Even if the passwords are encrypted with a one way hash, you can still figure them out. Anyone who deals with passwords frequently will learn the hashes in their system for a few common passwords (e.g. password, admin, etc.). If you have reason to believe that a particular password is being used, you can easily enough check by hashing it out and comparing (or just try to login with it).
This is not nearly as simple as reading a clear text password but still quite possible.
1. A "rubber stamp" that frequently fails on the first try and costs thousands to prosecute to conclusion (in fees and preparation costs).
2. A court is going to be reluctant to overrule the result of the original patent examination. The court is even more of a generalist than the patent examiner. As such, they can be expected to be even less capable of appreciating the technical details of individual cases. It is natural to rely on the patent examiners judgment unless a strong reason is offered to disregard it.
Under the current system, we rely on the patent examiner to maintain an adversarial relation with the applicant. Patent examiners are required to meet a quota of applications processed. If they refuse the application, it might come back (in a renewed application).
Under this system, the patent reviewer is more of a mediator. The fees can be time based, so there does not need to be a quota. The parties can spend as much time as it takes to do a thorough review. Further, disputes can potentially come back when patents are *not* invalidated (i.e. multiple attempts can be made to invalidate the patent; the process finishes when the patent expires or is invalidated).
Before the dispute reaches the court, a thorough review can actually be done. If it is not, it is only the fault of the disputants, as they determine the length of review for which they are willing to pay.
NTFS is the recommended choice for fixed device partitions (e.g. on your hard drive). FAT (w/ VFAT extensions) is the standard with removable media (other than CDs, which have their own format): floppies, zip disks, media sticks, pen drives, etc. If the patent holds up and is enforced, it would mess up interoperability between Microsoft Windows and other OSes.
"I'm sure that slashdot and a bunch of other anti-microsoft sites could go and invalidate every one of microsoft's patents"
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Anyway, I'll try to come up with a "open source" patent system that addresses your concerns:
1. Anyone can submit a patent. The patent is publicly available immediately. The patent is assumed to be valid (no initial review).
2. Anyone can contest a patent by submitting prior art (or bringing up another weakness in the patent application). The original submitter(s) have a choice: admit the prior art (which invalidates the patent) or argue the point. If they argue, the disagreement goes to a patent examiner. The loser pays for the patent examiner's time.
3. Normal legal appeals apply.
This system should actually be cheaper than the current system. The patent examiner is no longer expected to look for prior art. Instead, it will be submitted by the contesting party. Thus, the patent examiner doesn't have to spend a lot of time on the case. The loser pays method encourages the parties to come to an agreement prior to the examination.
This system also encourages sharing more than the current system. Since the initial filing no longer requires an expensive application, there is no reason not to submit the patent (and its enclosed information). This avoids the current problem of people not having the resources to pursue a patent application, so they simply keep it secret and hope for more resources in the future.
The biggest weakness? Noise. There would be a lot of junky patent filings. Of course, some would ask how that is different from the current system.
There is also an argument in favor of eliminating patents except for pharmaceuticals. Many patents are defensive (to protect against others patenting one's invention). Other patents are just moonshine (i.e. they will never be licensed or used by anyone else). The primary purpose of invention is for one's own use...no patent needed for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the passwords are encrypted with a one way hash, you can still figure them out. Anyone who deals with passwords frequently will learn the hashes in their system for a few common passwords (e.g. password, admin, etc.). If you have reason to believe that a particular password is being used, you can easily enough check by hashing it out and comparing (or just try to login with it).
This is not nearly as simple as reading a clear text password but still quite possible.
1. A "rubber stamp" that frequently fails on the first try and costs thousands to prosecute to conclusion (in fees and preparation costs).
2. A court is going to be reluctant to overrule the result of the original patent examination. The court is even more of a generalist than the patent examiner. As such, they can be expected to be even less capable of appreciating the technical details of individual cases. It is natural to rely on the patent examiners judgment unless a strong reason is offered to disregard it.
Under the current system, we rely on the patent examiner to maintain an adversarial relation with the applicant. Patent examiners are required to meet a quota of applications processed. If they refuse the application, it might come back (in a renewed application).
Under this system, the patent reviewer is more of a mediator. The fees can be time based, so there does not need to be a quota. The parties can spend as much time as it takes to do a thorough review. Further, disputes can potentially come back when patents are *not* invalidated (i.e. multiple attempts can be made to invalidate the patent; the process finishes when the patent expires or is invalidated).
Before the dispute reaches the court, a thorough review can actually be done. If it is not, it is only the fault of the disputants, as they determine the length of review for which they are willing to pay.
NTFS is the recommended choice for fixed device partitions (e.g. on your hard drive). FAT (w/ VFAT extensions) is the standard with removable media (other than CDs, which have their own format): floppies, zip disks, media sticks, pen drives, etc. If the patent holds up and is enforced, it would mess up interoperability between Microsoft Windows and other OSes.
"I'm sure that slashdot and a bunch of other anti-microsoft sites could go and invalidate every one of microsoft's patents"
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Anyway, I'll try to come up with a "open source" patent system that addresses your concerns:
1. Anyone can submit a patent. The patent is publicly available immediately. The patent is assumed to be valid (no initial review).
2. Anyone can contest a patent by submitting prior art (or bringing up another weakness in the patent application). The original submitter(s) have a choice: admit the prior art (which invalidates the patent) or argue the point. If they argue, the disagreement goes to a patent examiner. The loser pays for the patent examiner's time.
3. Normal legal appeals apply.
This system should actually be cheaper than the current system. The patent examiner is no longer expected to look for prior art. Instead, it will be submitted by the contesting party. Thus, the patent examiner doesn't have to spend a lot of time on the case. The loser pays method encourages the parties to come to an agreement prior to the examination.
This system also encourages sharing more than the current system. Since the initial filing no longer requires an expensive application, there is no reason not to submit the patent (and its enclosed information). This avoids the current problem of people not having the resources to pursue a patent application, so they simply keep it secret and hope for more resources in the future.
The biggest weakness? Noise. There would be a lot of junky patent filings. Of course, some would ask how that is different from the current system.
There is also an argument in favor of eliminating patents except for pharmaceuticals. Many patents are defensive (to protect against others patenting one's invention). Other patents are just moonshine (i.e. they will never be licensed or used by anyone else). The primary purpose of invention is for one's own use...no patent needed for that.