NVidia can implement its own kernel (API and ABI compatible with linux) that have its own DMA-BUF implementation that uses the same API. This module would work on it. However it won't work on normal linux kernel.
The problem is that some kernel developers have implemented DRM system, that artificially limits the user in what he can do with his system. If he tries to compile a module that is not under GPL license, a selected number of functions would cause the build to fail. The freedom of the user is artificially taken away. Well, thanks to the GPL the user have the source and can hack the kernel to remove the marks of these function, however this is procedure that takes time and effort, that are basically wasted.
This is what NVidia wants removed. These functions are not special in any legal way. All kernel functions called by any module are covered under GPL, because the whole kernel (including the files from BSD) is GPL. NVidia doesn't want "something" from the kernel to be relicensed, it just wants the DRM on that API to be removed.
I'm just going a step further, the kernel doesn't need digital restriction management.
As for the making money part. Nobody can distribute GPL kernel and non-GPL kernel module together. It must be the end-user who creates this derivative work. So NVidia won't be able to use the "user loophole" on consumer devices like smartphones/tablets/etc. .
The basic fact is: the Linux kernel sources are GPL licensed. This was an early decision by Linus, and no amount of wishing will change that. There are just to many contributors that would have to approve a re-license.
Now, the GPL is very clear regarding derived work: if you distribute such a work, it needs to have a GPL-compatible license and provide sources.
What constitutes a derived work for a kernel? Basically, calling any code from the kernel would create a derived work, so the Linux license contains exemptions for user space code that calls the kernel through the public interface.
However, in this case the nVidia driver would call an internal kernel function, that is not exempted, so this would create a GPL derived work. The function is so low level that it would create an intimate bond between the Linux kernel and the nVidia binary driver.
Even if the Linux maintainers would allow this, anyone that wrote any part of Linux could start a court case against nVidia for breach of license. Would that be a better outcome?
If the above was even one bit true, non-GPL modules would have been completely forbidden from loading in the kernel at all. But they are not, here is explanation why.
The derived work of the GPL kernel and non-GPL NVidia module is produced when the module is loaded. This is when the linking of both happens. It is very important to note this, because the "calling" thing you are using is just red-herring.
This derived work is allowed because it is done by the user of the system. The result never leaves the memory of the user's system, so it is never distributed. GPL explicitly allows the user to do anything, as long as it doesn't involve distributing the result. It also means that GPL kernel + non-GPL-nvidia cannot be distributed together.
If you take a look of the code that compiles the NVidia module for your kernel, you will notice that the code does not contain any GPL code in itself. It may require some kernel headers and config files, but these have been established to not be copyrightable (and thus no need of license for them).
So, what is the problem?
NVidia can implement its own kernel (API and ABI compatible with linux) that have its own DMA-BUF implementation that uses the same API. This module would work on it. However it won't work on normal linux kernel.
The problem is that some kernel developers have implemented DRM system, that artificially limits the user in what he can do with his system. If he tries to compile a module that is not under GPL license, a selected number of functions would cause the build to fail. The freedom of the user is artificially taken away. Well, thanks to the GPL the user can hack the kernel and remove the marks of these function, however this is procedure that takes time and effort that are basically wasted.
This is what NVidia wants removed. These functions are not special in any legal way. All kernel functions called by any module are covered under GPL, because the whole kernel (including the files from BSD) is GPL.
Just a few months ago everybody celebrated when Oracle lost miserably in court. Oracle tried to argue that Java API is copyrighted and Google have to pay insane amount of money for reimplementing Java-like language. It didn't work out. Also, it is not US only thing, there was a similar ruling in EU court that was also taken into consideration.
Now we have a linux developer (whom I respect deeply), who claims that parts of the linux kernel API is copyrighted and it could only be used under GPL.
I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways.
But this is not the worst thing in the situation. Let's assume that using the DMA-BUF by NVidia is indeed covered by GPL. The only thing that would be forbidden by GPL is the redistribution of the compiled module. All the users would be forced to compile one on their own.
And here comes the biggest absurd of all. There is a system in place to prevent that. It checks if kernel entry points are GPL and refuses to link with non-GPL code. This system is only causing problems to the users, nothing else. Any distribution or company would have somebody smart enough to find the defines in the code and patch them (to allow compilation on the user system in accordance to GPL).
All this system does is violate the spirit of GPL.
It isn't against the Constitution to get rid of patents altogether. The constitutional amendment isn't because the constitution forces us to have patents, its because the only way to abolish patents is to take away congresses authority to create them. Congress will never willingly dismantle the patent system. Too many private parties are paying them not to.
