The answer here is for the ISP (NAC) to respond to the TRO by stating that the renumber currently isn't possible for technical and legal reasons, and that the TRO is wrongly served: it should be served against ARIN who is the owner of the numbering space. Of course, once it is bounced back, then the applicant needs to have a new TRO issued.
You've probably come across a nice technicality: the recording contracts with the artists probably state that certain forms of offloading unsold inventory don't result in royalties, and so this "dumping" is a nice break for them: not only do they avoid paying hard cash, but they avoid paying royalties (which they may have been liable for it they dumped off the stock at $1/each), and avoid wastage (i.e. if they dumped the stock into an incinerator for no gain, and an overall loss [taking into account costs of production]).
Very saavy move by the RIAA, which only goes to show how commercially slick and smart they are in business terms, as opposed to the schools who were have been completely shafted because they probably assumed they were going to get some useful music out of the deal.
By the sounds of it, this is more about the commercial niaviety and stupidity of the school, rather than the admittedly PR-bad practice by the RIAA. They should have chosen a different form of settlement, or if they did choose music, they should have constrained the settlement to certain types or choices of music relevant to their children.
The RIAA doesn't win any points over this, but equally, the schools should know better: if they're letting themselves get shafted by the RIAA, who knows how else they are getting shafted in all manner of commercial contracts that involve real money (i.e. the money that comes from your children's fees or tax income or elsewise).
If I were living in these school districts and states, I'd be questioning the schools quite closely - finding out how they got suckered out of what could have been a useful cash payout.
Wrong. It's you that's shortsighted, you can't see the big picture.
If the OpenBSD guys chew up their limited energy workong on usability features, then they have less time/energy to work on the security features: not only that, the secondary effect is that they have to deal with support, hassle and all other things that come with more popularity (server load, cvs bandwith costs, etc).
Much better for the OpenBSD guys to focus as much as they can on the security issues, for the benefit of the hard-core technical people that actually do know how to install distributed firewalls, advanced packet filtering, etc.
OpenBSD is simply not about popularity by usability, it's about popularity by security. If you're "turned off" OpenBSD to another O/S simply because of superficial usability concerns, then it just shows that you don't prioritise security. If you do prioritise security, then you're mature enough to accept some of the usability and other deficiencies.
"Yes. it was obvious. The reason why it was obvious was because it has been done before."
I suppose you've looked at all the specific claims of the invention and done the work to examine it then? Or have you just skimmed across the buzzwords and come to your conclusion?
"Just pick up any book on RF coms. This is basic stuff for anyone experienced in the field. "
Since I happen to be an EE, I did this long ago.
I don't actually pretend to have an opinion one way or another because I haven't spent the couple of hours it would take to look at the patent in detail - but a large number of other people here on/. seem to make their conclusions based on cursory evidence.
"No thank you, but if you'd like to build yourself a house just like it I'd have no particular objections."
Nice try, but the concept is the same: both you and the inventor put hard work and effort into producing something, it's just that yours is a tangible product, and theirs is one step back and requires manufacturing to make tangible. Either way, the reason you put the hard work and effort in is because you have some certainty that the end result is protected for you, and that people just can't come and rip it off. For them, the output has to be inventive and non-obvious, for you it has to be a valid title of property owernship.
``If you look at what they're *actually* claiming to own, this W-OFDM technology is really just a bunch of pre-existing technologies - modulation scheme, channel coding, FFTs, embedded pilot channels - which they've lumped together, given a name and patented. If you look at their block diagrams, you'll see little more than an undergraduate textbook on modern communications systems design would show you.``
Nice try, but you're committing the classic mistake: retrospectively assessing an invention. Many inventions look deceptively simple and obvious in hindsight. In fact, it's often the hallmark of a brilliant invention that it's so simple.
Do you think that it was obvious to combine all of those elements in that particular way? Do you think that it required no undue experimentation to perfect the system and reduce it to a workable technology ?
I mean, using your argument, we could say that the transistor was obvious, because it's just a bunch of pre-existing concepts put together.
``without being bogged down by people claiming to have "invented" things that aren't actually novel in any way.``
And equally, being bogged down by people claiming that the invention was obvious, so they can use it themselves to rip off the hard work and cost of the inventor.
