant to my point here. To me at least, it becomes obvious that they wanted some common point for both languages. They paths may have varied some since then, but I would guess that they still use the same compiler. No, they don't have an interpreter, but interpreters were not that popular until Java came along and brought interpreters back into the spotlight.
Very rarely does Microsoft actual create new idea. They tend to rehash old ideas with a new twist, and then they call it their own.
I would like to further add that CIL (Common Intermediate Language) is one of the few aspects of the .NET ( and Borland C++ Build and Delphi) that I actually like. This simple idea could increase productivity exponentially on all projects, especially open source projects, if all compilers produced CIL code with meta data and packaged other programs to extract the needed informaiton to use the code segment/component in any particular langauge. For example, if Borland C++ build came with a program to generate the headers needed to use any CIL code produced by anybody.
The time wasted on learning new languages just to work with a given project would be removed. That time could then be refocused on newer sections of the code. Granted you would have to learn the a new language if you want to look at the actual code, but it wouldn't be necessary.
The strengths of various languages could easily be combined. You could write various code segments in the language tjat was best suited for the task, and then use that code in all the other languages you program in with very little effort and fuss.
This technology could be improved by adding a layer to compile the CIL code down to native machine code (even if the whole process ends up being CIL Compiler - Native Byte Code Compile - Linker - final native executable). Imagine being able to use portions of the KDE or GNome libraries interchangeably! You could utilize the work of both group and make interoperable components easier without worry about what language it was compiled in. The efforts of both groups could be combine easier and avoid the divided efforts that current exist.
In short this is one of the next step in Soft Engineering/Programming (along with Apest Orient Programming). This code help change the focus of programming/software engineer away from language specific programming to generic concept programming and thinking.
The CIL idea is not new. If I remember correctly is used in Borkands C++ Builder & Delphi to some extent. C++ Builder compilers down to the same thing as Delphi and if I remember correctly they use the same linker. It has been a long time since I was delving into the depths of C++ Builder, but I do vaguely remember the common compilation. You can use Delphi Components in C++ Builder, and this is why. The only difference is that Borland never made this a big marketing issue.
If they haven't sold it, Microsoft used to, and probably still does, own a chunk of Borland (as reported here on 6/8/99). From the press release linked to in the slashdot article, "... announced the completion of a set of strategic technology and licensing agreements that will be the foundation for a long-term alliance between the two companies", and "... $25 million purchase by Microsoft of shares of Inprise [what Borland was called for a while] preferred stock". I beleive this is where they got this ideas behind CIL and combined it with the Java virtual Machine model.
I would like to see one (maybe two) more added to this list:
Using gnu compiler(s) and how they work on both Linux and Windows.
I would like to go a little further in clarifying this request. KDE3, QT3, and the most relevant versions of gnome from a C/C++ perspective.
I like to see books with a lot of meat and less fluff. There needs to be more books with good examples, and not just books where the examples are taken from the online text. I want the code examples to demostrate the concept(s) being learned. I am sick of reading a book only to learn the program examples to demonstrate the concept(s) were taken from online text provided with the code and/or libraries. These examples tend to be out of date and/or very simple examples that a monkey could figure out.
Another topic would be ODBC 3.x on Unix platforms. I have a general book on ODBC, but it isn't a good resource for programming ODBC on Unix platforms.
At the very least there could have been a picture of the final product showing the cover with plexiglass. I know I wouldn't do this unless I had an old harddrive lieing around I wanted to tinker with from time to time.
That would be just the start. What's to stop bill collects from doing the same thing? What about stalkers and other crazy people?
I bet law inforcement will like it. If they need to track down someone who frequents the bar, they can just get an e-mail!
I bet insurance companies would love it too becuase what's to stop the owner from recording what people are drinking? If you get in an accident, they could just check up on you and see how many you had too drink.
If the information is being stored on what you drink, it could then be sold to Health insurance companies. The health insurance companies can then charge based on the good, and bad, practices you have on drinking. They could, and probably would, use it as a cost saver.
I hope they don't go the .NET direction. I haven't gotten to read the hotbits column yet because it's Slashdoted aleady, but I see several problems with his statement.
.NET framework. You can charge just about everybody to develop it. Microsoft is charging developers fees to develop on .NET. Why you Ximian be different? Look at the place Ximian will be in it GNome 4.0 does tie into .NET. They will be the ones that control code because they control the only NON-Microsoft version of .NET. The stand to make big bucks off this if they pull it off.
.NET as the future will help Linux on the Desktop. We will be playing even more of a catchup game. Look at the companies that have had to rely on Microsoft releasing key information for the products of these companies to work on Windows. Microsoft has a history of withholding key information until they have the edge by already having a product out that supports there "standard".
.NET framework. The ability of all the compilers in Visual Studio to compile/translated down to a common language before compiling. That could definately be use to build APIs for multiple languages at once! It would need to be well thought out, but I think that would be a good goal to aim for in the long run. If I remember correctly, Borland C++ Builder compiled into a Pascal derivative first. There are a lot of possibilities with this design of compilers.
