It's called 'due diligence' and 'contractual law'. If you use a third party's contribution to your sale, you are responsible for ensuring that that third party's contributions are legitimate. You must do due diligence on what you are outsourcing, and have a contract between you and the third party to make clear rights, responsibilities and liabilities. If you don't, then you are liable. It is all part of doing business professionally. In this case, the 'you' is Verizon.
What a load of crap!
I buy a network switch off the shelf - commercial product - that I put into my system and resell. You expect me to track down the developers to see if the software/firmware that was inside is open source? Give me a break, that is just not going to happen in the real world. One is that it is NOT the buyers responsibility, and two if I'm busy creating a system I just don't have time for that.
Now if I actually hire a person as a contractor, not a company, and that person works under my processes, then yes I have a responsibility to ensure that what that person writes for me is legitimate. But if I buy a product from a subcontractor, the responsibility then lies with that subcontractor.
As long as I was paid a fair wage and the software was only used for good and not evil, then that's fine.:-)
My personal view on free software is just that - its charity and its free. If someone wants to create open source software for whatever reason, that's fine but I don't believe they have the right to dictate what anyone else does with it later. If you don't want people using the source in other products, then fine - release only the binaries if the software is useful.
Since when do software engineers get PE status? As a former ME student (who has since seen the light and is now in CS) I'm calling bullshit on this unless you've got some evidence. (Or at least are not in the US; I suppose other countries might.)
I have a degree in Computer Engineering from the University of Waterloo, Canada. The degree is run out of the department of Electrical Engineering (at the time). I've moved on to Systems Engineering now though, my software days are long behind me.
How about Anderson and Landley were the only two ontributers that bothered to spend the time and effort of going to court. Since it was their efforts that won the case they should be compensated alone, not the rest who refused to participate.
By giving away their software for free, they are stealing from the mouths of paid developers!
Actually, my degree is in software engineering. As a professional engineer, part of my oath was that I would charge a fair fee for my services. Therefore giving software I developed away for free is contrary to the guidelines of the profession I swore to uphold.
It is different from a patent troll in much the same way a football is different from space rocket - by having no properties in common!
How about its the difference between getting hit in the head with a brick and getting hit with a shovel. A brick is nothing like a shovel but they are both bad for your head.
I fail to see why Verison was even named in the lawsuit. They simply used the device supplied by the subcontractor. It is not their responsibility to see if the software embedded on the device is licensed correctly or not. Its completely the subcontractors responsibility. The judgment was correct putting the entire settlement on the subcontractor.
As a project engineer I've used lots of third party products in the stuff I design. The last thing I have time for is to see if there happens to be any software in those components and if it was home grown or open source. Honestly I couldn't care less - it's not my problem. If I buy a device I have to assume its completely legitimate.
I just don't think these guys are the usual patent troll scum we have come to know and hate.
Did ZapMedia actually create anything or did they just write a patent? If they never made anything themselves, then they are just a bunch of patent trolls and their patent should be thrown out and marked invalid. Courts should also make them pay the legal fees incurred for both sides.
Ok, so the chemical explosive did not make the pulse, the inductor made the magnetic field and the explosive just destroyed the inductor which resulted in a sharp pulse termination.
It's kinda like saying the booze got my girlfriend pregnant.
Yes, as I said you can make a device that creates an electromagnetic pulse. But the pulse is really small and doesn't do anything. You cannot make an EMP device that blows up electronics or stops cars or kills a person instantaneously - it doesn't exist as that power of an EMP device is pure science fiction. Even the terrorists aren't that gullible.
I don't care what Wikipedia says, anyone with a decent physics or engineering background will te4ll you that a chemical explosive is not going to make a magnetic pulse.
Yes, its all nice and simple to the software guy that doesn't know what he is talking about.
Yes what you are asking is possible but it's prohibitively expensive, pointless, and adds ZERO benefit to the patient. In fact because of the extra power draw of this pointless device the patient will have to undergo extra surgeries to replace the battery more ofter thereby further jeopardizing the patient safety.
And for practical applications, lab demonstrations are still just demonstrations of theory. They may generate an EM pulse that can be detected but unless you got a crapload of money to buy a lot of high power components, it wont do much. Even then just put a Faraday cage around it and it'll be protected.
Unless you are in military research, you cannot go out and buy nor make an EMP device like many here on Slashdot think you can. It just doesn't exist.
It's called electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and has been around for quite a while. I'm sure there are documented occasions of it taking out a pacemaker before.
Yes, in science fiction novels.
EMP *theory* has been around for quite a while, but the devices aren't real (unless you count atomic explosions).
To be clear for everyone here on Slashdot, there is no such thing as an EMP device. It's theoretical science fiction, just like wormholes and space elevators. Get over it.
At the end of the day, I still don't see why those things shouldn't be more secure.
Simply because there is no point in making them more secure - there's no need. If there is no need then it should n't be done.
These devices are not practically hackable. To reprogram one you need direct skin contact - it cannot be reprogrammed from across the room. I doubt anyone will not notice this being done to them.
The device doesn't have the capacity to do encryption like you are implying. If you made one that did it would draw way more power and therefore need battery replacements way more often. The only thing you've then accomplished is you've increased the device cost, increased the number of times the patient has to go in for regular maintenance, and increased the cost of the health care system.
And your suggestion of hanging wires out of a person is just moronic. I'm not even going to waste time responding to the problems with that.
Not quite.. The pacemakers send data to a bedside device that then relays the information gathered to the Internet. Not really the same. No pacemaker will connect to the internet directly, it doesn't make any sense to do so.
Oh for crying out loud - don't be ridiculous. These are pacemakers not PCs. Get some perspective. It doesn't have the capability that you seem to be thinking it does.
