Those power plant generators have a ridiculously high cost and lead time, and if they do it right, you won't know who did it, so you'd be impotently waggling your spear at no one in particular.
They also run on their own closed-circuit network, so good luck causing trouble without physical access or making yourself pretty obvious digging up the cables.
Or find out that the closed-circuit network was not that close as you thought...
Perhaps I should have phrased that a bit different. I understand why it's a threat to institutionalized religion. I was referring more to people's personal beliefs.
Sometimes "proof by anecdote" is actually quite accurate. While you do not know any person with a Windows Mobile device, I know many (including me) - all switched quickly and cursed Microsoft every day before. Now everybody is using a Blackberry, Palm, or the iPhone. Nobody is ready to go back to any Windows Mobile version anytime soon - it was just too painful.
So, my advise to Microsoft: redo it from scratch. Rename it. And, damned!, do usability tests before releasing it into the wild.
I completely agree and did so during my classes - it worked very well. With one exception:Your rule 2 should be relaxed to actually take notes, but only for those parts that you want to look into after the lecture. Those notes tend to be just keywords, annotations or sometimes a surprising graph etc. - but is helps a lot to have a second look on the surprising facts some hours after the lecture (if you wait until end of the term their value will be most probably void).
Re:idiocy? Incompetence?
on
Y2.01K
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Indeed. They even said if the cache machine in your branch did not work...
Well, this works actually very well. The machine is caching all the money...
This would be akin to Gucci telling eBay it needs to police all of its auctions, rather than Gucci itself being required to police eBay's auctions.
It's a bullshit attempt to shift the cost of policing users to an inappropriate entity IMHO.
This is an anlogy fail, because this is exactly what happened in France: An upper court decided that it is eBay's responsibility to either ensure that they do no longer act as a platform to sell couterfeited materials, or to stop selling certain fashion labels (in this case: Louis Vitton, Dior, etc.)
A very good question. Or to turn the argument around, if any nonobvious process can be patented, could I patent all new mathematic discoveries?
Nope. Two ways to attack it:
First, 35 USC 101 requires that the process be "useful". Courts have construed this to mean that the process must have a non-abstract output that changes the physical world in some way.
OK - but this means that (pure) software patents do not match this test. Software does not change the physical world is some way (except if part of an specific apparatus, which - I agree - is patentable).
Second, 35 USC 101 also requires that you invent it. It could be argued that the discovery already existed, you just didn't know about it. E equaled M*C^2 long before Einstein came along, just no one knew.
This is physics, not math. I could point you to many software patents that try to patent math - especially in the categories cryptography, code redundancy, and signal processing. All those algorithms are pure math. Obviously, the math was already there before somebody discovered it.
Any argument loose enough to classify algorithms as mathematics is necessarily loose enough to classify *all* patentable subject matter as "mathematics".
What about all physical devices? Tell me your isomorphism to bring them to math. Note: it's not the description which is patented, but the described object.
35 USC 101 expressly authorizes granting of patents on a new and useful process.
OP stated explicitly *all* patentable subject matter. I gave a counterexample; QED.
What process cannot be expressed as math? Accordingly, what is the meaning of the term "process", if math can't be patented, but processes can?
A very good question. Or to turn the argument around, if any nonobvious process can be patented, could I patent all new mathematic discoveries?
Any argument loose enough to classify algorithms as mathematics is necessarily loose enough to classify *all* patentable subject matter as "mathematics".
What about all physical devices? Tell me your isomorphism to bring them to math. Note: it's not the description which is patented, but the described object.
I would not object to software patents if they actually provided the complete functional source code in the patent. You want a patent, you provide full disclosure.
Only if I could implement the same mechanism using a different source code without infringing your patent. Otherwise a source code listing does no add any value to the society.
Similar in software, I have to pay $600 for Adobe CS4 as nobody can't produce similar tools because Adobe have their 'patent portfolio' there.
Very bad example: (1) Similar software exists; (2) The price is (most probably) not because of patent protection, but rather because of the availability, usability, and brand of the product.
If you copy it, they remind you that you only have a license. You can't do *everything* you want to do because you don't own it, you just have a license to listen to it.
You are wrong (at least for audio CDs and movie DVDs). If you bought a CD or DVD you own it. You can do with it whatever you want (note: this does NOT include violating the copyright - which is a distribution right); there is no EULA. Those licenses exist for software, though.
Actually, I think that this boycott helps. At least in the case of audio CDs (which have been often crippled as "enhanced CDs"), there is a trend to come back to the DRM free CD standard. I think that is mainly because enough people do not buy them. You also see it with DRM free music at Amazon and iTunes.
