Question: I'm just a little PC builder and repairman, so maybe I'm missing something, but why not use USB sticks for login? It isn't like the sticks are expensive nowadays, and there are plenty of programs like Predator designed to allow secure login via USB. Now I'm sure somebody has a similar program (hell you might even be able to with the Predator Pro version) where you can activate/deactivate login sticks via Group Policy, so it seems to me the safest way would be simply having the insane length password on the stick, then you get the whole "huge letter/number/character that changes" while not having to deal with users not remembering. Just have them put the stick on their keyring and voila!
So maybe I'm missing something, but in this case it seems to me technology would be able to fix this problem.
People who argue that changing passwords frequently* is a waste of time has not had to deal with the security issue of people sharing their passwords on a regular basis. On the odd occaison, the Receptionists will share passwords so they can log in on each other's computers and access each others files. As an IT team we've done our best to abstract that concept by allowing anyone to log onto any computer in the network so long as they have an account, and mapping network drives automatically based on your permissions, but suffice to say some people just don't understand that. Someone will still only save to "My Documents" or C: drive, because thats what they do at home. Anyways, if someone gets terminated, and they remember the passwords, they pose a security risk. We had this issue come up last summer where a manager knew a few people's passwords, and after being fired, was using the webmail client to snoop on emails.
I haven't been working in this side of IT for more than 2 years and I can already see the benefit of ever-changing passwords.
*I suppose that depends how frequently you are talking
You forget. Sometimes IT does things really stupid that cause people to have to share the passwords. For example, one company I worked at instituted hard disk encryption. You had to know the owner's username and password to login, or the IT's admin account (which only went out to their IT help desk staff). The owner's username and password was also synchronized to their network domain account, and you couldn't use any other accounts at the login for the hard disk encryption - even if you had your own network domain account. I had one guy tell me how he determined his passwords in case it changed.
Yeah, they had good intentions with it, but completely broke the security system in the process.
I can't imagine remembering a password (or whatever you want to call it) is more difficult than learning a new keyboard layout.
You don't have to learn a new keyboard layout, you just have to tell the computer to use a different layout for that purpose. Most system support switching layouts.
So you set your default layout to Dvorak for the login screen, then after you login your account profile sets it to QWERTY. You want to login to a website or something with a password, and then you switch the keyboard layout (via the Systray/etc icon) to Dvorak again, after you type your password in, you switch it back. No need to memorize the new layout.
Hell I like how amazon has a recommendation setup based on how you've rated what you've bought before.
Now if they would just connect that I bought the box set of something to the fact that it contains on the individual items...seriously, if I note that I already bought the box set, do they really think I'm going to want to buy each item contained in the box set too? Same for the other way around - if I bought each individual item in the box set then I am probably not going to buy the box set as well. Sure there are some people that would, but not many; and those that are, are going to look for the box set too.
Even then, you really need to evaluate the processor on a per-core speed for comparison. Which is faster (performs better) - a 4-core 2.4GHz processor with each core running at 1.8 GHz, or a 6-core 2.4 GHz processor with each core running at 1.4 GHz? All cores do not necessarily run at the processor's specified clockspeed, but combined achieve the same performance. Thus both processors in my prior question would be equal despite the core differences. Though programs that are multithreaded may provide a little better performance with more cores, but the overhead (as has been pointed out) and optimizations may negate that.
Masters in EE is probably the way to go. You can even do a focus on Biologic or Chemical related EE too - thus you'd essentially have the training as a Computer Bio or Chemical Engineer. Think along those terms, and there's probably a good fit from the Engineering perspective for you.
True, but it was also the best intelligence could offer for a whole host of reasons. It was more an intelligence failure than Bush spouting falsehoods.
"7. Bush is an idiot" True
False - though unpopular. Bush is actually quite smart guy, though he doesn't necessarily come across as such. On the other hand, Obama comes across as such, but is really an idiot when it comes down to it.
"10. Bush stole the 2000 election (and even the 2004 election)"
true and true. Clarification: Republicans did. 2000 was shameful and a slap in the face to every American. 2004 was full of wide spread fraud. District not counted, people sent away, voting booths were closed or not st up in heavy democrat counties.
Agreed it was shameful. Both on the part of the Democrats and the Republicans. But Bush did not steal the election.
"11. Bush is spending us into a huge hole... wait, that one was true." Yes it was. The whole republican party was spending, borrowing and deregulating.
The republican party has very few actually conservatives anymore, and any party that punishes anyone behaving outside of the leader narrowly decided upon views should be abandoned by thinking persons.
And the Democrats haven't done any better. Obama has already spent more money then Bush did, albeit differently.