Actually it is even simpler. You just have to prove that the patents do not "...promote the progress of science and useful arts.." and that they actually inhibit them. This is the legal ground in the Constitution that gives the Congress authority to create them. The founding father knew about the dangers of copyright and patents, this is why this clause also serves as fail safe.
Of course, nobody cares what this "goddamned piece of paper'" says anymore.
There's two problems with this. If something requires a lot of up-front investment to invent for the first time, then who will have an incentive to make this investment when someone else can take their finished product, reverse engineer it? They can then sell it at a lower price because they don't have to recoup the costs of the initial inventing process?
Plus, unless you have complete vertical integration of your supply chain, there's no such thing as a trade secret. Patents are the only thing that protects the inventor when they try to go into production. Let's say you invent some cool widget but don't own your own manufacturing facility to produce it. So you go to a factory and pay them to make your widgets. Oops... they have a "production problem" and your product will be delayed. In the mean time, taking your plans, they run their own production and get their own version out into the marketplace before they even ship your product. What do you do then?
I'm not saying the patent system is even close to perfect but it exists for a reason - to protect inventors so they are economically safe to invent things. Just ask Robert Kearns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns.
Nice reasoning. The only problem is that patents at the moment doesn't work (like this).
1. If something requires up-front investment to invent for a first time... it will never be invented. Inventions are either done as hobby in the free time and for the expense of the inventor, by R&D department of a company that already works in the field or by universities that work in this field. No outsider would invest in something that may not even be possible.
2. Patents are not the only things that protects a product. Schematics, chip and board layouts are also covered by a form of copyright.
3. I'm totally fine with 5 year patent that protects the inventor until it starts selling its product and establishes itself on the market. However in the current patent system you may not even get the patent for years. The fact that we have 17 years after grant or 20 after filling for a patent, implies that it is perfectly normal for a patent to not be granted in the first 3 years.
4. Robert Kearns have spent 20 year of his life and more than $10millions on legal fees in order to collect his money. Do you really think this is how the system is supposed to work? Involving courts means that the system have failed. Kearns should have spent his time working on new inventions...
The whole point is, the patents in their current form do more harm than good. They do not protect the lone inventor. They cost too much. They are too slow to obtain. They are too broad. They give too much monopoly/veto power. They last too long. They do not promote useful arts, they actually inhibit them.
If I were to make a reform I would:
1. Limit the veto powers to 5 years. The remaining 15 years the inventor can only demand royalties under fair terms. (The fair terms are explicitly defined by the law).
2. Forbid selling and trading of a patents. They used to be issued to concrete people, now this have been mostly circumvented.
3. Limit the number of patents that could be issued in a single year (500-1000 in all fields combined). The patent examiners can focus on most innovative patents first and ignore the other. One examiner should pick one single patent per year. He should do all examinations of novelty, prior arts and general usefulness of the patent. The quality of the patent would also serve as investment/loan guarantee.
On the other hand if you ask for less than $10,000 in arbitration they'll pay for your lawyer fees win or lose.
On the other hand if you ask for less than $10,000 in arbitration they'll pay for your lawyer fees win or lose.
If you are going to dispute for a small amount of money you are always better off using Small Claims Court. It is a real court and you can expect to get a real fair verdict. Most of the small claims courts even forbid lawyers.
On the other side arbitration in USA is known to be so biased that it is literally a farce (in 99.9% of the cases). The arbitration is done by private entities under little to no oversight, you are going to face corporate lawyers and the arbitration is binding, meaning you can't appeal it . The arbitration is biased because the corporation can pick not only the arbitration company but also the actual arbiter. Here is the testimony of an arbiter that got rejected after single judgment in favor of a customer.
Buying something IS a contract! At it's most basic level it is an agreement to exchange physical items or services.
Buying is indeed a contract. However is EULA part of that contract or is it another contract on its own?
For EULA to be part of the buying contract, it must be presented before entering into the contract. That is, EULA must be presented before paying. Otherwise both parties are not on equal ground. (Or you should also be able to amend the buying contract with whatever your imagination could spawn).
If EULA is separate contract, then rejecting it must not void your original contract. This means, I should still be able to use the product I've paid for. Otherwise both parties are not on equal ground as one of them pays money and doesn't get anything in return.
Say the vaccine is 96% effective and we're studying a population of 1000 kids.
From the article
...Witt's group wrote in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases that the vaccine is effective about half of the time for all kids, and just 24 percent of the time in the eight to 12 year old age group.
