"If I invent Widget A that performs task A, and am awarded patent "Widget A for performing Task A", and someone realized widget A will also perform task B without any modifications, they can't patent "Widget A for peforming task B", because I still own the patent for Widget A, which is all that really matters. I own the exclusive rights for Widget A, no one else can reproduce Widget A regardless of what they want use it for. Amazon didn't invent one-clicking (didn't Microsoft patent that recently?), so they can't say no one else can use one-clicking for checking-out. "
Wrong, the CAN get a patent on it (if it is indeed New, involves and Invenitive Step and is Industrially applicable). However, they cannot work the invention without your infringing your patent. But, you cannot use your Widget A for performing task B, because that is what they have exclusive rights to. So, if task B is interesting, you'd better talk with the other patent owners to make a deal.
"So what is it that requires that it be installed on only one computer? The license agreement."
No, copyright law.
A EULA shouldn't be allowed to implement more restrictions than copyright law, except for restricting the responsibility of the manufacturer (Apple) that may limit proper functioning to Apple hardware, clauses that you shouldn't use the software to run nuclear plants etc.
But what the buyer of the software does with (or to) the software, should be entirely up to the buyer. Nail it to the wall, use it for initial numbers for a random number generator, whatever. That and everything under the sun, except for distributing copies of the software.
Well, you can repeat your earlier statement but on the bold assumption that I'm not entirely stupid that won't make a difference. Yes, a big company could rip the idea but they cannot start before the small company has its product on the market. You do know that it took MS until Windows 95 before they had an OS as user-friendly as the 1984 Mac, right? You may not realise how many start-ups receive a "no, too risky" from investors because the start-up cannot guarantee that they aren't infringing someone's patent. Now, that may always be a problem, but it is especially true for software. There are so many aspects to a program, and programmers solve problems all the time, that it is quite likely that the programmer(s) of the start-up come up with something covered by someone else's software "invention". Big companies don't have that problem. Philips and Sony aren't in court all the time. They settle things among each other. Apple isn't in court to fight MS all the time. They have a deal. Big companies aren't kind to small companies. Small companies might grow big. It is exactly your system that is bad for the consumer. Companies like Philips and MS lobbied for software patents because it is devastating for the smaller companies (I have seen them at work myself here in the Netherlands, in a meeting with the person of ministry of economic affairs who is one level low. There is only one such person and is allowed to call herself minister when abroad, because of the influential nature of the position).
You may have a great software idea, but you're not likely to be able to implement it without infringing on other software patents. Really, MS etc. have the time to wait you out, until your funds run out.
I'm a patent agent and against software patents. Granted, I may be one of the exceptions.
While the patent system has its merits, it is a rather blunt tool. A patent is basically a trade between society and an inventor. The inventor tells his secret, society gets to use it for free after (up to) 20 years. For software, that balance is disturbed. Most patents on software merely phrase a wish. For software, the hard work is the implementation. For other inventions, a patented product is sold and the buyer is free to use it any way he sees fit. A software "invention" cannot be bought as such, it may be available as part of a program, but that program may not run on your computer, and even if it does it may not co-operate with the programs you want it to co-operate with. I could go on, but let me make a (weak) attempt to defend them. There are only a few software inventions that I'd really call inventions, and that is the compression type inventions. I cannot tell the guy who develops programs for my company to write a compression algorithm. Sure, he can implement one, but coming up with a (good) algorithm is beyond most mortals.
Nevertheless they have already won in practice. The EPO basically grants software patents, but not for a computer program per se. However, if on a physical carrier, then it is patentable. So, what is excluded is software programs that float in a vacuum. To be complete there is a minor requirement which is adhered to requiring some physical significance, but this hurdle is not really a hurdle.
Usually patent ground is conquered in a fierce battle by patent agents, but in this case it was an overzealous Dutch EPO employee that shifted the fence posts in consecutive decisions, each time stretching his own previous decisions until he reached the opposite and current situation: Yes, software can be patented over here.
Sorry, for the word "prison". Everybody knows I meant home of the free when I wrote it.