Basically, put your money where your mouth is and put more effort into proving that the invention wasn't inventive and non-obvious given the state of the art in 1993.
I actually hope they don't make the installer more user friendly: otherwise we'll have too many supercifical and clueless users coming to use the system. OpenBSD (and NetBSD is a bit like this as well, more in contrast to FreeBSD and Linux) tends to be directed to knowledgable technical users, which goes in tandem with its security ethos. If you like nice installers, try another O/S: OpenBSD isn't reall for you.
I'd much prefer them to be using their time on innovative security features, not pretty installers, SMP, apache-clones, etc. CARP, pf, privsep, etc.
In fact, the OpenBSD guys would probably like it people with good ideas raised them here, and who knows, these ideas may make it into current or future release.
Who cares that it may have cost millions of dollars of risk and investment to devise, refine and perfect OFDM and the related technologies... we just want them to be free for all of us to use, so we definitely should bust their patents.
By the way, I know that it took you years of hard work to earn a salary to pay off your mortgage, but I actually think your house would make for a good party zone, so me and the boys will be around next Saturday night.
Completely free flow of information is not, i.e. child porn and other items: it's a tough line between the right to speak, but yet the need for censorship to protect the people from themselves.
``The only problem I have with it is that we're being assailed from almost all directions in very specialized markets by "subject matter experts".``
Huh? I think the small business association is a far better subject matter expert on the specialised market of small businesses (which, I suggest to you, may be specialised, but is very large) than a large proportion of the `technology for technology sake` people working on Linux.
``Take us on in the major media.. sure we can handle that.. it'll be rebuked and discredited easily.``
You have completely the wrong idea and that sort of attitude only causes the kind of standoffish arrogance that _isn't_ needed: some of these people (i.e. small business association) actually represent your (i.e. Linux) customers: you should work with them and understand them, not rebuke them for their cricitisms or mistakes.
Most of these people want problems to be solved: they don't care if its Linux, Windows, Commodore 64 or anything else. Either work with them or they'll move to another solution.
Somewhat true, for example in the UK ``time shifting`` is actually codified in statutory law, but interestingly, the ``time shifting`` allowance is only applicable when done in domestic premises: therefore, at least in the UK, broadcasting out of your home network across the internet would not fall within this allowance.
I'm not sure about the US position, but I doubt that this 'technicality' would be a good one to rely on.
This is a poorly framed question: using ``attack`` has overloaded connotations of negativity. Some of these think tanks and organisations are offering constructive criticism (not all of them, I give you) as they evaluation how open source works for their constituency.
For example, it is true that Linux is not entirely free. If you, as an organisation, use Linux, you still have to pay someone (whether your own staff, or external support) to help with problems and support: this costs time and money.
Now, as soon as a I make statement, I expect to attract lot of flame, and suggest that I'm ''attacking'' Linux: but I'm not, I'm just laying the reality out on the table.
Last thing you want as a techie is upper management thinking that Linux is free, because then they'll just ratchet your budget claiming that now that you're on a free OS, it shouldn't cost anything: yet as the techie, suddenly you have 2x as much work because you have to take care of things you could have previously lobbed back onto the vendor. The point is, that in this case, Linux is _low cost_, not _free_. Therefore, it's good that small business associations (and otherwise) raise these points, to make sure people have the right expectations.
Equally, now that we're talking about small business associations: it's true that when you buy PC hardware, it _always_ supports Windows by way of drivers, vendor support, etc; but it doesn't always support Linux/BSD/etc - now whether this is a poor reflection of vendors or whatever doesn't matter, because the commercial reality is that if you're a small business owner, you may find that if you go down the Linux route, that you lock yourself out of some hardware possibilities. And I tell you, small business owners don't care about Linux v Windows: they want a business that works, and they want _low risk_, therefore, as much as Windows may have some costs and suckiness about it, the reality is that it largely works with just about any hardware you can buy off the shelf.
"Incidental copies made in transit are not covered by copyright law. If his stream is private, I don't see why there would be any issue."
There is an issue, the license provided by broadcasting service to you.
Fundamentally, any copy of the work is an infringement: but upon paying for the satellite service, you agree to terms & conditions that include a limited license, which (you need to check) probably only allows you to view on one or multiple TV sets within your own premises: any reproduction of the signal elsewhere would violate the license and thus be an infringement.