DVDs are different: they always included DRM and the so much hated region code. DVD buyers just live with the fact. BTW: I know nearly no person that is still buying DVDs (unless they have kids - because they tend to see a movie 100s of times); most people are either renting the DVD or directly use VoD. Clearly, a DRM on a rented DVD or on a VoD stream is less cumbersome for the consumer - after all you only have a day or so to use the media.
And, most importantly: I do not buy DVDs (with DRM) to have a better conscience. I do not buy them, because I do not want them.
I am convinced that at least some of those great DVD non-skipable trailers and annoucements "Copying of this DVD is prohibited..." and you-need-to-watch-this-for-at-least-30-seconds have decreased the number of people buying DVDs and increased the number of people getting cracked copies over the Internet. It's not just those who do not want to pay - it's also those who do not want to see every time that the publisher thinks that you need a reminder to not become a criminal.
When I buy a DVD, I want to be able to create a backup that I use and store the DVD in safe keeping. If they don't want me to do this, distribute your films on a more robust media. This ruling is down right horrible for consumers.
I fully agree to your reasoning. But I think that the only real consequence is: Do not buy any movie, music, software that is distributed on DRM "protected" media.
This behavior, btw, may over time maybe also change the offer.
A general tool of almost any kind, used in a different way, is _not patentable_. It's using the tool for what it was designed for, it does not change the physical construction of the machine nor its number of parts nor its general capabilities.
This is not entirely accurate. Suppose there is a patent on Compound X and the patent discloses the use of Compound X as a floor wax. Now suppose someone discovers that Compound X makes an excellent treatment for baldness, which is entirely nonobvious given its previous use as a floor wax. It is true that the inventor cannot patent Compound X again just because a new use has been discovered. But what the inventor can patent is a method of use of Compound X as a baldness treatment, specifying the dose and treatment regimen. This is true in the US though not true in many other jurisdictions.
I hope that you are not right. First of all: Discoveries are not patentable (as far as I understand the patent system). Second, you cannot patent the "how-to-use" description of compound X, you may create a new product that contains compound X and maybe patent its composition. But then, I know much about patents for software (which should not exist, but practically exist), and nothing about patents used in pharmaceutical products. I am not sure whether they are comparable.
The "actually implemented algorithm" is protected in its specific implementation by copyright, and should not receive the double protection of patent law against writing similar algorithms.
The protection provided by copyright is very narrow: it extends only to the literal source and machine code, not to the algorithm generally. For example: suppose one discovers a new efficient algorithm for simulating fluids. This has many potential applications: special effects, computer games, weather simulation, etc. Now suppose one publishes the algorithm and implements it in a specific program: a computer game. Nothing in copyright law stops everyone in the world from implementing the published algorithm in their own games, weather simulators, special effects software, etc. So long as they don't directly rip off the inventor's code but instead create their own implementation of the idea, they are in the clear.
Yes. And you have built an application around this algorithm fully covered by the copyright. Or you have a library which markets the implementation - fully covered by the copyright. By publishing your new algorithm (e.g. on an international conference), you even get the merits and maketing that you need to establish yourself as an expert, so that's much easier to sell your implementation of this algorithm - compared to maybe other implementations. And, of course, you have a head start, since you may not publish the algorithm before your product is ready.
So what's a business to do? A common thing to do is keep the algorithm a secret and keep the source closed. The public will never learn about the algorithm.
That is also a possibility: Use your algorithm as a trade secrete inside your application - instead of benefiting from the marketing by publishing it. However, you should not think that other researchers are so dumb to not make the same discovery, if the algorithm is really so much better than others. If your product outperforms all others, people will start looking closer to possible solutions and they will do the same discovery - and they will do it before the typical end of the patent period.
Software patents step in to fill the gap left by copyright.
There is only a perceived gap. You think that a discovery of some mathematics should be patentable. I think it should not. Oddly, you cannot patent mathematics, but somehow lobbyists could get the PTO to patent algorithms (if I write the words "embodied in an apparatus").
A patent on the fluid simulation algorithm protects any
Slashdot Mirror
They also run on their own closed-circuit network, so good luck causing trouble without physical access or making yourself pretty obvious digging up the cables.
Or find out that the closed-circuit network was not that close as you thought...
This story should have been tagged "Idle" instead of "Science".
Perhaps I should have phrased that a bit different. I understand why it's a threat to institutionalized religion. I was referring more to people's personal beliefs.