So, the maximum effectiveness is 50%, if you keep 100% of the kids vaccinated at max level (with more regular shots) , you would still be a way lower than the minimum of 75% needed for herd immunity (for sickness with low transmission rate) .
Groat said the report was based on a review of previously published data rather than fresh field observations. "We did not go out and measure things," he acknowledged.
Well, your result are only as good as your sources.
The problem is that the government is not reversing any of its past actions. It is not removing its signature under ACTA, its parliamentary group would not even let a proposal for official refusal of ratification to be presented to the parliament. For all that matters, Bulgaria can just ratify ACTA tomorrow.
The official stance is to delay until the EU parliament makes a decision and then to repeat whatever that decision is. It seems that the ACTA proponents would try to delay the vote in the EU parliament. They hope that the matter would fade away from public conscious and at some point they would do a sudden silent vote on it, like the first one. Whenever that happens, Bulgaria can ratify ACTA on the very next day.
Not long ago I watched a TV program that presented the work of Japanese scientist Izuru Senaha . He have found that seaweed grows optimally at 2% CO2 concentration (72 times the normal concentration in sea water). They use method (developed by Masanori Hiraoka) where the seaweeds are in constant motion to boost their growth. He is making experiments by collecting CO2 from local power plants and using it to grow seaweed.
It would make a lot more sense to have farms for rapid growth than having to collect seaweed from the ocean.
This method alone could be great for collecting the carbon from the air and making it into solid form (thus reversing the greenhouse effect). But that would not be profitable on its own.
Have you forgotten about Stuxnet? That virus was designed to sabotage industrial equipment that was not connected to internet. It was designed to propagate though removable drives and local networks. And Stuxnet did reach its target and sabotaged it successfully without even causing suspicion.
Imagine that the Chinese/Russians modify Stuxnet (I've read it is quite modular) to infiltrate the UAV control. Imagine that they add module that activates only when the drone enters GPS coordinates of China/Russia. This module could do a number of nasty things. Turning on active radar, so that the drone would shine like a super nova on the radar. Increase the chance of drone crashing. Introduce slight error in missile target coordinates and always hit few hundred feet off the target.
Just the radar thing would be enough disaster. In peaceful time the enemy may decide to ignore it and just track the path of the drone (and hide). In armed conflict, there are missiles that use the radar signal for target homing. It's very likely that a great number of the drones would be destroyed before somebody realizes that the enemy doesn't have miracle super secret drone tracking technology.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. & The devil is in the details.
From your description I understand that the new institution would sue "larger companies" on behalf of small patent holders. Now if these small patent holders are patent trolls, this institution service would be like a pipe dream for them. Patent trolls could sue everybody everywhere and expenses would be covered by taxpayers.
I'm not saying that protecting small manufactures is bad thing, but fundamental principles should be established so that this "great power" won't be abused in just one or two decades.
If this institution works like MPEG-LA, then maybe it could do more good than harm. It's all in the details.
"The nonpatentability of mathematics refers literally to patenting a formula or algorithm without any useful application" I think the problem here is quite the opposite, the problem is patenting of formula or algorithm for all possible useful applications. And my claim is that if you patent for all possible useful applications, then you haven't actually patented for any of them (because you have not mentioned any).
Take for the example the patent in questions. "The specification makes it clear that 'information storage and retrieval system' refers to a computer system". The problem here is that the computer systems already exist, they existed and they did operate long before this patent was filled and they would continue doing so. The computers do store and retrieve information and they've been doing it for decades in a million of different ways. This patent describes algortitm for working with _abstract_ data. Thus it does not describe any useful application of that abstract data. How, if the patent said "efficent malloc implementation allowing storage and tertival of heap memory in RAM" or "Efficent garbidge collection in programming language" then these would have been usefual applications, and that patent would not apply for "Efficent file retrival of Flash drives".
So in short, if you patent algorithm for working with abstract data, you patent pure math.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/squalene-the-swine-flu-vaccine%E2%80%99s-dirty-little-secret-exposed.html
It's nice read.
In short, to make vaccine cheaper, they use additative that is very likely the cause of autoimmune diseases know as Gulf War Syndrome.
Vaccines have always been trade-offs, however here we have the following decision:
25% to get GWS if vaccinated or 0.1% of dying from Swine Flu if infected.