Bert Who understands why no real American can keeps his eyes dry when singing about the home of the free. For Europeans the effect of this part of the lyrics is limited to stimulation of the laugh muscles. It is sad though that people are raised in a self-perpetuating delusional state.
You know, from the silly facts you give I can read your nationality.
I'm just wondering why you don't do body cavity searches every day. They are seven and nine. They COULD use drugs, you know. Or smuggle chewing gum into their prison.
Given that it appears to be a way of judgment without a court involved, I cannot say I'm a fan. In any case, life without Internet is not really possible (you may even be required to do it in dealings with the government), so third strike should be no more severe than throttling speeds to near 14 k modem speeds. Enough to be major nuisance, but not cut off completely
So, Slashdot is a war zone, where an army of trolls is active. How about the dead-wood news paper, both the editorial parts and the Letters to the editor part?
Me thinks he is dodging the question.
Bert 3 million attacks on the Pentagon a day? That will include any port scan, I presume. I'm wondering how many attacks my router modem deals with. Perhaps I can use that info to get money somewhere too.
And it is not just that the Firefox programmers are brilliant and creative.
In its own way one should acknowledge the strategic brilliance of the way the record was planned. By being US centric (as in, failing to recognise that there is something like human beings abroad), the 24 hour period was set to start such that people in countries like NZ, AU and JP were frustrated in not seeing the new version when the due date arrived, (or downloaded old stuff, ha ha). For those who waited, they were joined by hoards of Europeans and Brits (I'm sure they appreciate this gesture) who had to wait until the evening before they could join the Americans to swamp the servers. Those Europeans who gave up before local 12 PM and didn't realise that they could still help to set the record by downloading it in the morning, also failed to add to the number of copies downloaded. So, in short, the Mozilla organisation has made it easy for themselves to beat their own record, provided they are brilliant enough to recognise the rude brilliance of the first record attempt.
If I visit a website, I'm accessing a computer according to that article. How do I know it was meant to provide me access. I didn't receive an e-mail from Cmdr Taco that it would be OK to visit./
There are websites with passwords, so I shouldn't go there. That is fair. But isn't it equally fair to assume that if it isn't locked, it is OK to enter. I'm not very good at mind-reading, you know. And face it, there is no one to ask.
As to the router being a computer. Does it HAVE to be a computer. It could be a hard-wired thing, couldn't it. Just the fact that they made it fancy and all with features I don't use, doesn't mean I have to know the type of router to know whether I break the law or not, do I?
Many people frown on that. I don't care. Even if you'd written your name and you were (the) George Bush, Julia Roberts, Stephen Hawking or the local greengrocer that wouldn't have mattered for the weight of the arguments. They are right or wrong irrespective of who says it.
I don't care whether your example is flawed. Analogies usually go wrong at some point anyway, so do big deal. What is important that science is a method of operating, of increasing knowledge, and of weeding out what is not correct. As a scientist you can get famous (and funds!) by discovering something new, by proving that something is true, but also by proving that something is wrong. In fact, if someone were to prove that the earth is . Scientists are used to shift if reality requires that of us. You probably know the saying that the tragedy of science is that a beautiful theory (hypothesis would be a better word) is that it can be killed by an ugly fact. For scientists, humility is taught the hard way in that you cannot bend reality. Oops, I'm sidetracking a bit. The important thing is that science has a powerful set of tools, and we can do experiments to figure things out (both for real and by logic in our heads) . Perhaps god(s) exist(s). So far, no evidence for that.
No religious books exist that contain knowledge that couldn't be known to the people at the time. It wouldn't have been too hard to write a passage in the bible/qu'ran/thora/whatever that spiral-shaped strands of life exist, in mammal made up as pairs of strands having 4 building blocks. When a man and a woman get together each provides half the strands. Now, that would have been something that couldn't be known and would show that the book indeed has non-human-only influences.
To educate yourself on the non-creation of mankind, you may want to check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI With a modicum of high-school biology you'd see that at best god created us by evolution, not by mucking around with mud.
"I'm merely practicing defending my faith." Just to be sure, I'm not attacking it. I'm a "truth first" guy, and if your religion is at some points at odd with that, it is nothing to be ashamed of and it is in good company with other meme-based religions.