The "temporary copies" theory only applies within the scope of that limited license: i.e. transiet copies in your COAX, in RAM/ROM, PCI bus transfers, DMA buffers, frame buffers, perhaps even to LAN traffic - but only where any of this is necessary to meet the terms of the license, and I'd be pretty sure the terms of the license explicitly prevent reproduction of the signal outside your domestic premises.
Remember, copyright law applies to _every_ single copy of a work: and yes, this even means a copy that's in your L2 cache.
The TI ACX100 802.11b+ chipset is my favourite example when non-technical people claim that reverse engineering is impossible, because the project has shown that it is indeed possible:
http://acx100.sourceforge.net/ -- for Linux
http://wlan.kewl.org/ -- for FreeBSD
But had I known before I made the purchase, I would have bought another manufacturers product - unfortunately I was stuck between a hard place: 802.11b itself (11mbps) too slow, 802.11b+ (22mbps & 44mbps under TI "x4" mode) just right, 802.11g (54mbps & 108mbps) perfect, but was too expensive, and it also has drive problems (ath binary driver).
If manufacturers are reading this: let me tell you that in the future, I now do my research properly, and I won't buy your product if you are not open source friendly.
You are overly harsh, in fact, I almost think you're a bit of a negative a**hole who simply cut down everything with a bit of criticism without giving some advice on the viable options.
His site has deficiencies, but given that he's prototype-early-stage, that's not a problem, I've certainly seen worse. As for "doesn't have a unique product": offering a unique online service for group share schemes could well be it - can you name his competitors, since you've "obviously" done some research to support your claim that he doesn't have a unique product.
It looks to me that he has a good idea, an okay setup, but what he _really_ needs is some viable usage to prove that it works to be able to generate further funding.
What he should be doing is (now that he's created the technology) contacting prospective customers and trying to get custom: perhaps offering free or low cost usage for these early adopters willing to take on.
What he then needs to do is run it for the next 6-12 months doing this, build up users, refine the technology and give it a good solid grounding to show that not only is a _good_ idea, but a _workable_ idea - and then he's in a better position to attract funding, for example, his "next stage" could consist of: (a) revamping the aesthetic design, (b) more functional changes, (c) advertising and other costs to get more customers, etc.
"Erm, ever heard of traceroute, maybe followed by a quick packet sniff?"
Too techie and still not good enough: exactly how long is the outgoing to be for?
What would be really sensible are better solution, kind of like where peripheral or internal networks detect unreachability (i.e. serial hdlc/ppp links down, internal arp request failures, etc) and return more detailed diagnostics that user protocol stacks interpret.
For example, on detecting failure of DNS server, automatic return of ICMP unreachables with short text message ("it appears there are difficulties with transit into network XYZ, please refer to http://somewhere.else for operational status, we hope to have the problem rectified soon, come back later").
Then, your local DNS proxy detects the ICMP as a reply to its UDP request, packages the error message into its own DNS failure back to your Linux desktop, and your Linux desktop bundles the error string into your UI error dialogue.
Thus, networks automatically pass around and deliver these types of messages when problems occur, and ops only need to update a single status page about "failure at XYZ, expect to rectify by 09:00EST").
(a) around the house, to look up stuff, browse the web, check movies, etc;
(b) at work, to pull up files and email during meetings, etc;
I would buy one today if it were a better price.
Also, I think that they could trim the specs and still have a marketable product: grunt power and number of ports are not important for this style of product.
You are an idiot: IPv6 support is a mandatory requirement to have as IPv6 rollout comes ahead in the next few years. It's a testimony to the solid reliability of the BSD protocol suite that the main experimental development for IPv6 (notably via. KAME) was undertaken on BSD. So this forward thinking will pay off.
FreeBSD The most powerful x86 open source Unix
OpenBSD The most secure open source Unix available
NetBSD The most portable open source Unix available
Linux The most popular open source Unix
Slashdot Mirror
I think I am, but this is slashdot, and both posters and readers are away that we play a little loose with the definitions at time.