The trouble with these type of taxes is that the corporations simply pass it onto the customers. Unless a huge tax is placed on the products, it will still be cheaper overall to offshore labor and charge consumers more. There are three scenarios:
1) Low tax, say taxing the corporations for 20% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor....
2) Medium tax rate, say taxing the corporations for 80% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor....
3) High tax rate, say taxing the corporations for 120% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor....
Haven't heard of a tariff, now have you?
The whole point of a tariff is that you raise the cost of the imported item at issue (e.g. off-shoring) to be the same or greater than that of doing the same thing domestically. Sure companies (of all sizes) may try to pass it on their customers; but that just means they're going to go to another vendor that can provide it cheaper because they don't have to pay the tariff. At best, the minimum price level becomes the same - since labor, etc. is generally fixed per the tariff (e.g. pay per employee, etc. - not truly 100% fixed).
And yes, I do support getting rid of a lot of the free trade stuff (NAFTA, etc.) and imposing more tariffs. Off-shoring was a nightmare that we are just being to understand the true consequences of.
Steven's concurrence is actually a dissent in part. He goes on for 40+ pages about why business methods should not be patentable under 101, and three other justices joined Stevens. Regardless of whether he label his writing a concurrence or dissent, the opinion is split. There is a 5-4 majority opinion in favor of business method patents.
Practically speaking, this means that the Court is one vote away from making business methods non-patentable.
Steven's goes on for 40+ pages providing greater insight into the decision, including the majority decision; and outlining more details. Yes, he goes on why they shouldn't patentable, but he nonetheless agrees (concurs) with the majority. I think overall the whole court agreed that they are "abstract" things and therefore not patentable though not explicitly stating it; but as Stevens points out, the majority opinion in very mirky in nature; thus his more detailed 40 page concurring opinion - to try to bring clarity.
How is it a "split 5-4 in favor of business method patents"? Every judge agreed just not on the details. A split 5-4 would mean 5 agreed and 4 disagreed, not a unanimous verdict (9:0) - with or without multiple concurring opinions - which is what was handed down.
So, now we get back to 101... It's something invented, definitely new... but should it be unpatentable because it's math?
Einstein invented General and Special Relativity; and it's basically a mathematical proof. It was new when he published it (circa 1905 and 1915) Would that have warranted a patent? No. Why?
It's certainly useful - without it we would have a hard time with electronics as we use relativity to predict atoms, etc.
It was certainly new at that time.
It was certainly non-obvious at that time.
BUT it did not involve a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" (U.S.C Title 35 Section 101).
It's that last part that makes the very sticky issue. Sure you could probably make an argument that a series of math formulas put together are a process of sorts; but you still haven't contributed anything that is tangibly useful in doing so.
Why the 'tangibly useful'? I would argue that U.S.C Title 35 Section 101 should be read as follows (italics are my insertions):
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process of matter, machine of matter, manufacture of matter, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Linguistically you can argue that fits - it's a matter of how you are interpreting the application of the comma to the phrases; and I believe that is how SCOTUS has historically interpreted it as well (IANAL, much less a patent attorney, so I could very well be wrong). That interpretation could change, true; but would it be a change for the better? Or is that delineation useful in limiting the scope of patents? Again, I would argue changing that interpretation is not a change for the better, and that it is a useful limitation on the scope.
Why? When comparing methods of protections patents are most useful for tangible, concrete things - not abstract; while copyright is most useful for intangible, abstract things. Clearly we have to sections of law that delineate well along the tangibility and intangibility lines. Why smear the line?
Aside from lawyers making more money on fuzzy lines, is it useful to the purpose of patents and copyright to smear the line? Is it accomplishing the goals of the U.S Constitution Article 1 Section 8.8 in advancing the "Progress of Science and useful Arts"? Or is it just lining the lawyer's pockets and taking up the court's valuable time?
Those are the questions the SCOTUS will really be evaluating in Bilksi. Which side has made the better argument? Or do the current rulings stand to sufficiently satisfy the question? We'll see what they say, certainly. I know that I would certainly like to see them solidify the line that the Federal Circuit muddied (via Statestreet and a few other rulings where they seemingly ignored SCOTUS precedent).
As always, usual disclaimer - IANAL and I don't pretend to be either.
Also, that bit about math being unpatentable... That's not in the statutes. That comes from the court, so it's an interpretation they could change, too.
he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented
The courts have taken it as anything that is a law of nature is thereby unpatentable. Math is a law of nature; transmissions are not, though they employ laws of nature to function.