First I think his statement was more political than technical. I think he see the money that is possible through the
I don't see how buying into Microsoft's vision of
I think Miguel has become a follower--especially of Microsoft. I think he has lost his forward vision. I think he should step back from all leadership positions he has on Gnome (if any) and let others take over. His statements in the interview smell of someone buying into marketing hype because they lost their independant thought and no longer truely see a goal.
With that said, the is one thing I like about the
I don't think Microsoft studied the history of the gaming systems market. Anybody remember some of the failed systems. I beleive there was the NeoGeo. The wasn't a whole lot of games out for the system. THe graphic rocked for the time, but the just wasn't that many games. (Of course, I am also ignoring the high cost of the system.) Sega also had a few failed systems becuase they just didn't have the games.
The PS II has been estimated to have 400+ games including PS I & PS II games. I know the XBox doesn't have that much games out. There are more likely to be games I like when there is a lot of them. I know I am thinking about getting a PS II. I won't consider an XBox. It just isn't worth playing the waiting game for games!
One important question has yet to be answered. How will having some rising from the Earth effect the spin of the Earth and it's orbit on both a short term and long term effect? I would like that studied before we consider building on of these things. For once I would like to have the results up front!
Did you expect an unbiased opinion from someone who writes primarily Mac articles? I am with you though. I want a good sized manual that actually tells me something, and not a one page document that says somethign like connect the pretty imacs like this.
According to the article, the cost for one of these new D-VCRs is $1,995!!!! Why would I pay $1,995 to get a new VCR when I can pay $200 to $500 to get a DVD Player???? This is insane. This will never take off. The price is too high for my budget. Also, why would I want to buy a digit VCR that only plays Prerecorded D-VHS tapes? You can play regular tape, and I bet you can record like a normal VCR, but I noticed that the article doesn't mention that this new VCR can record Digital quality signals and maintain the digital quality. Why would I want to pay $1,995 and not get the ability to record digital? I think this will be another DIVX.
I am more concerned with the new security issues that Microsoft will intorduce when they tie SQL-Server into the Operating System. They have yet to tie a major product that existed seperately into the operating system that didn't produce at least a few security problems, and then look at all the security problems that SQL-Server had in the past.
I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure red Hat doesn't make the Database the Files System. On Windows, and most computers, the Database (SQL-Server, Oracle, et. al.) stores it data via the file system in some arrangement of files.
If I understood the article correctly Microsoft is going to flip that relationship. The file system would be Front end to the Database. This would mean if Oracle did, or could, produce a database it would have to do one of two things. First it could run on top of the File System which would make the file system a go-between between Oracle and the RDBMS (probalble a SQL-Server derivative). The other possiblity would be to Have Oracle interact directly with the RDBMS. Either way, what's the point of having a Database run on top of a database? I think that would be one the reasons Oracle file a lawsuit against Microsoft. It isn't that much different than what they did to Netscape and AOL (with the tie in of MSN).
The article referenced another article that went into more detail.
My point is that it doesn't say it won't do that. If yahoo is trying to get more revenue flow, they might do that. Sometimes being silent on something is the same as saying you will. People, and companies, are sometimes silent in the hopes that you might not equate one, or more, things.
Don't forget that yahoo started doing a pay-for-placement in the listing (mentioned in the article). Given that. Yahoo wants to charge people searching for the given criteria to see the result. That translates to the results you paid for will show who has paid us the most to be seen by you.
I'd say they have done a fews things in the past few years. To name just one, they have tied MSN to the operating system. I am sure that will come up in this trial.
I don't know of a lot of cities in my area that would want one of these things. I don't think the cost is covering stuff like weather maintenance--such as clearing the tracks for snow & ice during winter months (obviously where it snows).
Plus how many communities want a huge track like this in there neighborhood? People complain about Cellphone towers being an eye sore now. I think people will complain about the tracks for this device being an eye sore.
Then there are the scams. The only thing a scam artist would have to do is place a false keyboard on top of the regular one and combine it with a small device to read the magnetic strip and then the criminal would have all your card information. More than likely the payment will be done with a credit card to use current info structures.
I don't think this will take off. I think it is a great idea, but I honestly don't think it will take off.
Actually, if you had read the article the software was created in 1993. So, no, it's not new. I am not convinced these tools work all the time. Let me get his straight, some Professors making too much money now have a program to their work for them? I am in the wrong line of work. IANAL, but I doubt a Univeristy would win if a student sued over this unless all results are checked by a human. You knwo there is going to be some Profs that don't perform a human check and inocents will get blamed for something they didn't do.
It shoudln't be protected period. It is a common word used both in and out of the computer industry to represent a viewing area (usually smaller than the total area). I used the windows on my car to see the road, does that make my car an illegal use of windows? (I know I am exagerating a bit, but it is to get a point across). Windows is too generic a term to have one company control who can use it!
Stress the idea that the money freed up can go to other things. List what ever needs more money in your area. It would be a good idea to work up some potential number forecasts that show potential money that can me gainned and realocated elsewhere.
Windows as a term in programming represents some sort of viewing area (with some variations on the exact meaning). The name has similar meaning to the windows we use to look out of a window! How can Microsoft sue over that? Or, may I should ask why are they not sueing all the book makers, language creators, and companies that use windows as a term to represent the viewable area of an image, graphic, or other graphical representation on screen? There books written to discuss these things.
I think this falls under illegal monopoly maintence!