Un-institutionalized religion does not exist.
Sometimes "proof by anecdote" is actually quite accurate. While you do not know any person with a Windows Mobile device, I know many (including me) - all switched quickly and cursed Microsoft every day before. Now everybody is using a Blackberry, Palm, or the iPhone. Nobody is ready to go back to any Windows Mobile version anytime soon - it was just too painful.
So, my advise to Microsoft: redo it from scratch. Rename it. And, damned!, do usability tests before releasing it into the wild.
I completely agree and did so during my classes - it worked very well. With one exception:Your rule 2 should be relaxed to actually take notes, but only for those parts that you want to look into after the lecture. Those notes tend to be just keywords, annotations or sometimes a surprising graph etc. - but is helps a lot to have a second look on the surprising facts some hours after the lecture (if you wait until end of the term their value will be most probably void).
Indeed. They even said if the cache machine in your branch did not work ...
Well, this works actually very well. The machine is caching all the money ...
AC, but the damned best post on slashdot since long. Chapeau!
This would be akin to Gucci telling eBay it needs to police all of its auctions, rather than Gucci itself being required to police eBay's auctions.
It's a bullshit attempt to shift the cost of policing users to an inappropriate entity IMHO.
This is an anlogy fail, because this is exactly what happened in France: An upper court decided that it is eBay's responsibility to either ensure that they do no longer act as a platform to sell couterfeited materials, or to stop selling certain fashion labels (in this case: Louis Vitton, Dior, etc.)
Those of us who still participate in discussion forums via Email or Usenet have ...
upgraded their email and usenet readers and do not experience those limits.
You've apparently missed the point completely. Twitter and similar sites have a character limit on messages.
Which is the problematic part. Totally unnecessary today, only still used to create some hype.
You don't need one of their store cards because they'll match your banking account numbers and STILL build a profile) and then sells them.
Illegal in the EU. You see the pattern?
Of course, the 3 strikes idea is about censorship. Anybody who thought otherwise?
A very good question. Or to turn the argument around, if any nonobvious process can be patented, could I patent all new mathematic discoveries?
Nope. Two ways to attack it:
First, 35 USC 101 requires that the process be "useful". Courts have construed this to mean that the process must have a non-abstract output that changes the physical world in some way.
OK - but this means that (pure) software patents do not match this test. Software does not change the physical world is some way (except if part of an specific apparatus, which - I agree - is patentable).
Second, 35 USC 101 also requires that you invent it. It could be argued that the discovery already existed, you just didn't know about it. E equaled M*C^2 long before Einstein came along, just no one knew.
This is physics, not math. I could point you to many software patents that try to patent math - especially in the categories cryptography, code redundancy, and signal processing. All those algorithms are pure math. Obviously, the math was already there before somebody discovered it.
Any argument loose enough to classify algorithms as mathematics is necessarily loose enough to classify *all* patentable subject matter as "mathematics".
What about all physical devices? Tell me your isomorphism to bring them to math. Note: it's not the description which is patented, but the described object.
35 USC 101 expressly authorizes granting of patents on a new and useful process.
OP stated explicitly *all* patentable subject matter. I gave a counterexample; QED.
What process cannot be expressed as math? Accordingly, what is the meaning of the term "process", if math can't be patented, but processes can?
A very good question. Or to turn the argument around, if any nonobvious process can be patented, could I patent all new mathematic discoveries?
Any argument loose enough to classify algorithms as mathematics is necessarily loose enough to classify *all* patentable subject matter as "mathematics".
What about all physical devices? Tell me your isomorphism to bring them to math. Note: it's not the description which is patented, but the described object.
I would not object to software patents if they actually provided the complete functional source code in the patent. You want a patent, you provide full disclosure.
Only if I could implement the same mechanism using a different source code without infringing your patent. Otherwise a source code listing does no add any value to the society.
But you know that ideas are not patentable?
Similar in software, I have to pay $600 for Adobe CS4 as nobody can't produce similar tools because Adobe have their 'patent portfolio' there.
Very bad example: (1) Similar software exists; (2) The price is (most probably) not because of patent protection, but rather because of the availability, usability, and brand of the product.
If you copy it, they remind you that you only have a license. You can't do *everything* you want to do because you don't own it, you just have a license to listen to it.
You are wrong (at least for audio CDs and movie DVDs). If you bought a CD or DVD you own it. You can do with it whatever you want (note: this does NOT include violating the copyright - which is a distribution right); there is no EULA. Those licenses exist for software, though.