The answer here is for the ISP (NAC) to respond to the TRO by stating that the renumber currently isn't possible for technical and legal reasons, and that the TRO is wrongly served: it should be served against ARIN who is the owner of the numbering space. Of course, once it is bounced back, then the applicant needs to have a new TRO issued.
"Of course, if they're excess inventory"
You've probably come across a nice technicality: the recording contracts with the artists probably state that certain forms of offloading unsold inventory don't result in royalties, and so this "dumping" is a nice break for them: not only do they avoid paying hard cash, but they avoid paying royalties (which they may have been liable for it they dumped off the stock at $1/each), and avoid wastage (i.e. if they dumped the stock into an incinerator for no gain, and an overall loss [taking into account costs of production]).
Very saavy move by the RIAA, which only goes to show how commercially slick and smart they are in business terms, as opposed to the schools who were have been completely shafted because they probably assumed they were going to get some useful music out of the deal.
By the sounds of it, this is more about the commercial niaviety and stupidity of the school, rather than the admittedly PR-bad practice by the RIAA. They should have chosen a different form of settlement, or if they did choose music, they should have constrained the settlement to certain types or choices of music relevant to their children.
The RIAA doesn't win any points over this, but equally, the schools should know better: if they're letting themselves get shafted by the RIAA, who knows how else they are getting shafted in all manner of commercial contracts that involve real money (i.e. the money that comes from your children's fees or tax income or elsewise).
If I were living in these school districts and states, I'd be questioning the schools quite closely - finding out how they got suckered out of what could have been a useful cash payout.
"Too bad you're so shortsighted!"
Wrong. It's you that's shortsighted, you can't see the big picture.
If the OpenBSD guys chew up their limited energy workong on usability features, then they have less time/energy to work on the security features: not only that, the secondary effect is that they have to deal with support, hassle and all other things that come with more popularity (server load, cvs bandwith costs, etc).
Much better for the OpenBSD guys to focus as much as they can on the security issues, for the benefit of the hard-core technical people that actually do know how to install distributed firewalls, advanced packet filtering, etc.
OpenBSD is simply not about popularity by usability, it's about popularity by security. If you're "turned off" OpenBSD to another O/S simply because of superficial usability concerns, then it just shows that you don't prioritise security. If you do prioritise security, then you're mature enough to accept some of the usability and other deficiencies.
You're a Chomsky fan too ?
"Yes. it was obvious. The reason why it was obvious was because it has been done before."
I suppose you've looked at all the specific claims of the invention and done the work to examine it then? Or have you just skimmed across the buzzwords and come to your conclusion?
"Just pick up any book on RF coms. This is basic stuff for anyone experienced in the field. "
Since I happen to be an EE, I did this long ago.
I don't actually pretend to have an opinion one way or another because I haven't spent the couple of hours it would take to look at the patent in detail - but a large number of other people here on
"No thank you, but if you'd like to build yourself a house just like it I'd have no particular objections."
Nice try, but the concept is the same: both you and the inventor put hard work and effort into producing something, it's just that yours is a tangible product, and theirs is one step back and requires manufacturing to make tangible. Either way, the reason you put the hard work and effort in is because you have some certainty that the end result is protected for you, and that people just can't come and rip it off. For them, the output has to be inventive and non-obvious, for you it has to be a valid title of property owernship.
I'm not going to defend patents here.
``If you look at what they're *actually* claiming to own, this W-OFDM technology is really just a bunch of pre-existing technologies - modulation scheme, channel coding, FFTs, embedded pilot channels - which they've lumped together, given a name and patented. If you look at their block diagrams, you'll see little more than an undergraduate textbook on modern communications systems design would show you.``
Nice try, but you're committing the classic mistake: retrospectively assessing an invention. Many inventions look deceptively simple and obvious in hindsight. In fact, it's often the hallmark of a brilliant invention that it's so simple.
Do you think that it was obvious to combine all of those elements in that particular way? Do you think that it required no undue experimentation to perfect the system and reduce it to a workable technology ?
I mean, using your argument, we could say that the transistor was obvious, because it's just a bunch of pre-existing concepts put together.
``without being bogged down by people claiming to have "invented" things that aren't actually novel in any way.``
And equally, being bogged down by people claiming that the invention was obvious, so they can use it themselves to rip off the hard work and cost of the inventor.