Actually, that interpretation is also in 101, which states that whoever invents or discovers any new process may obtain a patent therefor. By the same analysis, laws of nature have existed since the beginning of the universe - therefore, they aren't new.
But, this isn't any different from what I said... both are judicial interpretations of the statute. Good ones, mind you, but not ones that can't be modified.
While IANAL - I would think that the working of what I quoted would make it pretty clear that the one apply for the patent must also be the inventor of the patent. Thereby, if it already exists - as a law of nature - no one can therefore "invent the subject matter" and therefore would be excluded from patenting the subject matter as matter of law, not court interpretation of said law.
The only real way to resolve the issue is not to limit it to a specific number - that just doesn't work with a growing society as you have more and more players participating - but rather to tie it to a process that can be independently evaluated as to whether the patent is "promote the Progress of Science and useful Art" (US Constitution Article 1 Section 8.8), and enforcing the "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (US Constitution Article 1 Section 8.8). The best method to do this today is through business evaluation by the state - essentially, require a business plan with the patent and then hold them to it. If they meet the business plan, then they get it for the length; if they exceed the business plan then they lose it early; if they fail they can either lose it (if it's not meeting the requirements) or be granted an extension depending on the success. Tie the results of the business plan to the amount invested and add a small but meaningful profile (e.g. invested + 20%), and also an industry survey. Require review on a regular basis, but staged with the longer the patent is held the more frequent the review.
Sure this will require resources to regulate; but it certainly would be a big benefit over the existing system, and would be able to get rid of patent trolls if the business plan requirements were correct - e.g. requiring an actual product being put to market by the patent holder that utilizes the patent, no product then no patent.
Also, that bit about math being unpatentable... That's not in the statutes. That comes from the court, so it's an interpretation they could change, too.
he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented
The courts have taken it as anything that is a law of nature is thereby unpatentable. Math is a law of nature; transmissions are not, though they employ laws of nature to function.
Evolutionism promotes and falls back on the Big Bang and primordial goo for the very start of things being created.
That statement shows just how ignorant you are. Evolution and cosmology are two entirely different fields of science, and the term "primordial goo" is mostly used by the media and idiots who write books about creationism.
You still know what I mean, and it's still valid. Evolution has many holes in it, and ultimately relies on the same basic unverifiable issues. Cosmology only applies for the Big Bang Theory, but Evolution still relies on some unknown, unverifiable ability to create life (any kind of life) out of nothing - whether "primordial goo" or something else, doesn't matter.
The rest of your post is just nonsense. Go get a real education.
Shows how much you know about opposing view points. While true - it's not going to popular here on/. to say that, it's true nonetheless.
Science does not fall back on the invisible friend in the sky to explain what it does not currently understand. Scientists may not have all the answers, but at least they are looking for ways to find them. Hand waving and saying "God did it" is a dead end that can never expand human knowledge the way science can.
Pure Creationism only falls back on that for the very start of things being created. Creationism fully allows and promotes true scientific study.
Comparatively, Evolutionism promotes and falls back on the Big Bang and primordial goo for the very start of things being created. You cannot test that, and it is very equivalent to the "invisible friend in the sky". The big difference is that instead of saying "God did it", the evolutionist says "nothingness did it - it was just a random act", where Theistic Evolutionism says turns that "nothingness did it" right back into the "God did it" just to justify the two.
QED Evolutionism is no more science than Creationism.
And, btw, there is no payment required. Otherwise unpaid interns and volunteers would keep their copyrights, etc. when they do work that is *uncommissioned and unpaid* for any entity (commercial or otherwise).
Well, there is no such thing as an 'unpaid intern'.. the practice of hiring someone but not paying is not legal under the labor laws.
Yes, I am aware the Labor Department is looking into that. However, that doesn't mean they are not there. Various Federal Agencies (e.g. the FBI) have unpaid internships (know someone that's been through that!).
It's also quite a common issue in the tech industry, and a few others. While I didn't take it I have had one company try to hire me that way; and for quite a few it is common practice. Not saying it's right, or legal - but it is there.
I'm also aware (from when I was in college) that a number of my fellow students had the same issue - too many unpaid internships.
Thus, why the gov't (Labor Department/whoever) is now looking into the practice. But needless to say, unpaid internships DO exist.
Work done by a student does not fit in here. Because (a) It is not prepared for the purpose of use by the university, and (b) The student is not an employee, since the university doesn't have a right to determine the conditions time/place under which they created the work, and (c) the student is not an employee legally.
While you could probably argue non-class creations (e.g. creating the next Microsoft from your dorm room) fit that, you'd be hard pressed to argue that classwork does not fit that - it's prepared per instruction (conditions of the work - requirements, time line, etc.) per the professor (basically your boss) for the purpose of the educational instituion (to teach you and others something), with deadlines, etc.