Actually, I think that this boycott helps. At least in the case of audio CDs (which have been often crippled as "enhanced CDs"), there is a trend to come back to the DRM free CD standard. I think that is mainly because enough people do not buy them. You also see it with DRM free music at Amazon and iTunes.
DVDs are different: they always included DRM and the so much hated region code. DVD buyers just live with the fact. BTW: I know nearly no person that is still buying DVDs (unless they have kids - because they tend to see a movie 100s of times); most people are either renting the DVD or directly use VoD. Clearly, a DRM on a rented DVD or on a VoD stream is less cumbersome for the consumer - after all you only have a day or so to use the media.
And, most importantly: I do not buy DVDs (with DRM) to have a better conscience. I do not buy them, because I do not want them.
Just because others do not care, does not mean that you should buy DRM crippled media.
I am convinced that at least some of those great DVD non-skipable trailers and annoucements "Copying of this DVD is prohibited..." and you-need-to-watch-this-for-at-least-30-seconds have decreased the number of people buying DVDs and increased the number of people getting cracked copies over the Internet. It's not just those who do not want to pay - it's also those who do not want to see every time that the publisher thinks that you need a reminder to not become a criminal.
Interestingly enough, your direct link to AnyDVD is illegal in Germany. Will we see STOP signs? Or will Gemany close /.?
When I buy a DVD, I want to be able to create a backup that I use and store the DVD in safe keeping. If they don't want me to do this, distribute your films on a more robust media. This ruling is down right horrible for consumers.
I fully agree to your reasoning. But I think that the only real consequence is: Do not buy any movie, music, software that is distributed on DRM "protected" media.
This behavior, btw, may over time maybe also change the offer.
A general tool of almost any kind, used in a different way, is _not patentable_. It's using the tool for what it was designed for, it does not change the physical construction of the machine nor its number of parts nor its general capabilities.
This is not entirely accurate. Suppose there is a patent on Compound X and the patent discloses the use of Compound X as a floor wax. Now suppose someone discovers that Compound X makes an excellent treatment for baldness, which is entirely nonobvious given its previous use as a floor wax. It is true that the inventor cannot patent Compound X again just because a new use has been discovered. But what the inventor can patent is a method of use of Compound X as a baldness treatment, specifying the dose and treatment regimen. This is true in the US though not true in many other jurisdictions.
I hope that you are not right. First of all: Discoveries are not patentable (as far as I understand the patent system). Second, you cannot patent the "how-to-use" description of compound X, you may create a new product that contains compound X and maybe patent its composition. But then, I know much about patents for software (which should not exist, but practically exist), and nothing about patents used in pharmaceutical products. I am not sure whether they are comparable.
The "actually implemented algorithm" is protected in its specific implementation by copyright, and should not receive the double protection of patent law against writing similar algorithms.
The protection provided by copyright is very narrow: it extends only to the literal source and machine code, not to the algorithm generally. For example: suppose one discovers a new efficient algorithm for simulating fluids. This has many potential applications: special effects, computer games, weather simulation, etc. Now suppose one publishes the algorithm and implements it in a specific program: a computer game. Nothing in copyright law stops everyone in the world from implementing the published algorithm in their own games, weather simulators, special effects software, etc. So long as they don't directly rip off the inventor's code but instead create their own implementation of the idea, they are in the clear.
Yes. And you have built an application around this algorithm fully covered by the copyright. Or you have a library which markets the implementation - fully covered by the copyright. By publishing your new algorithm (e.g. on an international conference), you even get the merits and maketing that you need to establish yourself as an expert, so that's much easier to sell your implementation of this algorithm - compared to maybe other implementations. And, of course, you have a head start, since you may not publish the algorithm before your product is ready.
So what's a business to do? A common thing to do is keep the algorithm a secret and keep the source closed.
The public will never learn about the algorithm.
That is also a possibility: Use your algorithm as a trade secrete inside your application - instead of benefiting from the marketing by publishing it. However, you should not think that other researchers are so dumb to not make the same discovery, if the algorithm is really so much better than others. If your product outperforms all others, people will start looking closer to possible solutions and they will do the same discovery - and they will do it before the typical end of the patent period.
Software patents step in to fill the gap left by copyright.
There is only a perceived gap. You think that a discovery of some mathematics should be patentable. I think it should not. Oddly, you cannot patent mathematics, but somehow lobbyists could get the PTO to patent algorithms (if I write the words "embodied in an apparatus").
A patent on the fluid simulation algorithm protects any