Basically, put your money where your mouth is and put more effort into proving that the invention wasn't inventive and non-obvious given the state of the art in 1993.
I actually hope they don't make the installer more user friendly: otherwise we'll have too many supercifical and clueless users coming to use the system. OpenBSD (and NetBSD is a bit like this as well, more in contrast to FreeBSD and Linux) tends to be directed to knowledgable technical users, which goes in tandem with its security ethos. If you like nice installers, try another O/S: OpenBSD isn't reall for you.
I'd much prefer them to be using their time on innovative security features, not pretty installers, SMP, apache-clones, etc. CARP, pf, privsep, etc.
In fact, the OpenBSD guys would probably like it people with good ideas raised them here, and who knows, these ideas may make it into current or future release.
Who cares that it may have cost millions of dollars of risk and investment to devise, refine and perfect OFDM and the related technologies
By the way, I know that it took you years of hard work to earn a salary to pay off your mortgage, but I actually think your house would make for a good party zone, so me and the boys will be around next Saturday night.
Why not buy one from Electrolux (http://www.automower.co.uk/) and see if you install Linux on it.
Completely free flow of information is not, i.e. child porn and other items: it's a tough line between the right to speak, but yet the need for censorship to protect the people from themselves.
``The only problem I have with it is that we're being assailed from almost all directions in very specialized markets by "subject matter experts".``
Huh? I think the small business association is a far better subject matter expert on the specialised market of small businesses (which, I suggest to you, may be specialised, but is very large) than a large proportion of the `technology for technology sake` people working on Linux.
``Take us on in the major media.. sure we can handle that.. it'll be rebuked and discredited easily.``
You have completely the wrong idea and that sort of attitude only causes the kind of standoffish arrogance that _isn't_ needed: some of these people (i.e. small business association) actually represent your (i.e. Linux) customers: you should work with them and understand them, not rebuke them for their cricitisms or mistakes.
Most of these people want problems to be solved: they don't care if its Linux, Windows, Commodore 64 or anything else. Either work with them or they'll move to another solution.
Somewhat true, for example in the UK ``time shifting`` is actually codified in statutory law, but interestingly, the ``time shifting`` allowance is only applicable when done in domestic premises: therefore, at least in the UK, broadcasting out of your home network across the internet would not fall within this allowance.
I'm not sure about the US position, but I doubt that this 'technicality' would be a good one to rely on.
This is a poorly framed question: using ``attack`` has overloaded connotations of negativity. Some of these think tanks and organisations are offering constructive criticism (not all of them, I give you) as they evaluation how open source works for their constituency.
For example, it is true that Linux is not entirely free. If you, as an organisation, use Linux, you still have to pay someone (whether your own staff, or external support) to help with problems and support: this costs time and money.
Now, as soon as a I make statement, I expect to attract lot of flame, and suggest that I'm ''attacking'' Linux: but I'm not, I'm just laying the reality out on the table.
Last thing you want as a techie is upper management thinking that Linux is free, because then they'll just ratchet your budget claiming that now that you're on a free OS, it shouldn't cost anything: yet as the techie, suddenly you have 2x as much work because you have to take care of things you could have previously lobbed back onto the vendor. The point is, that in this case, Linux is _low cost_, not _free_. Therefore, it's good that small business associations (and otherwise) raise these points, to make sure people have the right expectations.
Equally, now that we're talking about small business associations: it's true that when you buy PC hardware, it _always_ supports Windows by way of drivers, vendor support, etc; but it doesn't always support Linux/BSD/etc - now whether this is a poor reflection of vendors or whatever doesn't matter, because the commercial reality is that if you're a small business owner, you may find that if you go down the Linux route, that you lock yourself out of some hardware possibilities. And I tell you, small business owners don't care about Linux v Windows: they want a business that works, and they want _low risk_, therefore, as much as Windows may have some costs and suckiness about it, the reality is that it largely works with just about any hardware you can buy off the shelf.
These aren't ``attacks``, these are realities.
"Incidental copies made in transit are not covered by copyright law. If his stream is private, I don't see why there would be any issue."
There is an issue, the license provided by broadcasting service to you.
Fundamentally, any copy of the work is an infringement: but upon paying for the satellite service, you agree to terms & conditions that include a limited license, which (you need to check) probably only allows you to view on one or multiple TV sets within your own premises: any reproduction of the signal elsewhere would violate the license and thus be an infringement.