BTW, 'student' is a legally recognized employment status.
BTW, as far as the gov't is concerned you are employed as a Student at the school. So enrollment at the school is probably sufficient for the school to claim that (even though you are paying them) it is the equivalent of a work for hire relationship.
BTW, you don't need a written employment contract to require that everything you do as an employee belongs to the company you work for either. Same for students - your enrollment is sufficient to say that you agree with the policy, and therefore give up your rights. Don't like it - enroll elsewhere.
It's not the same. By law, when you do work for another company who commissions and pays for the work, if there is not a contract, then 'work for hire' is assumed.
The company who paid for and commissioned the work receives the copyright.
If you are a student, then you are not paid for any work. There is no automatic transfer of IP, regardless of someone else's "policy".
By law a transfer of copyright can only be made with a signed agreement.
There is no such thing as implicit transfer of ownership of copyright exclusive rights, there must be a signed contract.
While IANAL (and I doubt you are either), that won't stop a University/College. You enroll in the school, and they'll argue that that is sufficient - and it probably is. You agree to their policy, just like you agree to the work policy.
And, btw, there is no payment required. Otherwise unpaid interns and volunteers would keep their copyrights, etc. when they do work that is *uncommissioned and unpaid* for any entity (commercial or otherwise).
And again, they'll simply come back with the statement of "don't like it, go to school elsewhere, your enrollment in the school is agreement to the policy to transfer the work to the school", and it'll _likely_ be upheld in court.
It's akin to an employer changing the policy and saying "if you don't like the policy, then you are free to seek employment elsewhere", regardless of how legal/etc. the policy may be.
The college/university may be relying on students not being able to fight it in court, but that doesn't change what is happening now.
If you put $51 Billion into the system and the net result is 500,000 new jobs, you're talking half a million jobs at $102,000 each! Even with benefits, you could hire an American for that, (provided you avoided union workers).
If they were talking Indian jobs, the figure would be closer to 5 million jobs, and Chinese would probably be closer to 20 million.
As others have said, you're numbers are wrong. From the summary:
Software theft exceeded $51 billion in commercial value in 2009, according to the BSA. IDC says lowering software piracy by just 10 percentage points during the next four years would create nearly 500,000 new jobs and pump $140 billion into 'ailing economies.
So you're not dumping $51 Billion in and getting 500k jobs, you're dumping 10% of $51 Billion in, or $5.1 Billion - which equates to $10,200 per job for 500k jobs. Offshoring would be required. Of course, that's assuming it creates any jobs whatsoever, which I'd contest to start with.
Now, pumping $5.1Billion in and getting $141 Billion out shows just how ridiculous their assertions are. No industry sees a 2,764.7% ROI - even the software industry, which has pretty high ROI already. If you believe that, then I've got some tropical ocean front property in Siberia to sell you.
Second, even if you eradicated piracy and the software industry really did realize increased revenue of $500 Gazillion dollars (US), the number of jobs created would be very close to zero. We're not manufacturing widgets here. If sales of Photoshop increase sharply they don't need to hire more programmers.
No, they don't have to, but it may produce enough extra income to hire that "one more programmer" to help make the load more manageable.
Then again, they may say "we're doing more than adequate with our current staff, so no need to hire more" and either not hire someone or take longer doing so, being more scrupulous in the process.
Don't get me wrong - I agree with you; just playing devil's advocate.
That's not correct. Unless you did the work as a university employee, or someone compensated by the university for doing the work, there is no transfer of copyright or assignment of any rights, just because you were a student at the time.
Actually it depends on the policies, etc. at the University, and yes - there are a number of colleges and universities in the US that take that stance - anything any student creates while a student (not an employee) at the college/university belongs to the college/university and not the student. Now, how well they enforce that, or how legal, etc. it is is a different matter. It also doesn't matter whether its for coursework, employment, or just plain on your own time. And a prudent student would ask before they enroll if they care, or check into it before it mattered. In this case, the poster may very well be out of luck.
BTW, you don't need a written employment contract to require that everything you do as an employee belongs to the company you work for either. Same for students - your enrollment is sufficient to say that you agree with the policy, and therefore give up your rights. Don't like it - enroll elsewhere.
as long as Outlook continues to encourage top-posting and HTML formatted content, and discourage quoted reply trimming, it will still suck.
Jesus Christ. 10 years later, and we're still having this argument?
Give it up, dude. Usenet is dead, top-posting is the norm, and everything supports HTML. Only a select few chose to trim their bottom-posts, which usually just meant lots of scrolling.
