He's dead. I saw an interview with his widow a few years ago, she was living in the US, think it was Virginia and it appeared that he lived with her there in the same house until his death as she showed the camera the room that was his "office."
Pretending that shouting someone down is akin to killing that person gains you no support.
I think he's just taking the tactic of fighting crazy with crazier. Its unlikely that a shouter is going to give much weight to anything that is cooly rational. By the time he's worked up enough to start shouting, its going to take a slap of some sort - metaphorical or physical - to knock him off the crazy train.
Congratulations, you can read wikipedia. Borland moved to Austin in 2007. They were founded and headquartered in scotts valley - adjacent to silicon valley - and registered in san jose, up until that point.
I think you're confused. Those are most certainly executed by software. Your point seems to be that they're not merely software. Hey, you're right - that's why they were patentable in the first place. Congratulations, you apparently understood Bilski.
So... You are now claiming that those patents are not affected by Bilski because they satisfy the machine part of the "machine or transformation test?" WTF? You've been hanging your hat on a trivial patent claim that is unaffected by Bilski in order to argue that Bilski will be invalidated and you think I'm being contradictory?
Chilling Effect. How can you simultaneously claim that patents stifle innovation, yet they're not worth anything unless the owner actually files lawsuits?
Gee, when did I ever say anything remotely like "patents stifle innovation?" You've gone from arguing minutae to making shiat up again.
But lets assume that I really did say that instead of you putting words in my mouth because you think you've got a useful strawman. Just because someone has the ability to stop another person from doing something doesn't make that ability particularly valuable to the owner. You can block a road, forcing people to go to additional expense and aggravation in order to get to their destination but that doesn't make the ability to block the road anywhere near as valuable as the cost of all those other people to finding a new path. Woop! Woop! You are dying to say "yes it does, that's called licensing" - refer to my first response to you.
Yeah, claims 21, 27, 53 and 59 of US 6,460,094 beg to differ with you. And hell, I only looked up the first patent. They sued over 5 of them.
In case that's not clear enough for you - they're patents on software methods and computer-readable media.
Bullshit. Computer readable media is hardware. Furthermore, at least the first few claims you've cited are not "software methods" either. Don't have time to waste tracking down every single random cite if you can't marshal the integrity to get them right.
Do you know what a "conductor" is? How about "signal level?" Those claims you cite are not software, they refer to the physical presence or absence of voltage on a wire. Not software that runs on a cpu.
Funny how you've been reduced to arguing about minutae instead of defending your original thesis. So what if I had been wrong and MS had sued 2 companies over software patents - neither of which came anywhere close to justifying even one millionth of MS's net worth - instead of just one? For some reason, you really seem to think this teeny tiny little detail is key to your point.
Why is that?
Oh yeah, because your thesis is just plain false so you are grasping at straws. I now predict that you will respond again with further irrelevant minutiae, get crackin!
21. A computer readable medium for use in a peripheral device connectable to a computer, the computer having one of a first interface and a second interface, the first interface communicating with the peripheral device over a differential data connection including a first data conductor and a second data conductor, and the second interface communicating with the peripheral device over a single ended data connection, including a first data conductor, and a clock conductor, the peripheral device including first and second communication conductors configured for connection to the first and second data conductors in the differential data connection when the computer includes the first interface, and configured for connection to the first data conductor in the single ended data connection and the clock conductor when the computer includes the second interface, the computer readable medium including instructions stored thereon which when executed by the peripheral device causes the peripheral device to execute the steps of:
detecting which of the first and second interfaces the peripheral device is connected to by signal levels on the first and second communication conductors; and
communicating with the computer over the first and second communication conductors according to a protocol corresponding to the detected interface.
27. A method implemented by a peripheral device for detecting whether the peripheral device is connected to a first interface or a second interface in a computer, the first interface communicating with the peripheral device over a differential data connection including a first data conductor and a second data conductor, and the second interface communicating with the peripheral device over a single ended data connection, including a first data conductor, and a clock conductor, the peripheral device including first and second communication conductors configured for connection to the first and second data conductors in the differential data connection when the computer includes the first interface, and configured for connection to the first data conductor in the single ended data connection and the clock conductor when the computer includes the second interface, the method comprising:
detecting which of the first and second interfaces the peripheral device is connected to by attempting to impart a signal level on at least one of the first and second communication conductors and detecting the signal level on at least one communication conductor; and
communicating with the computer over the first and second communication conductors according to a protocol corresponding to the detected interface.
Are you suggesting it's my fault that I'm offended by that? I'm not arguing that we should limit their rights to do that but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be offended by it.
Yes he is. And its true. You make the decision. Just because its easy to decide a certain way doesn't make it less of a decision. The only alternative is deny your own free will.
This is not how a Silicon Valley legend should end.
How should they end?
Spectacular bankruptcy like Enron?
Seems like most in silicon valley do a slow fade into oblivion and are eventually acquired for peanuts and never heard from again. 3DO, Transmeta, Borland, Quarterdeck, SGI, etc...
And, of course, there is a industry-wide, agreed upon standard for the 3D encoding and formats, right? Right??
