Don't misunderstand me - I am not saying that the patent has any commercial value. However, to say there is no invention is incorrect. The specific invention has to do with how the flux is controlled, and not whether there is any other use. The criteria as to whether it is patentable does not have anything to do with a specific usefulness at the next level of abstraction. So, it doesn't really matter as to whether there are other ways to accomplish a similar end-result. If this is a new way to do it (novelty), is unique (non-obviousness), and actually works (reduced to practice) - then it probably has some chance of being a patentable invention. In any case - my point was that it was very poor form to insult the patent examiner by calling him names without any real understanding of the patent, or what the patent process really is and does.
Just because the invention does not seem to be useful, does not mean its not an invention. Indeed, sometimes the value of an invention is only seen much latter in light of some other new technology in a totally unexpected way. So - you are totally off base saying there is no invention.
(Ahem). I would hold back on the whole "ignoramus" bit. If you bothered to read the patent, there is nothing wrong with it. It does not claim any "over-unity" crap. All it claims are some methods for controlling a flux path. And in fact, if you bothered to read the patent, look at the drawings, oh - and had the background to understand it - perhaps you might have realized this. I think you owe the patent examiner an apology. His name is Fritz Fleming.
I am not so sure that TC is contrary to Apple's philosophy - although it may run counter to the public's perception of Apple. It's likely the main reason they are not copy protecting the retail version of OS X is that you have to own Apple hardware in the first place, and it is in their interest that people have it on systems that are capable of running it - so that they can sell applications.
However, it is not true that all releases OS X do not employ copy protection. The new re-install disks are now specific to the platform you buy. If you buy an iMac and give the 10.3 disks to a friend who has a PowerMac - it will not install on that hardware - a de facto copy control measure.
Since Apple is all about content and media, and it's main processor is from IBM now (PPC970FX), and IBM is a major proponent of TC - it is simply a matter of time until it happens on the Apple platforms too IMHO.
Also, if application and web-based applications (think banking) require this in the near future - then Apple can simply say something like - "Well we did not want to do it, but our customers are demading it to conduct online banking" etc...
Remember, Apple is a business - not a charity. Any actions they take are made with the simple test as to whether it will be a profitable undertaking. And TC means more profit for the content providers (read - big business).
Not true. Check this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/14/atomic.clock/
December 22, 2004
current estimate of quantity production is $100, and the device is brand new and not commercially available. Most time sources with adequate jitter control at processor frequencies are over $2500. It is not the average time base accuracy anyway... it is jitter and skew - not quite the same thing..
PS.. I am involved in designs that involve these issues... We actually have a GPS timebase in the lab right now - it has 90ns skew over a 1Hz tick - it's about $2500 new.
Actually, this is probably not correct. They are measuring the skew from packet to packet. You could never reset your system enough times to prevent the measurement. However, there are 2 easy ways to defeat this:
Software: Modify the TCP stack to intentionally create timestamp statistics that change. You would not want to make every timestamp skewed random or p-random as that would be a thumbprint too. You would want use a random skew for some 'n' number of packets and then change to another random skew. This would prevent someone from compiling enough statics to characterize the machine.
Hardware: Implement a man-in-the-middle hardware box that takes all incoming packets, then only change the timestamp. You would use an algorithm like the software above... but it would protect any machine.
In fact... if I design one.. will anyone buy it from me?!!!
The biggest problem in this plan is that Wal-Mart would demand pricing that was better then what they get for regular PC's... and if you did that, you would probably not have any margin left - or you would be losing money.
BTW, designing and making a "locked down" case, and conformal coating the board etc. would really jack your costs. Also, the testing/R&D required to test it like you are saying would be pretty expensive (in time or money depending on how you go about it...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't misunderstand me - I am not saying that the patent has any commercial value. However, to say there is no invention is incorrect. The specific invention has to do with how the flux is controlled, and not whether there is any other use. The criteria as to whether it is patentable does not have anything to do with a specific usefulness at the next level of abstraction. So, it doesn't really matter as to whether there are other ways to accomplish a similar end-result. If this is a new way to do it (novelty), is unique (non-obviousness), and actually works (reduced to practice) - then it probably has some chance of being a patentable invention. In any case - my point was that it was very poor form to insult the patent examiner by calling him names without any real understanding of the patent, or what the patent process really is and does.
Just because the invention does not seem to be useful, does not mean its not an invention. Indeed, sometimes the value of an invention is only seen much latter in light of some other new technology in a totally unexpected way. So - you are totally off base saying there is no invention.
(Ahem). I would hold back on the whole "ignoramus" bit. If you bothered to read the patent, there is nothing wrong with it. It does not claim any "over-unity" crap. All it claims are some methods for controlling a flux path. And in fact, if you bothered to read the patent, look at the drawings, oh - and had the background to understand it - perhaps you might have realized this. I think you owe the patent examiner an apology. His name is Fritz Fleming.
However, it is not true that all releases OS X do not employ copy protection. The new re-install disks are now specific to the platform you buy. If you buy an iMac and give the 10.3 disks to a friend who has a PowerMac - it will not install on that hardware - a de facto copy control measure.
Since Apple is all about content and media, and it's main processor is from IBM now (PPC970FX), and IBM is a major proponent of TC - it is simply a matter of time until it happens on the Apple platforms too IMHO.
Also, if application and web-based applications (think banking) require this in the near future - then Apple can simply say something like - "Well we did not want to do it, but our customers are demading it to conduct online banking" etc...
Remember, Apple is a business - not a charity. Any actions they take are made with the simple test as to whether it will be a profitable undertaking. And TC means more profit for the content providers (read - big business).
Which poster are you refering too .. the top parent?
Not true. Check this article: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/14/atomic.clock/ December 22, 2004 current estimate of quantity production is $100, and the device is brand new and not commercially available. Most time sources with adequate jitter control at processor frequencies are over $2500. It is not the average time base accuracy anyway ... it is jitter and skew - not quite the same thing..
PS .. I am involved in designs that involve these issues... We actually have a GPS timebase in the lab right now - it has 90ns skew over a 1Hz tick - it's about $2500 new.
Actually, this is probably not correct. They are measuring the skew from packet to packet. You could never reset your system enough times to prevent the measurement. However, there are 2 easy ways to defeat this: Software: Modify the TCP stack to intentionally create timestamp statistics that change. You would not want to make every timestamp skewed random or p-random as that would be a thumbprint too. You would want use a random skew for some 'n' number of packets and then change to another random skew. This would prevent someone from compiling enough statics to characterize the machine. Hardware: Implement a man-in-the-middle hardware box that takes all incoming packets, then only change the timestamp. You would use an algorithm like the software above ... but it would protect any machine.
In fact ... if I design one .. will anyone buy it from me?!!!
for stealing mp3's ....
The biggest problem in this plan is that Wal-Mart would demand pricing that was better then what they get for regular PC's ... and if you did that, you would probably not have any margin left - or you would be losing money.
BTW, designing and making a "locked down" case, and conformal coating the board etc. would really jack your costs. Also, the testing/R&D required to test it like you are saying would be pretty expensive (in time or money depending on how you go about it...