(In any event, threaded conversations a la GMail are clearly the way forward)
Obviously you are not on too many mailing lists. Most F/OSS oriented mailing lists (e.g. gentoo users, PHP users, samba uses, etc) forbid HTML mail, and discourage top and bottom posting. They also highly encourage trimming the message to just what you are replying to - as the rest, you know, is in the message archives. Outlook has always been a problem for mailing lists, but again - it's not impossible to do inline replies, just a bit harder to get it setup that way. Even Yahoo! Mail broke that for a while, and recently fixed it, somewhat - it's still kinda broken, but not nearly as bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Question: I'm just a little PC builder and repairman, so maybe I'm missing something, but why not use USB sticks for login? It isn't like the sticks are expensive nowadays, and there are plenty of programs like Predator designed to allow secure login via USB. Now I'm sure somebody has a similar program (hell you might even be able to with the Predator Pro version) where you can activate/deactivate login sticks via Group Policy, so it seems to me the safest way would be simply having the insane length password on the stick, then you get the whole "huge letter/number/character that changes" while not having to deal with users not remembering. Just have them put the stick on their keyring and voila!
So maybe I'm missing something, but in this case it seems to me technology would be able to fix this problem.
The problem comes when they loose the USB stick.
People who argue that changing passwords frequently* is a waste of time has not had to deal with the security issue of people sharing their passwords on a regular basis. On the odd occaison, the Receptionists will share passwords so they can log in on each other's computers and access each others files. As an IT team we've done our best to abstract that concept by allowing anyone to log onto any computer in the network so long as they have an account, and mapping network drives automatically based on your permissions, but suffice to say some people just don't understand that. Someone will still only save to "My Documents" or C: drive, because thats what they do at home. Anyways, if someone gets terminated, and they remember the passwords, they pose a security risk. We had this issue come up last summer where a manager knew a few people's passwords, and after being fired, was using the webmail client to snoop on emails.
I haven't been working in this side of IT for more than 2 years and I can already see the benefit of ever-changing passwords.
*I suppose that depends how frequently you are talking
You forget. Sometimes IT does things really stupid that cause people to have to share the passwords. For example, one company I worked at instituted hard disk encryption. You had to know the owner's username and password to login, or the IT's admin account (which only went out to their IT help desk staff). The owner's username and password was also synchronized to their network domain account, and you couldn't use any other accounts at the login for the hard disk encryption - even if you had your own network domain account. I had one guy tell me how he determined his passwords in case it changed.
Yeah, they had good intentions with it, but completely broke the security system in the process.
I can't imagine remembering a password (or whatever you want to call it) is more difficult than learning a new keyboard layout.
You don't have to learn a new keyboard layout, you just have to tell the computer to use a different layout for that purpose. Most system support switching layouts. So you set your default layout to Dvorak for the login screen, then after you login your account profile sets it to QWERTY. You want to login to a website or something with a password, and then you switch the keyboard layout (via the Systray/etc icon) to Dvorak again, after you type your password in, you switch it back. No need to memorize the new layout.
Now if they would just connect that I bought the box set of something to the fact that it contains on the individual items...seriously, if I note that I already bought the box set, do they really think I'm going to want to buy each item contained in the box set too? Same for the other way around - if I bought each individual item in the box set then I am probably not going to buy the box set as well. Sure there are some people that would, but not many; and those that are, are going to look for the box set too.
Even then, you really need to evaluate the processor on a per-core speed for comparison. Which is faster (performs better) - a 4-core 2.4GHz processor with each core running at 1.8 GHz, or a 6-core 2.4 GHz processor with each core running at 1.4 GHz? All cores do not necessarily run at the processor's specified clockspeed, but combined achieve the same performance. Thus both processors in my prior question would be equal despite the core differences. Though programs that are multithreaded may provide a little better performance with more cores, but the overhead (as has been pointed out) and optimizations may negate that.
Masters in EE is probably the way to go. You can even do a focus on Biologic or Chemical related EE too - thus you'd essentially have the training as a Computer Bio or Chemical Engineer. Think along those terms, and there's probably a good fit from the Engineering perspective for you.
The NY Times tried it a few years ago. It didn't pan out (quite a disaster for them); so they reverted back.
"2. Bush lied about WMDs"
True.
True, but it was also the best intelligence could offer for a whole host of reasons. It was more an intelligence failure than Bush spouting falsehoods.
"7. Bush is an idiot"
True
False - though unpopular. Bush is actually quite smart guy, though he doesn't necessarily come across as such. On the other hand, Obama comes across as such, but is really an idiot when it comes down to it.