Now at the same time, Monsanto does not get to fly those seeds over random farms and drop them and then sue those farmers, thats bad business,.... Surprisingly enough, but they do. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser is the story of a farmer who got his crops contaminated with Monsanto's GMO genes (cross breed from neighbor's crop) and Monsanto went ahead and sued him for patent infringement. And they won. (Watch documentary "The Future of the Food" for more details)
The biggest problem here is how to revert to non-contaminated crops and how to prevent future contamination (aka stop the wind from blowing).
Here is the first entry in the latest kernel ChangeLog-2.6.24.1 http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.24.1
Linux 2.6.24.1
commit cece280a46c9b5c0adb4d5251f42c082a578e1ad
Author: Jens Axboe
Date: Fri Feb 8 08:49:14 2008 -0800
splice: missing user pointer access verification (CVE-2008-0009/10)
patch 8811930dc74a503415b35c4a79d14fb0b408a361 in mainline.
vmsplice_to_user() must always check the user pointer and length
with access_ok() before copying. Likewise, for the slow path of
copy_from_user_mmap_sem() we need to check that we may read from
the user region.
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
Cc: Wojciech Purczynski
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds It looks like the fix for this exploit have been released 3 days ago.
Nothing to see here, move along.
1. Software 2000: a method of generating bit masks for use with laser printers which results in higher quality images.
2. Astron Clinica: a system and process for generating realistic images representing the results of planned cosmetic or surgical interventions which change the actual or apparent distribution of underlying skin chomophores.
3. Inrotis: methods of identifying groups of target proteins for drug theray by processing proteome data defining proteins and protein interactions.
4. SurfKitchen: an invention to improve the ability of mobile telephones to access services on the Internet by pre-storing a program on a mobile telephone memory or by downloading the program from the Internet.
5. Cyan Technology: a method of generating data for configuring micro-prodcts which greatly simplifies chip design and programming.
These days you can find computer in everything. The line between casual electronic and computers is getting smaller and smaller.
Still, I think it is possible to put an clear line where the software patent ends and normal patent begins. If the invention only improves the working of existing hardware, then it is software patent.
If the invention requires hardware modifications in order to work, then the way of using this modifications to achieve this result is patentable.
In other words
1. If you add new optic component to the printer to fine-print the bit masks, you patent it.
2. If you need wider spectrum camera and/or filter to see "invisible" for naked eye skin formations, you patent the use of camera to get that data.
3. If you use special chemical to make the target protein glow and be visible to camera, you patent that process.
4. If you put more memory on a phone to cache more things you try to patent that, (nothing innovative here)
5. If you find a way to put transistors in a way that would improve chip parameters - you patent it. Not the program that does it.
As all the patents in question are distributed on disk and can be used on existing and (some of them) on generic computers they are software patents.
If patent could be described without the involvement of computer then it should be done so. In theory this gives much wider coverage as it would cover doing same process without computer (e.g. manually).
However, the practice have shown that once you patent program for doing something in some way, you don't patent the way, you patent the doing.
1. Patent dithering in printers.
2. Patent Photoshoping in cosmetics.
3. Patent object recognition in biology.
4. Patent caching in phones.
5. Patent layout generating programs.
This is what they really want to patent. And this is why they should not be allowed to.
if I write something, it's mine to do whatever I want with
Let's take the analogy code==people.
Your parents made you. They did the work using their own instruments and materials to do so (their bodies). Does this mean that you belong to them and they can do whatever they want with you? Beat you? Labor you? Slave you? Harras you? Abuse you? Kill you? Eat you?
In this society this is not the case. People belong to the society and parants are obligated to take care of their children, not to own them. In this society copyrighted work is not propriety of the creator, but of the society. It is that the society have given the author temporal monopoly of the work.
Sorry but there is nothing in the article that prooves the story is really hoax. It just proves that:
"UMD Library Dean Ann Montgomery Smith told AL that the student had requested the book by phone from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, not through the UMD interlibrary services as originally reported"
This doesn't proove that the student lied but that it have been quoted wrongly. The other thing that have to proove this is hoax is:
"The UMass Dartmouth Library has not been visited by agents of any type seeking information about the borrowing patterns or habits of any of its patrons."
As you can see, it just proves that they haven't gone to library. This is fine because the origibal story say they have gone to the student home. That makes perfect sense if they have spying on american citizens (i guess it is quite easy for echalon type system to catch mao in conversation).
I'm not quite sure I understand why RMS felt that the RFID was a violation of his privacy. It's a SECURITY BADGE. It's whole PURPOSE is to identify the wearer. If he didn't want to wear it, then he shouldn't have attended the event.