The "temporary copies" theory only applies within the scope of that limited license: i.e. transiet copies in your COAX, in RAM/ROM, PCI bus transfers, DMA buffers, frame buffers, perhaps even to LAN traffic - but only where any of this is necessary to meet the terms of the license, and I'd be pretty sure the terms of the license explicitly prevent reproduction of the signal outside your domestic premises.
Remember, copyright law applies to _every_ single copy of a work: and yes, this even means a copy that's in your L2 cache.
The TI ACX100 802.11b+ chipset is my favourite example when non-technical people claim that reverse engineering is impossible, because the project has shown that it is indeed possible:
http://acx100.sourceforge.net/ -- for Linux
http://wlan.kewl.org/ -- for FreeBSD
But had I known before I made the purchase, I would have bought another manufacturers product - unfortunately I was stuck between a hard place: 802.11b itself (11mbps) too slow, 802.11b+ (22mbps & 44mbps under TI "x4" mode) just right, 802.11g (54mbps & 108mbps) perfect, but was too expensive, and it also has drive problems (ath binary driver).
If manufacturers are reading this: let me tell you that in the future, I now do my research properly, and I won't buy your product if you are not open source friendly.
Is that genetic algorithms are nice for parametric optimisation, but not for breakthrough innovation.
You are overly harsh, in fact, I almost think you're a bit of a negative a**hole who simply cut down everything with a bit of criticism without giving some advice on the viable options.
His site has deficiencies, but given that he's prototype-early-stage, that's not a problem, I've certainly seen worse. As for "doesn't have a unique product": offering a unique online service for group share schemes could well be it - can you name his competitors, since you've "obviously" done some research to support your claim that he doesn't have a unique product.
It looks to me that he has a good idea, an okay setup, but what he _really_ needs is some viable usage to prove that it works to be able to generate further funding.
What he should be doing is (now that he's created the technology) contacting prospective customers and trying to get custom: perhaps offering free or low cost usage for these early adopters willing to take on.
What he then needs to do is run it for the next 6-12 months doing this, build up users, refine the technology and give it a good solid grounding to show that not only is a _good_ idea, but a _workable_ idea - and then he's in a better position to attract funding, for example, his "next stage" could consist of: (a) revamping the aesthetic design, (b) more functional changes, (c) advertising and other costs to get more customers, etc.
"Erm, ever heard of traceroute, maybe followed by a quick packet sniff?"
Too techie and still not good enough: exactly how long is the outgoing to be for?
What would be really sensible are better solution, kind of like where peripheral or internal networks detect unreachability (i.e. serial hdlc/ppp links down, internal arp request failures, etc) and return more detailed diagnostics that user protocol stacks interpret.
For example, on detecting failure of DNS server, automatic return of ICMP unreachables with short text message ("it appears there are difficulties with transit into network XYZ, please refer to http://somewhere.else for operational status, we hope to have the problem rectified soon, come back later").
Then, your local DNS proxy detects the ICMP as a reply to its UDP request, packages the error message into its own DNS failure back to your Linux desktop, and your Linux desktop bundles the error string into your UI error dialogue.
Thus, networks automatically pass around and deliver these types of messages when problems occur, and ops only need to update a single status page about "failure at XYZ, expect to rectify by 09:00EST").
Exactly the type of portable webpad I need:
(a) around the house, to look up stuff, browse the web, check movies, etc;
(b) at work, to pull up files and email during meetings, etc;
I would buy one today if it were a better price.
Also, I think that they could trim the specs and still have a marketable product: grunt power and number of ports are not important for this style of product.
I need free beta testers for my commercial products as well: does anyone have this guy's number?
You are an idiot: IPv6 support is a mandatory requirement to have as IPv6 rollout comes ahead in the next few years. It's a testimony to the solid reliability of the BSD protocol suite that the main experimental development for IPv6 (notably via. KAME) was undertaken on BSD. So this forward thinking will pay off.
Read the soekris website, it puts it nicely:
FreeBSD The most powerful x86 open source Unix OpenBSD The most secure open source Unix available NetBSD The most portable open source Unix available Linux The most popular open source Unix