"10. Bush stole the 2000 election (and even the 2004 election)"
true and true. Clarification: Republicans did. 2000 was shameful and a slap in the face to every American. 2004 was full of wide spread fraud. District not counted, people sent away, voting booths were closed or not st up in heavy democrat counties.
Agreed it was shameful. Both on the part of the Democrats and the Republicans. But Bush did not steal the election.
"11. Bush is spending us into a huge hole... wait, that one was true."
Yes it was. The whole republican party was spending, borrowing and deregulating. The republican party has very few actually conservatives anymore, and any party that punishes anyone behaving outside of the leader narrowly decided upon views should be abandoned by thinking persons.
And the Democrats haven't done any better. Obama has already spent more money then Bush did, albeit differently.
The trouble with these type of taxes is that the corporations simply pass it onto the customers. Unless a huge tax is placed on the products, it will still be cheaper overall to offshore labor and charge consumers more. There are three scenarios: 1) Low tax, say taxing the corporations for 20% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor....
2) Medium tax rate, say taxing the corporations for 80% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor....
3) High tax rate, say taxing the corporations for 120% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor....
Haven't heard of a tariff, now have you?
The whole point of a tariff is that you raise the cost of the imported item at issue (e.g. off-shoring) to be the same or greater than that of doing the same thing domestically. Sure companies (of all sizes) may try to pass it on their customers; but that just means they're going to go to another vendor that can provide it cheaper because they don't have to pay the tariff. At best, the minimum price level becomes the same - since labor, etc. is generally fixed per the tariff (e.g. pay per employee, etc. - not truly 100% fixed).
And yes, I do support getting rid of a lot of the free trade stuff (NAFTA, etc.) and imposing more tariffs. Off-shoring was a nightmare that we are just being to understand the true consequences of.
Steven's concurrence is actually a dissent in part. He goes on for 40+ pages about why business methods should not be patentable under 101, and three other justices joined Stevens. Regardless of whether he label his writing a concurrence or dissent, the opinion is split. There is a 5-4 majority opinion in favor of business method patents.
Practically speaking, this means that the Court is one vote away from making business methods non-patentable.
Steven's goes on for 40+ pages providing greater insight into the decision, including the majority decision; and outlining more details. Yes, he goes on why they shouldn't patentable, but he nonetheless agrees (concurs) with the majority. I think overall the whole court agreed that they are "abstract" things and therefore not patentable though not explicitly stating it; but as Stevens points out, the majority opinion in very mirky in nature; thus his more detailed 40 page concurring opinion - to try to bring clarity.
How is it a "split 5-4 in favor of business method patents"? Every judge agreed just not on the details. A split 5-4 would mean 5 agreed and 4 disagreed, not a unanimous verdict (9:0) - with or without multiple concurring opinions - which is what was handed down.
Einstein invented General and Special Relativity; and it's basically a mathematical proof. It was new when he published it (circa 1905 and 1915) Would that have warranted a patent? No. Why?
It's that last part that makes the very sticky issue. Sure you could probably make an argument that a series of math formulas put together are a process of sorts; but you still haven't contributed anything that is tangibly useful in doing so.
Why the 'tangibly useful'? I would argue that U.S.C Title 35 Section 101 should be read as follows (italics are my insertions):
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process of matter, machine of matter, manufacture of matter, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Linguistically you can argue that fits - it's a matter of how you are interpreting the application of the comma to the phrases; and I believe that is how SCOTUS has historically interpreted it as well (IANAL, much less a patent attorney, so I could very well be wrong). That interpretation could change, true; but would it be a change for the better? Or is that delineation useful in limiting the scope of patents? Again, I would argue changing that interpretation is not a change for the better, and that it is a useful limitation on the scope.
Why? When comparing methods of protections patents are most useful for tangible, concrete things - not abstract; while copyright is most useful for intangible, abstract things. Clearly we have to sections of law that delineate well along the tangibility and intangibility lines. Why smear the line?
Aside from lawyers making more money on fuzzy lines, is it useful to the purpose of patents and copyright to smear the line? Is it accomplishing the goals of the U.S Constitution Article 1 Section 8.8 in advancing the "Progress of Science and useful Arts"? Or is it just lining the lawyer's pockets and taking up the court's valuable time?
Those are the questions the SCOTUS will really be evaluating in Bilksi. Which side has made the better argument? Or do the current rulings stand to sufficiently satisfy the question? We'll see what they say, certainly. I know that I would certainly like to see them solidify the line that the Federal Circuit muddied (via Statestreet and a few other rulings where they seemingly ignored SCOTUS precedent).