This badge does more. It broadcast signal without control from it owner. As contra example there are badges that must are touched to the metal button (aka scanner) to transmit their signal fully electonically (search for 1-wire).
On another hand RF ID could be easily used by terrorist to elimitate specific target. All they need is RF-aware bomb (modified RF-scanner).
I disagree that it's a "legitimate gripe." Remember, he wasn't out on a public road somewhere, but in a "what I suspect is) a secure facility.
Slashdot Mirror
NVidia can implement its own kernel (API and ABI compatible with linux) that have its own DMA-BUF implementation that uses the same API. This module would work on it. However it won't work on normal linux kernel.
The problem is that some kernel developers have implemented DRM system, that artificially limits the user in what he can do with his system. If he tries to compile a module that is not under GPL license, a selected number of functions would cause the build to fail. The freedom of the user is artificially taken away. Well, thanks to the GPL the user have the source and can hack the kernel to remove the marks of these function, however this is procedure that takes time and effort, that are basically wasted.
This is what NVidia wants removed. These functions are not special in any legal way. All kernel functions called by any module are covered under GPL, because the whole kernel (including the files from BSD) is GPL. NVidia doesn't want "something" from the kernel to be relicensed, it just wants the DRM on that API to be removed.
I'm just going a step further, the kernel doesn't need digital restriction management.
As for the making money part. Nobody can distribute GPL kernel and non-GPL kernel module together. It must be the end-user who creates this derivative work. So NVidia won't be able to use the "user loophole" on consumer devices like smartphones/tablets/etc. .
APIs GPL only? Seriously guys, WHAT THE FUCK?
That's not what's happening at all.
The basic fact is: the Linux kernel sources are GPL licensed. This was an early decision by Linus, and no amount of wishing will change that. There are just to many contributors that would have to approve a re-license.
Now, the GPL is very clear regarding derived work: if you distribute such a work, it needs to have a GPL-compatible license and provide sources.
What constitutes a derived work for a kernel? Basically, calling any code from the kernel would create a derived work, so the Linux license contains exemptions for user space code that calls the kernel through the public interface.
However, in this case the nVidia driver would call an internal kernel function, that is not exempted, so this would create a GPL derived work. The function is so low level that it would create an intimate bond between the Linux kernel and the nVidia binary driver.
Even if the Linux maintainers would allow this, anyone that wrote any part of Linux could start a court case against nVidia for breach of license. Would that be a better outcome?
If the above was even one bit true, non-GPL modules would have been completely forbidden from loading in the kernel at all. But they are not, here is explanation why.
The derived work of the GPL kernel and non-GPL NVidia module is produced when the module is loaded. This is when the linking of both happens. It is very important to note this, because the "calling" thing you are using is just red-herring.
This derived work is allowed because it is done by the user of the system. The result never leaves the memory of the user's system, so it is never distributed. GPL explicitly allows the user to do anything, as long as it doesn't involve distributing the result.
It also means that GPL kernel + non-GPL-nvidia cannot be distributed together.
If you take a look of the code that compiles the NVidia module for your kernel, you will notice that the code does not contain any GPL code in itself. It may require some kernel headers and config files, but these have been established to not be copyrightable (and thus no need of license for them).
So, what is the problem?
NVidia can implement its own kernel (API and ABI compatible with linux) that have its own DMA-BUF implementation that uses the same API. This module would work on it. However it won't work on normal linux kernel.
The problem is that some kernel developers have implemented DRM system, that artificially limits the user in what he can do with his system. If he tries to compile a module that is not under GPL license, a selected number of functions would cause the build to fail. The freedom of the user is artificially taken away. Well, thanks to the GPL the user can hack the kernel and remove the marks of these function, however this is procedure that takes time and effort that are basically wasted.
This is what NVidia wants removed. These functions are not special in any legal way. All kernel functions called by any module are covered under GPL, because the whole kernel (including the files from BSD) is GPL.
Just a few months ago everybody celebrated when Oracle lost miserably in court. Oracle tried to argue that Java API is copyrighted and Google have to pay insane amount of money for reimplementing Java-like language. It didn't work out. Also, it is not US only thing, there was a similar ruling in EU court that was also taken into consideration.
Now we have a linux developer (whom I respect deeply), who claims that parts of the linux kernel API is copyrighted and it could only be used under GPL.
I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways.
But this is not the worst thing in the situation. Let's assume that using the DMA-BUF by NVidia is indeed covered by GPL. The only thing that would be forbidden by GPL is the redistribution of the compiled module. All the users would be forced to compile one on their own.