And right now you have to be in contact to reprogram. It's not like anyone is at risk of being hacked from down the street or anything.
Actually you'll see an immediate improvement by not voting in Republican governments that are hell bent on removing as many citizen rights as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
What a load of crap!
I buy a network switch off the shelf - commercial product - that I put into my system and resell. You expect me to track down the developers to see if the software/firmware that was inside is open source? Give me a break, that is just not going to happen in the real world. One is that it is NOT the buyers responsibility, and two if I'm busy creating a system I just don't have time for that.
Now if I actually hire a person as a contractor, not a company, and that person works under my processes, then yes I have a responsibility to ensure that what that person writes for me is legitimate. But if I buy a product from a subcontractor, the responsibility then lies with that subcontractor.
Can you prove this?
As long as I was paid a fair wage and the software was only used for good and not evil, then that's fine. :-)
My personal view on free software is just that - its charity and its free. If someone wants to create open source software for whatever reason, that's fine but I don't believe they have the right to dictate what anyone else does with it later. If you don't want people using the source in other products, then fine - release only the binaries if the software is useful.
I have a degree in Computer Engineering from the University of Waterloo, Canada. The degree is run out of the department of Electrical Engineering (at the time). I've moved on to Systems Engineering now though, my software days are long behind me.
And exactly how was Verison supposed to know that? From the details that I have read, Verison is blameless.
I'm talking about from a legitimate company, not from a truck in a parking lot or someones basement.
How about Anderson and Landley were the only two ontributers that bothered to spend the time and effort of going to court. Since it was their efforts that won the case they should be compensated alone, not the rest who refused to participate.
Actually, my degree is in software engineering. As a professional engineer, part of my oath was that I would charge a fair fee for my services. Therefore giving software I developed away for free is contrary to the guidelines of the profession I swore to uphold.
How about its the difference between getting hit in the head with a brick and getting hit with a shovel. A brick is nothing like a shovel but they are both bad for your head.
I fail to see why Verison was even named in the lawsuit. They simply used the device supplied by the subcontractor. It is not their responsibility to see if the software embedded on the device is licensed correctly or not. Its completely the subcontractors responsibility. The judgment was correct putting the entire settlement on the subcontractor.
As a project engineer I've used lots of third party products in the stuff I design. The last thing I have time for is to see if there happens to be any software in those components and if it was home grown or open source. Honestly I couldn't care less - it's not my problem. If I buy a device I have to assume its completely legitimate.
Did ZapMedia actually create anything or did they just write a patent? If they never made anything themselves, then they are just a bunch of patent trolls and their patent should be thrown out and marked invalid. Courts should also make them pay the legal fees incurred for both sides.
Ok, so the chemical explosive did not make the pulse, the inductor made the magnetic field and the explosive just destroyed the inductor which resulted in a sharp pulse termination.
It's kinda like saying the booze got my girlfriend pregnant.
Yes, as I said you can make a device that creates an electromagnetic pulse. But the pulse is really small and doesn't do anything. You cannot make an EMP device that blows up electronics or stops cars or kills a person instantaneously - it doesn't exist as that power of an EMP device is pure science fiction. Even the terrorists aren't that gullible.
I don't care what Wikipedia says, anyone with a decent physics or engineering background will te4ll you that a chemical explosive is not going to make a magnetic pulse.
Yes, its all nice and simple to the software guy that doesn't know what he is talking about.
Yes what you are asking is possible but it's prohibitively expensive, pointless, and adds ZERO benefit to the patient. In fact because of the extra power draw of this pointless device the patient will have to undergo extra surgeries to replace the battery more ofter thereby further jeopardizing the patient safety.
Yes, I agree.
And for practical applications, lab demonstrations are still just demonstrations of theory. They may generate an EM pulse that can be detected but unless you got a crapload of money to buy a lot of high power components, it wont do much. Even then just put a Faraday cage around it and it'll be protected.
Unless you are in military research, you cannot go out and buy nor make an EMP device like many here on Slashdot think you can. It just doesn't exist.
No, the pacemaker only SENDS to the bedside. It does not receive. Receiving / programming is done by direct contact through the patients skin.
Then I can safely say you have yet to truly live.
Yes, in science fiction novels.
EMP *theory* has been around for quite a while, but the devices aren't real (unless you count atomic explosions).
To be clear for everyone here on Slashdot, there is no such thing as an EMP device. It's theoretical science fiction, just like wormholes and space elevators. Get over it.
Simply because there is no point in making them more secure - there's no need. If there is no need then it should n't be done.
These devices are not practically hackable. To reprogram one you need direct skin contact - it cannot be reprogrammed from across the room. I doubt anyone will not notice this being done to them.
The device doesn't have the capacity to do encryption like you are implying. If you made one that did it would draw way more power and therefore need battery replacements way more often. The only thing you've then accomplished is you've increased the device cost, increased the number of times the patient has to go in for regular maintenance, and increased the cost of the health care system.
And your suggestion of hanging wires out of a person is just moronic. I'm not even going to waste time responding to the problems with that.
Not quite.. The pacemakers send data to a bedside device that then relays the information gathered to the Internet. Not really the same. No pacemaker will connect to the internet directly, it doesn't make any sense to do so.
Oh for crying out loud - don't be ridiculous. These are pacemakers not PCs. Get some perspective. It doesn't have the capability that you seem to be thinking it does.
And right now you have to be in contact to reprogram. It's not like anyone is at risk of being hacked from down the street or anything.
Dude, once I'm dead they can track my location and call me all they want... unless of course they start tracking me into my next life.
Obscure? Have you never heard of Nanaimo Bars? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanaimo_bar
Re: Sig. PS3s are $300, not $600.
Actually you'll see an immediate improvement by not voting in Republican governments that are hell bent on removing as many citizen rights as possible.