As always, usual disclaimer - IANAL and I don't pretend to be either.
Also, that bit about math being unpatentable... That's not in the statutes. That comes from the court, so it's an interpretation they could change, too.
Actually it comes from the USC 35 section 102.f
he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented
The courts have taken it as anything that is a law of nature is thereby unpatentable. Math is a law of nature; transmissions are not, though they employ laws of nature to function.
Actually, that interpretation is also in 101, which states that whoever invents or discovers any new process may obtain a patent therefor. By the same analysis, laws of nature have existed since the beginning of the universe - therefore, they aren't new. But, this isn't any different from what I said... both are judicial interpretations of the statute. Good ones, mind you, but not ones that can't be modified.
While IANAL - I would think that the working of what I quoted would make it pretty clear that the one apply for the patent must also be the inventor of the patent. Thereby, if it already exists - as a law of nature - no one can therefore "invent the subject matter" and therefore would be excluded from patenting the subject matter as matter of law, not court interpretation of said law.
Again, IANAL but that's how I see it.
The only real way to resolve the issue is not to limit it to a specific number - that just doesn't work with a growing society as you have more and more players participating - but rather to tie it to a process that can be independently evaluated as to whether the patent is "promote the Progress of Science and useful Art" (US Constitution Article 1 Section 8.8), and enforcing the "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (US Constitution Article 1 Section 8.8). The best method to do this today is through business evaluation by the state - essentially, require a business plan with the patent and then hold them to it. If they meet the business plan, then they get it for the length; if they exceed the business plan then they lose it early; if they fail they can either lose it (if it's not meeting the requirements) or be granted an extension depending on the success. Tie the results of the business plan to the amount invested and add a small but meaningful profile (e.g. invested + 20%), and also an industry survey. Require review on a regular basis, but staged with the longer the patent is held the more frequent the review.
Sure this will require resources to regulate; but it certainly would be a big benefit over the existing system, and would be able to get rid of patent trolls if the business plan requirements were correct - e.g. requiring an actual product being put to market by the patent holder that utilizes the patent, no product then no patent.
Also, that bit about math being unpatentable... That's not in the statutes. That comes from the court, so it's an interpretation they could change, too.
Actually it comes from the USC 35 section 102.f
he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented
The courts have taken it as anything that is a law of nature is thereby unpatentable. Math is a law of nature; transmissions are not, though they employ laws of nature to function.
You still know what I mean, and it's still valid. Evolution has many holes in it, and ultimately relies on the same basic unverifiable issues. Cosmology only applies for the Big Bang Theory, but Evolution still relies on some unknown, unverifiable ability to create life (any kind of life) out of nothing - whether "primordial goo" or something else, doesn't matter.
Shows how much you know about opposing view points. While true - it's not going to popular here on /. to say that, it's true nonetheless.
Pure Creationism only falls back on that for the very start of things being created. Creationism fully allows and promotes true scientific study.
Comparatively, Evolutionism promotes and falls back on the Big Bang and primordial goo for the very start of things being created. You cannot test that, and it is very equivalent to the "invisible friend in the sky". The big difference is that instead of saying "God did it", the evolutionist says "nothingness did it - it was just a random act", where Theistic Evolutionism says turns that "nothingness did it" right back into the "God did it" just to justify the two.
QED Evolutionism is no more science than Creationism.
It's cheaper than using trained hydrophobes. Or are they used to create the membrane?
What do witches have to do with it? They're about as hydrophobic as you can get, no?
Yes, I am aware the Labor Department is looking into that. However, that doesn't mean they are not there. Various Federal Agencies (e.g. the FBI) have unpaid internships (know someone that's been through that!).
It's also quite a common issue in the tech industry, and a few others. While I didn't take it I have had one company try to hire me that way; and for quite a few it is common practice. Not saying it's right, or legal - but it is there. I'm also aware (from when I was in college) that a number of my fellow students had the same issue - too many unpaid internships.
Thus, why the gov't (Labor Department/whoever) is now looking into the practice. But needless to say, unpaid internships DO exist.
While you could probably argue non-class creations (e.g. creating the next Microsoft from your dorm room) fit that, you'd be hard pressed to argue that classwork does not fit that - it's prepared per instruction (conditions of the work - requirements, time line, etc.) per the professor (basically your boss) for the purpose of the educational instituion (to teach you and others something), with deadlines, etc.
BTW, 'student' is a legally recognized employment status.
BTW, as far as the gov't is concerned you are employed as a Student at the school. So enrollment at the school is probably sufficient for the school to claim that (even though you are paying them) it is the equivalent of a work for hire relationship.