And here comes the biggest absurd of all. There is a system in place to prevent that. It checks if kernel entry points are GPL and refuses to link with non-GPL code. This system is only causing problems to the users, nothing else.
Any distribution or company would have somebody smart enough to find the defines in the code and patch them (to allow compilation on the user system in accordance to GPL).
All this system does is violate the spirit of GPL.
It isn't against the Constitution to get rid of patents altogether. The constitutional amendment isn't because the constitution forces us to have patents, its because the only way to abolish patents is to take away congresses authority to create them. Congress will never willingly dismantle the patent system. Too many private parties are paying them not to.
Actually it is even simpler. You just have to prove that the patents do not "...promote the progress of science and useful arts.." and that they actually inhibit them. This is the legal ground in the Constitution that gives the Congress authority to create them. The founding father knew about the dangers of copyright and patents, this is why this clause also serves as fail safe.
Of course, nobody cares what this "goddamned piece of paper'" says anymore.
There's two problems with this. If something requires a lot of up-front investment to invent for the first time, then who will have an incentive to make this investment when someone else can take their finished product, reverse engineer it? They can then sell it at a lower price because they don't have to recoup the costs of the initial inventing process?
Plus, unless you have complete vertical integration of your supply chain, there's no such thing as a trade secret. Patents are the only thing that protects the inventor when they try to go into production. Let's say you invent some cool widget but don't own your own manufacturing facility to produce it. So you go to a factory and pay them to make your widgets. Oops... they have a "production problem" and your product will be delayed. In the mean time, taking your plans, they run their own production and get their own version out into the marketplace before they even ship your product. What do you do then?
I'm not saying the patent system is even close to perfect but it exists for a reason - to protect inventors so they are economically safe to invent things. Just ask Robert Kearns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns.
Nice reasoning. The only problem is that patents at the moment doesn't work (like this).
1. If something requires up-front investment to invent for a first time... it will never be invented. Inventions are either done as hobby in the free time and for the expense of the inventor, by R&D department of a company that already works in the field or by universities that work in this field. No outsider would invest in something that may not even be possible.
2. Patents are not the only things that protects a product. Schematics, chip and board layouts are also covered by a form of copyright.
3. I'm totally fine with 5 year patent that protects the inventor until it starts selling its product and establishes itself on the market. However in the current patent system you may not even get the patent for years. The fact that we have 17 years after grant or 20 after filling for a patent, implies that it is perfectly normal for a patent to not be granted in the first 3 years.
4. Robert Kearns have spent 20 year of his life and more than $10millions on legal fees in order to collect his money. Do you really think this is how the system is supposed to work? Involving courts means that the system have failed. Kearns should have spent his time working on new inventions...
The whole point is, the patents in their current form do more harm than good.
They do not protect the lone inventor. They cost too much. They are too slow to obtain. They are too broad. They give too much monopoly/veto power. They last too long. They do not promote useful arts, they actually inhibit them.
If I were to make a reform I would:
1. Limit the veto powers to 5 years. The remaining 15 years the inventor can only demand royalties under fair terms. (The fair terms are explicitly defined by the law).
2. Forbid selling and trading of a patents. They used to be issued to concrete people, now this have been mostly circumvented.
3. Limit the number of patents that could be issued in a single year (500-1000 in all fields combined). The patent examiners can focus on most innovative patents first and ignore the other. One examiner should pick one single patent per year. He should do all examinations of novelty, prior arts and general usefulness of the patent. The quality of the patent would also serve as investment/loan guarantee.
Who would want normal beer, when you can drink Nuka-Cola. Keep the caps.
On the other hand if you ask for less than $10,000 in arbitration they'll pay for your lawyer fees win or lose.
On the other hand if you ask for less than $10,000 in arbitration they'll pay for your lawyer fees win or lose.
If you are going to dispute for a small amount of money you are always better off using Small Claims Court. It is a real court and you can expect to get a real fair verdict. Most of the small claims courts even forbid lawyers.
On the other side arbitration in USA is known to be so biased that it is literally a farce (in 99.9% of the cases). The arbitration is done by private entities under little to no oversight, you are going to face corporate lawyers and the arbitration is binding, meaning you can't appeal it . The arbitration is biased because the corporation can pick not only the arbitration company but also the actual arbiter. Here is the testimony of an arbiter that got rejected after single judgment in favor of a customer.
Buying something IS a contract! At it's most basic level it is an agreement to exchange physical items or services.
Buying is indeed a contract. However is EULA part of that contract or is it another contract on its own?