It is a work in progress. SMPTE has already defined the requirements, and is working on actual specifications. Sony likes to be proprietary when they can, but I doubt they would ignore a SMPTE standard. They aren't the only manufacturer that's been talking up 3D in 2010.
You (then): "only MS has a large patent portfolio." You (now): "MS has got 100x more patents than Google or anyone else you've named.
"So, which is it - are you backpedaling because you're wrong, or are you defining "large" as "however many patents MS has, that's the definition of 'large'"?
You sure are dense. I put a number up there so you would have something to hit. You are still too much of a coward to even take a swing. How big is google's patent portfolio? How do you define large? Are you a hypocrite who is going to define "large" as "however many patents google has?"
And for the third time, you keep ignoring the point that none of those companies have any significant reliance on their patents. MS has sued exactly one company for infringing one of their software patents.
Your thesis sucks, you know it and that's why you won't defend it.
Or it's to prevent scammers and phishers from making Google-like homepages. ...
You could potentially do a lot of damage if you had the patience to go around scraping major sites and just making static HTML pages that sent username and password back to a database.
So, your thesis is that google got this patent in order to added another legal penalty to criminals who are already breaking a bunch of laws?
Thanks for understanding the FA. Apparently many people here only read the misleading title...But I am not surprise.
What other point do you think IBM has, except to mislead, by making that claim? This isn't a case of people not understanding the FA, its a case of them reacting to deliberately misleading wording that the FA is reporting on.
So, apparently your idea of 'addressing all the points' is to make shiat up. Frankly, I'm not interested in having a hypothetical discussion about situations that are exactly opposite to reality.
Coward. If you were right you could back your shit up. I'm confident that MS's has got 100x more patents than Google or anyone else you've named. Prove me wrong bucko.
Funny too how you've completely ignored my primary point that none of those companies derive significant value from their software patents either - that their patents are almost universally defensive.
I'm afraid you are the one who's been making shiat up and when pressed on it, you just run away.
I didn't say "software patent licensing", you goober. I implied that software has value in its patentability.
Then you are even crazier than I thought. The patent-ability of software has had just about nothing to do with those companies becoming successful. Of those listed, only MS has a large patent portfolio and they only started building it in earnest earlier this decade when they hired Marshall Phelps.
Oh, you have heard of pagerank. So what was that bullshiat up there about "Google's value has zero to do with patents"?
What part of "everything to do with being in a dominant market position" so you do you fail to understand?
Come up with a consistent position and then maybe we can attempt to discuss this. Sheesh.
I was simply addressing all the points that a reasonable person would propose to defend your position. Simply put (a) patents are not significantly important to Google, but even if they were important (b) expiration of their most famous one is right around the corner. The fact that you can't grasp simple logic suggests says just about everything one needs to know about the reasoning behind your arguments.
Furthermore, if you think that the Supreme Court is going to throw out software patents altogether when they rehear Bilski, and instantly cut the GDP of the country by 2/3rds, you're insane.
Exaggerate much? Seriously, what kind of whackadooddle thinks that 2/3rds of the US GDP is derived from software patent licensing.
And crashing the net worth of Google, Microsoft, Apple, and a million other companies? Probably not Congress' intent in writing the statute.
Lol, I guess you do exaggerate much. Google's value has zero to do with patents and everything to do with being in a dominant market position, plus all the money they raised in their unconventional IPO that put cash in their coffers instead of in the pockets of cronies of the banks. The patent on PageRank expires in 2011 anyway.
With the recent Bilski ruling, it seems like the term on software patents has been reduce to 0 years. My money is on that ruling being the motivator for MS to make this call for "global harmonization" - as they are one of the largest holders of software patents they are looking for a way to get Bilski invalidated through the backdoor.
I'm not a racist, now matter what ignorant twats like you think. Go fuck yourself.
You just keep telling yourself that. No asshole is ever smart enough to realize he is an asshole though, self-denial is real popular with people like you.
can you please list in your user-agent string the fact that you use ad blockers so I can redirect you to pages which are "just headlines", since you seem to have decided that you're incapable of filtering information for yourself?
So let me get this straight... You want him to help you filter him out because you think he's a putz for using a tool to help him filter you out? Is that not just a TAD hypocritical?
A rich fucker like him could've easily gone to one of those clinics in Europe and ended it in a more dignified manner. Imagine the poor bastard who ended up discovering his corpse... What an asshole.
Imagine the poor bastard who had to clean up the room. He had better have left a huge tip.
If the IRS is right, then yes, his actions were unjust. If he's right, then more power to him.
On the other hand, practically nobody thinks they are "the bad guy" even mass murders and evil despots - they've always got a rationalization for why their actions are OK.
I hate Fox and Rupurt Murdoch, but they were the ones to push the envelope with media. It's too bad Fox didn't have the foresight to buy properties like Marvel so that the seriously adult themes in comics can be fully developed.
Disney bought Miramax in 1993. That's the studio that has released just about every Quentin Taratino film as well as titles like Priest and the Crying Game. I'm not saying Miramax is perfect, far from it, but even under Disney they've released many movies with adult themes.