In the absence of any proof of a god and with 100% certainty that intelligent life developed once, it is only guessing that among the billions of galaxies it could have happened at least one more time. If I have to set a bet, I know where I'd put my money.
I've walked in the desert and appreciate the pristine environment. Would it be OK to cut down the arches in Arches national parc if no plant/animal is hurt?
"it's simply too expensive". For how much may I kill you? How much to do your wife? We'll give her a sleeping pill and she wouldn't be much worse for wear after a shower; so what would be the problem? There are things that have value beyond $.
Walking around knowing that what I see above me is an open mine pit does take away value from my life. Especially if it is done carelessly, just because something else is more expensive.
If there are people who cannot go to the moon without behaving responsibly, they shouldn't go.
All you need is 10 meters (yards, retards) of fence. Put it up, and create a home in what others would call "outside" the fence but you call inside the fence because that is where your home is. The tiny spot is left for others.
Bert Who'd hate to see the moon mined for He3. We're already wrecking a planet, we should have learned something from that.
"It convinced me that nothing short of an act of God can extinguish life from this planet. "
One might think that because skydaddy doesn't exist we're safe then. However, mother Nature can do it well on its own: There are explosions in the universe so powerful that they can destroy life even if the explosion is hundreds of light years away. Google for gamma ray-bursts.
Slashdot Mirror
without your infringing your patent => without infringing your patent.
(yeah, preview button, I know. But sometimes you feel lucky, even though you're not)
Bert
"If I invent Widget A that performs task A, and am awarded patent "Widget A for performing Task A", and someone realized widget A will also perform task B without any modifications, they can't patent "Widget A for peforming task B", because I still own the patent for Widget A, which is all that really matters. I own the exclusive rights for Widget A, no one else can reproduce Widget A regardless of what they want use it for. Amazon didn't invent one-clicking (didn't Microsoft patent that recently?), so they can't say no one else can use one-clicking for checking-out. "
Wrong, the CAN get a patent on it (if it is indeed New, involves and Invenitive Step and is Industrially applicable). However, they cannot work the invention without your infringing your patent. But, you cannot use your Widget A for performing task B, because that is what they have exclusive rights to. So, if task B is interesting, you'd better talk with the other patent owners to make a deal.
Bert
If they sin enough, it will get stained in time.
Bert
"A pissed off judge might decide to rule against every objection, pleading, or motion the defendant makes throughout the rest of the trial. "
Must be fun to live in a country with such a legal system.
Bert
"So what is it that requires that it be installed on only one computer? The license agreement."
No, copyright law.
A EULA shouldn't be allowed to implement more restrictions than copyright law, except for restricting the responsibility of the manufacturer (Apple) that may limit proper functioning to Apple hardware, clauses that you shouldn't use the software to run nuclear plants etc.
But what the buyer of the software does with (or to) the software, should be entirely up to the buyer. Nail it to the wall, use it for initial numbers for a random number generator, whatever. That and everything under the sun, except for distributing copies of the software.
Bert
Well, you can repeat your earlier statement but on the bold assumption that I'm not entirely stupid that won't make a difference. Yes, a big company could rip the idea but they cannot start before the small company has its product on the market. You do know that it took MS until Windows 95 before they had an OS as user-friendly as the 1984 Mac, right? You may not realise how many start-ups receive a "no, too risky" from investors because the start-up cannot guarantee that they aren't infringing someone's patent. Now, that may always be a problem, but it is especially true for software. There are so many aspects to a program, and programmers solve problems all the time, that it is quite likely that the programmer(s) of the start-up come up with something covered by someone else's software "invention". Big companies don't have that problem. Philips and Sony aren't in court all the time. They settle things among each other. Apple isn't in court to fight MS all the time. They have a deal. Big companies aren't kind to small companies. Small companies might grow big. It is exactly your system that is bad for the consumer. Companies like Philips and MS lobbied for software patents because it is devastating for the smaller companies (I have seen them at work myself here in the Netherlands, in a meeting with the person of ministry of economic affairs who is one level low. There is only one such person and is allowed to call herself minister when abroad, because of the influential nature of the position).