For EULA to be part of the buying contract, it must be presented before entering into the contract. That is, EULA must be presented before paying. Otherwise both parties are not on equal ground. (Or you should also be able to amend the buying contract with whatever your imagination could spawn).
If EULA is separate contract, then rejecting it must not void your original contract. This means, I should still be able to use the product I've paid for. Otherwise both parties are not on equal ground as one of them pays money and doesn't get anything in return.
Say the vaccine is 96% effective and we're studying a population of 1000 kids.
From the article
So, the maximum effectiveness is 50%, if you keep 100% of the kids vaccinated at max level (with more regular shots) , you would still be a way lower than the minimum of 75% needed for herd immunity (for sickness with low transmission rate) .
Actually ACTA have been ratified by Executive Order of president Obama on 1 October 2011.
http://www.factoverfiction.com/article/7003
Groat said the report was based on a review of previously published data rather than fresh field observations. "We did not go out and measure things," he acknowledged.
Well, your result are only as good as your sources.
The problem is that the government is not reversing any of its past actions.
It is not removing its signature under ACTA, its parliamentary group would not even let a proposal for official refusal of ratification to be presented to the parliament.
For all that matters, Bulgaria can just ratify ACTA tomorrow.
The official stance is to delay until the EU parliament makes a decision and then to repeat whatever that decision is. It seems that the ACTA proponents would try to delay the vote in the EU parliament. They hope that the matter would fade away from public conscious and at some point they would do a sudden silent vote on it, like the first one.
Whenever that happens, Bulgaria can ratify ACTA on the very next day.
Minor correction, the normal concentration in sea water is 0.035%. This means the 2% is actually about 57-60 times the norm.
Not long ago I watched a TV program that presented the work of Japanese scientist Izuru Senaha . He have found that seaweed grows optimally at 2% CO2 concentration (72 times the normal concentration in sea water). They use method (developed by Masanori Hiraoka) where the seaweeds are in constant motion to boost their growth.
He is making experiments by collecting CO2 from local power plants and using it to grow seaweed.
It would make a lot more sense to have farms for rapid growth than having to collect seaweed from the ocean.
This method alone could be great for collecting the carbon from the air and making it into solid form (thus reversing the greenhouse effect). But that would not be profitable on its own.
Have you forgotten about Stuxnet?
That virus was designed to sabotage industrial equipment that was not connected to internet. It was designed to propagate though removable drives and local networks. And Stuxnet did reach its target and sabotaged it successfully without even causing suspicion.
Imagine that the Chinese/Russians modify Stuxnet (I've read it is quite modular) to infiltrate the UAV control. Imagine that they add module that activates only when the drone enters GPS coordinates of China/Russia. This module could do a number of nasty things. Turning on active radar, so that the drone would shine like a super nova on the radar. Increase the chance of drone crashing. Introduce slight error in missile target coordinates and always hit few hundred feet off the target.
Just the radar thing would be enough disaster. In peaceful time the enemy may decide to ignore it and just track the path of the drone (and hide). In armed conflict, there are missiles that use the radar signal for target homing. It's very likely that a great number of the drones would be destroyed before somebody realizes that the enemy doesn't have miracle super secret drone tracking technology.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
&
The devil is in the details.
From your description I understand that the new institution would sue "larger companies" on behalf of small patent holders. Now if these small patent holders are patent trolls, this institution service would be like a pipe dream for them. Patent trolls could sue everybody everywhere and expenses would be covered by taxpayers.
I'm not saying that protecting small manufactures is bad thing, but fundamental principles should be established so that this "great power" won't be abused in just one or two decades.
If this institution works like MPEG-LA, then maybe it could do more good than harm.
It's all in the details.
"The nonpatentability of mathematics refers literally to patenting a formula or algorithm without any useful application"
I think the problem here is quite the opposite, the problem is patenting of formula or algorithm for all possible useful applications. And my claim is that if you patent for all possible useful applications, then you haven't actually patented for any of them (because you have not mentioned any).
Take for the example the patent in questions. "The specification makes it clear that 'information storage and retrieval system' refers to a computer system". The problem here is that the computer systems already exist, they existed and they did operate long before this patent was filled and they would continue doing so. The computers do store and retrieve information and they've been doing it for decades in a million of different ways. This patent describes algortitm for working with _abstract_ data. Thus it does not describe any useful application of that abstract data.
How, if the patent said "efficent malloc implementation allowing storage and tertival of heap memory in RAM" or "Efficent garbidge collection in programming language" then these would have been usefual applications, and that patent would not apply for "Efficent file retrival of Flash drives".