BTW, you don't need a written employment contract to require that everything you do as an employee belongs to the company you work for either. Same for students - your enrollment is sufficient to say that you agree with the policy, and therefore give up your rights. Don't like it - enroll elsewhere.
It's not the same. By law, when you do work for another company who commissions and pays for the work, if there is not a contract, then 'work for hire' is assumed. The company who paid for and commissioned the work receives the copyright.
If you are a student, then you are not paid for any work. There is no automatic transfer of IP, regardless of someone else's "policy". By law a transfer of copyright can only be made with a signed agreement. There is no such thing as implicit transfer of ownership of copyright exclusive rights, there must be a signed contract.
While IANAL (and I doubt you are either), that won't stop a University/College. You enroll in the school, and they'll argue that that is sufficient - and it probably is. You agree to their policy, just like you agree to the work policy.
And, btw, there is no payment required. Otherwise unpaid interns and volunteers would keep their copyrights, etc. when they do work that is *uncommissioned and unpaid* for any entity (commercial or otherwise).
And again, they'll simply come back with the statement of "don't like it, go to school elsewhere, your enrollment in the school is agreement to the policy to transfer the work to the school", and it'll _likely_ be upheld in court.
It's akin to an employer changing the policy and saying "if you don't like the policy, then you are free to seek employment elsewhere", regardless of how legal/etc. the policy may be.
The college/university may be relying on students not being able to fight it in court, but that doesn't change what is happening now.
No, silly.
If you put $51 Billion into the system and the net result is 500,000 new jobs, you're talking half a million jobs at $102,000 each! Even with benefits, you could hire an American for that, (provided you avoided union workers).
If they were talking Indian jobs, the figure would be closer to 5 million jobs, and Chinese would probably be closer to 20 million.
As others have said, you're numbers are wrong. From the summary:
Software theft exceeded $51 billion in commercial value in 2009, according to the BSA. IDC says lowering software piracy by just 10 percentage points during the next four years would create nearly 500,000 new jobs and pump $140 billion into 'ailing economies.
So you're not dumping $51 Billion in and getting 500k jobs, you're dumping 10% of $51 Billion in, or $5.1 Billion - which equates to $10,200 per job for 500k jobs. Offshoring would be required. Of course, that's assuming it creates any jobs whatsoever, which I'd contest to start with.
Now, pumping $5.1Billion in and getting $141 Billion out shows just how ridiculous their assertions are. No industry sees a 2,764.7% ROI - even the software industry, which has pretty high ROI already. If you believe that, then I've got some tropical ocean front property in Siberia to sell you.
No, they don't have to, but it may produce enough extra income to hire that "one more programmer" to help make the load more manageable.
Then again, they may say "we're doing more than adequate with our current staff, so no need to hire more" and either not hire someone or take longer doing so, being more scrupulous in the process.
Don't get me wrong - I agree with you; just playing devil's advocate.
That's not correct. Unless you did the work as a university employee, or someone compensated by the university for doing the work, there is no transfer of copyright or assignment of any rights, just because you were a student at the time.
Actually it depends on the policies, etc. at the University, and yes - there are a number of colleges and universities in the US that take that stance - anything any student creates while a student (not an employee) at the college/university belongs to the college/university and not the student. Now, how well they enforce that, or how legal, etc. it is is a different matter. It also doesn't matter whether its for coursework, employment, or just plain on your own time. And a prudent student would ask before they enroll if they care, or check into it before it mattered. In this case, the poster may very well be out of luck.
BTW, you don't need a written employment contract to require that everything you do as an employee belongs to the company you work for either. Same for students - your enrollment is sufficient to say that you agree with the policy, and therefore give up your rights. Don't like it - enroll elsewhere.
as long as Outlook continues to encourage top-posting and HTML formatted content, and discourage quoted reply trimming, it will still suck.
Jesus Christ. 10 years later, and we're still having this argument?
Give it up, dude. Usenet is dead, top-posting is the norm, and everything supports HTML. Only a select few chose to trim their bottom-posts, which usually just meant lots of scrolling.
(In any event, threaded conversations a la GMail are clearly the way forward)
Obviously you are not on too many mailing lists. Most F/OSS oriented mailing lists (e.g. gentoo users, PHP users, samba uses, etc) forbid HTML mail, and discourage top and bottom posting. They also highly encourage trimming the message to just what you are replying to - as the rest, you know, is in the message archives. Outlook has always been a problem for mailing lists, but again - it's not impossible to do inline replies, just a bit harder to get it setup that way. Even Yahoo! Mail broke that for a while, and recently fixed it, somewhat - it's still kinda broken, but not nearly as bad.