You may have a great software idea, but you're not likely to be able to implement it without infringing on other software patents. Really, MS etc. have the time to wait you out, until your funds run out.
Bert
I'm a patent agent and against software patents. Granted, I may be one of the exceptions.
While the patent system has its merits, it is a rather blunt tool. A patent is basically a trade between society and an inventor. The inventor tells his secret, society gets to use it for free after (up to) 20 years. For software, that balance is disturbed. Most patents on software merely phrase a wish. For software, the hard work is the implementation. For other inventions, a patented product is sold and the buyer is free to use it any way he sees fit. A software "invention" cannot be bought as such, it may be available as part of a program, but that program may not run on your computer, and even if it does it may not co-operate with the programs you want it to co-operate with. I could go on, but let me make a (weak) attempt to defend them. There are only a few software inventions that I'd really call inventions, and that is the compression type inventions. I cannot tell the guy who develops programs for my company to write a compression algorithm. Sure, he can implement one, but coming up with a (good) algorithm is beyond most mortals.
Bert
Nevertheless they have already won in practice. The EPO basically grants software patents, but not for a computer program per se. However, if on a physical carrier, then it is patentable. So, what is excluded is software programs that float in a vacuum. To be complete there is a minor requirement which is adhered to requiring some physical significance, but this hurdle is not really a hurdle.
Usually patent ground is conquered in a fierce battle by patent agents, but in this case it was an overzealous Dutch EPO employee that shifted the fence posts in consecutive decisions, each time stretching his own previous decisions until he reached the opposite and current situation: Yes, software can be patented over here.
Bert
I guess this is proof (finally!) that Microsoft stimulates innovation.
Bert
Who now thinks proof of yagolah's (in)existence is around the corner
Sorry, for the word "prison". Everybody knows I meant home of the free when I wrote it.
Bert
Who understands why no real American can keeps his eyes dry when singing about the home of the free. For Europeans the effect of this part of the lyrics is limited to stimulation of the laugh muscles. It is sad though that people are raised in a self-perpetuating delusional state.
You know, from the silly facts you give I can read your nationality.
I'm just wondering why you don't do body cavity searches every day. They are seven and nine. They COULD use drugs, you know. Or smuggle chewing gum into their prison.
Bert
Given that it appears to be a way of judgment without a court involved, I cannot say I'm a fan. In any case, life without Internet is not really possible (you may even be required to do it in dealings with the government), so third strike should be no more severe than throttling speeds to near 14 k modem speeds. Enough to be major nuisance, but not cut off completely
Bert
So, Slashdot is a war zone, where an army of trolls is active. How about the dead-wood news paper, both the editorial parts and the Letters to the editor part?
Me thinks he is dodging the question.
Bert
3 million attacks on the Pentagon a day? That will include any port scan, I presume. I'm wondering how many attacks my router modem deals with. Perhaps I can use that info to get money somewhere too.
And it is not just that the Firefox programmers are brilliant and creative.
In its own way one should acknowledge the strategic brilliance of the way the record was planned. By being US centric (as in, failing to recognise that there is something like human beings abroad), the 24 hour period was set to start such that people in countries like NZ, AU and JP were frustrated in not seeing the new version when the due date arrived, (or downloaded old stuff, ha ha). For those who waited, they were joined by hoards of Europeans and Brits (I'm sure they appreciate this gesture) who had to wait until the evening before they could join the Americans to swamp the servers. Those Europeans who gave up before local 12 PM and didn't realise that they could still help to set the record by downloading it in the morning, also failed to add to the number of copies downloaded. So, in short, the Mozilla organisation has made it easy for themselves to beat their own record, provided they are brilliant enough to recognise the rude brilliance of the first record attempt.
Bert
Exactly, and because it is officially not religion (the law says so), science teachers can fire both barrels at full power at the crackpot ID.
The only weak point is that it depends on the teachers (who may well believe in the BS) whether it works.
Bert
Who is thinking of changing occupation and becoming a science teacher for years.