So in short, if you patent algorithm for working with abstract data, you patent pure math.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/squalene-the-swine-flu-vaccine%E2%80%99s-dirty-little-secret-exposed.html
It's nice read.
In short, to make vaccine cheaper, they use additative that is very likely the cause of autoimmune diseases know as Gulf War Syndrome.
Vaccines have always been trade-offs, however here we have the following decision: 25% to get GWS if vaccinated or 0.1% of dying from Swine Flu if infected.
(Watch documentary "The Future of the Food" for more details)
The biggest problem here is how to revert to non-contaminated crops and how to prevent future contamination (aka stop the wind from blowing).
Linux 2.6.24.1
commit cece280a46c9b5c0adb4d5251f42c082a578e1ad
Author: Jens Axboe
Date: Fri Feb 8 08:49:14 2008 -0800
splice: missing user pointer access verification (CVE-2008-0009/10)
patch 8811930dc74a503415b35c4a79d14fb0b408a361 in mainline.
vmsplice_to_user() must always check the user pointer and length
with access_ok() before copying. Likewise, for the slow path of
copy_from_user_mmap_sem() we need to check that we may read from
the user region.
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
Cc: Wojciech Purczynski
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
It looks like the fix for this exploit have been released 3 days ago.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2. Astron Clinica: a system and process for generating realistic images representing the results of planned cosmetic or surgical interventions which change the actual or apparent distribution of underlying skin chomophores.
3. Inrotis: methods of identifying groups of target proteins for drug theray by processing proteome data defining proteins and protein interactions.
4. SurfKitchen: an invention to improve the ability of mobile telephones to access services on the Internet by pre-storing a program on a mobile telephone memory or by downloading the program from the Internet.
5. Cyan Technology: a method of generating data for configuring micro-prodcts which greatly simplifies chip design and programming.
These days you can find computer in everything. The line between casual electronic and computers is getting smaller and smaller.
Still, I think it is possible to put an clear line where the software patent ends and normal patent begins.
If the invention only improves the working of existing hardware, then it is software patent.
If the invention requires hardware modifications in order to work, then the way of using this modifications to achieve this result is patentable.
In other words
1. If you add new optic component to the printer to fine-print the bit masks, you patent it.
2. If you need wider spectrum camera and/or filter to see "invisible" for naked eye skin formations, you patent the use of camera to get that data.
3. If you use special chemical to make the target protein glow and be visible to camera, you patent that process.
4. If you put more memory on a phone to cache more things you try to patent that, (nothing innovative here)
5. If you find a way to put transistors in a way that would improve chip parameters - you patent it. Not the program that does it.
As all the patents in question are distributed on disk and can be used on existing and (some of them) on generic computers they are software patents.
If patent could be described without the involvement of computer then it should be done so. In theory this gives much wider coverage as it would cover doing same process without computer (e.g. manually). However, the practice have shown that once you patent program for doing something in some way, you don't patent the way, you patent the doing.
1. Patent dithering in printers.
2. Patent Photoshoping in cosmetics.
3. Patent object recognition in biology.
4. Patent caching in phones.
5. Patent layout generating programs.
This is what they really want to patent. And this is why they should not be allowed to.
if I write something, it's mine to do whatever I want with
Let's take the analogy code==people.
Your parents made you. They did the work using their own instruments and materials to do so (their bodies). Does this mean that you belong to them and they can do whatever they want with you? Beat you? Labor you? Slave you? Harras you? Abuse you? Kill you? Eat you?
In this society this is not the case. People belong to the society and parants are obligated to take care of their children, not to own them.
In this society copyrighted work is not propriety of the creator, but of the society. It is that the society have given the author temporal monopoly of the work.
It just proves that:
This doesn't proove that the student lied but that it have been quoted wrongly.
The other thing that have to proove this is hoax is:
As you can see, it just proves that they haven't gone to library. This is fine because the origibal story say they have gone to the student home. That makes perfect sense if they have spying on american citizens (i guess it is quite easy for echalon type system to catch mao in conversation).
This badge does more. It broadcast signal without control from it owner. As contra example there are badges that must are touched to the metal button (aka scanner) to transmit their signal fully electonically (search for 1-wire).
On another hand RF ID could be easily used by terrorist to elimitate specific target. All they need is RF-aware bomb (modified RF-scanner). Secure facility? This sound like prison.
Dupe.5 8&tid=167
I knew I had read this news. It is from http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/02/21472