If I visit a website, I'm accessing a computer according to that article. How do I know it was meant to provide me access. I didn't receive an e-mail from Cmdr Taco that it would be OK to visit ./
There are websites with passwords, so I shouldn't go there. That is fair. But isn't it equally fair to assume that if it isn't locked, it is OK to enter. I'm not very good at mind-reading, you know. And face it, there is no one to ask.
As to the router being a computer. Does it HAVE to be a computer. It could be a hard-wired thing, couldn't it. Just the fact that they made it fancy and all with features I don't use, doesn't mean I have to know the type of router to know whether I break the law or not, do I?
Bert
"I never heard the Great Man giving credit to anyone else but himself."
Ever watched a keynote? At the end there is a big Thank You from Steve with an ovation for the people who actually pulled it all off.
Bert
I'd love to love her, but her religion doesn't let her.
Bert
Th French (Les Bleus) lost from the Dutch yesterday in the European soccxr game.
"anonymous coward".
Many people frown on that. I don't care. Even if you'd written your name and you were (the) George Bush, Julia Roberts, Stephen Hawking or the local greengrocer that wouldn't have mattered for the weight of the arguments. They are right or wrong irrespective of who says it.
I don't care whether your example is flawed. Analogies usually go wrong at some point anyway, so do big deal. What is important that science is a method of operating, of increasing knowledge, and of weeding out what is not correct. As a scientist you can get famous (and funds!) by discovering something new, by proving that something is true, but also by proving that something is wrong. In fact, if someone were to prove that the earth is . Scientists are used to shift if reality requires that of us. You probably know the saying that the tragedy of science is that a beautiful theory (hypothesis would be a better word) is that it can be killed by an ugly fact. For scientists, humility is taught the hard way in that you cannot bend reality. Oops, I'm sidetracking a bit. The important thing is that science has a powerful set of tools, and we can do experiments to figure things out (both for real and by logic in our heads) . Perhaps god(s) exist(s). So far, no evidence for that.
No religious books exist that contain knowledge that couldn't be known to the people at the time. It wouldn't have been too hard to write a passage in the bible/qu'ran/thora/whatever that spiral-shaped strands of life exist, in mammal made up as pairs of strands having 4 building blocks. When a man and a woman get together each provides half the strands. Now, that would have been something that couldn't be known and would show that the book indeed has non-human-only influences.
To educate yourself on the non-creation of mankind, you may want to check out this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
With a modicum of high-school biology you'd see that at best god created us by evolution, not by mucking around with mud.
As to what why I don't believe in a particular religion, you could check out this link:
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php
"I'm merely practicing defending my faith."
Just to be sure, I'm not attacking it. I'm a "truth first" guy, and if your religion is at some points at odd with that, it is nothing to be ashamed of and it is in good company with other meme-based religions.
If you don't agree and want to do more practicing, you may want to visit http://richarddawkins.net/forum/
Have a nice day,
Bert
In the absence of any proof of a god and with 100% certainty that intelligent life developed once, it is only guessing that among the billions of galaxies it could have happened at least one more time. If I have to set a bet, I know where I'd put my money.
Bert
I've walked in the desert and appreciate the pristine environment. Would it be OK to cut down the arches in Arches national parc if no plant/animal is hurt?
"it's simply too expensive". For how much may I kill you? How much to do your wife? We'll give her a sleeping pill and she wouldn't be much worse for wear after a shower; so what would be the problem? There are things that have value beyond $.
Walking around knowing that what I see above me is an open mine pit does take away value from my life. Especially if it is done carelessly, just because something else is more expensive.
If there are people who cannot go to the moon without behaving responsibly, they shouldn't go.
Bert
Any beaver should do what it is made for
All you need is 10 meters (yards, retards) of fence. Put it up, and create a home in what others would call "outside" the fence but you call inside the fence because that is where your home is. The tiny spot is left for others.
Bert
Who'd hate to see the moon mined for He3. We're already wrecking a planet, we should have learned something from that.
Every church is self proclaimed.
Bert
"It convinced me that nothing short of an act of God can extinguish life from this planet. "
One might think that because skydaddy doesn't exist we're safe then. However, mother Nature can do it well on its own: There are explosions in the universe so powerful that they can destroy life even if the explosion is hundreds of light years away. Google for gamma ray-bursts.
Bert