Slashdot Mirror
The Shah
He's dead. I saw an interview with his widow a few years ago, she was living in the US, think it was Virginia and it appeared that he lived with her there in the same house until his death as she showed the camera the room that was his "office."
Pretending that shouting someone down is akin to killing that person gains you no support.
I think he's just taking the tactic of fighting crazy with crazier. Its unlikely that a shouter is going to give much weight to anything that is cooly rational. By the time he's worked up enough to start shouting, its going to take a slap of some sort - metaphorical or physical - to knock him off the crazy train.
Yes, which was "exaggerate much"? Gosh, you sure showed me there.
No. It was, "plus all the" and, "cash in their coffers" and "what kind of."
Gee, you can't even selectively read right!
Congratulations, you can read wikipedia.
Borland moved to Austin in 2007.
They were founded and headquartered in scotts valley - adjacent to silicon valley - and registered in san jose, up until that point.
I think you're confused. Those are most certainly executed by software. Your point seems to be that they're not merely software. Hey, you're right - that's why they were patentable in the first place. Congratulations, you apparently understood Bilski.
So... You are now claiming that those patents are not affected by Bilski because they satisfy the machine part of the "machine or transformation test?"
WTF? You've been hanging your hat on a trivial patent claim that is unaffected by Bilski in order to argue that Bilski will be invalidated and you think I'm being contradictory?
Chilling Effect. How can you simultaneously claim that patents stifle innovation, yet they're not worth anything unless the owner actually files lawsuits?
Gee, when did I ever say anything remotely like "patents stifle innovation?" You've gone from arguing minutae to making shiat up again.
But lets assume that I really did say that instead of you putting words in my mouth because you think you've got a useful strawman. Just because someone has the ability to stop another person from doing something doesn't make that ability particularly valuable to the owner. You can block a road, forcing people to go to additional expense and aggravation in order to get to their destination but that doesn't make the ability to block the road anywhere near as valuable as the cost of all those other people to finding a new path. Woop! Woop! You are dying to say "yes it does, that's called licensing" - refer to my first response to you.
Yeah, claims 21, 27, 53 and 59 of US 6,460,094 beg to differ with you. And hell, I only looked up the first patent. They sued over 5 of them.
In case that's not clear enough for you - they're patents on software methods and computer-readable media.
Bullshit. Computer readable media is hardware. Furthermore, at least the first few claims you've cited are not "software methods" either. Don't have time to waste tracking down every single random cite if you can't marshal the integrity to get them right.
Do you know what a "conductor" is? How about "signal level?" Those claims you cite are not software, they refer to the physical presence or absence of voltage on a wire. Not software that runs on a cpu.
Funny how you've been reduced to arguing about minutae instead of defending your original thesis. So what if I had been wrong and MS had sued 2 companies over software patents - neither of which came anywhere close to justifying even one millionth of MS's net worth - instead of just one? For some reason, you really seem to think this teeny tiny little detail is key to your point.
Why is that?
Oh yeah, because your thesis is just plain false so you are grasping at straws.
I now predict that you will respond again with further irrelevant minutiae, get crackin!
21. A computer readable medium for use in a peripheral device connectable to a computer, the computer having one of a first interface and a second interface, the first interface communicating with the peripheral device over a differential data connection including a first data conductor and a second data conductor, and the second interface communicating with the peripheral device over a single ended data connection, including a first data conductor, and a clock conductor, the peripheral device including first and second communication conductors configured for connection to the first and second data conductors in the differential data connection when the computer includes the first interface, and configured for connection to the first data conductor in the single ended data connection and the clock conductor when the computer includes the second interface, the computer readable medium including instructions stored thereon which when executed by the peripheral device causes the peripheral device to execute the steps of:
detecting which of the first and second interfaces the peripheral device is connected to by signal levels on the first and second communication conductors; and
communicating with the computer over the first and second communication conductors according to a protocol corresponding to the detected interface.
27. A method implemented by a peripheral device for detecting whether the peripheral device is connected to a first interface or a second interface in a computer, the first interface communicating with the peripheral device over a differential data connection including a first data conductor and a second data conductor, and the second interface communicating with the peripheral device over a single ended data connection, including a first data conductor, and a clock conductor, the peripheral device including first and second communication conductors configured for connection to the first and second data conductors in the differential data connection when the computer includes the first interface, and configured for connection to the first data conductor in the single ended data connection and the clock conductor when the computer includes the second interface, the method comprising:
detecting which of the first and second interfaces the peripheral device is connected to by attempting to impart a signal level on at least one of the first and second communication conductors and detecting the signal level on at least one communication conductor; and
communicating with the computer over the first and second communication conductors according to a protocol corresponding to the detected interface.
etc, etc..
Are you suggesting it's my fault that I'm offended by that? I'm not arguing that we should limit their rights to do that but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be offended by it.
Yes he is. And its true. You make the decision. Just because its easy to decide a certain way doesn't make it less of a decision. The only alternative is deny your own free will.
As far as I can tell their slowness to sign on to other corporatist things coming from the US has been a pretty good thing.
Too bad that when it really counted, they bent over and presented their constituents' anuses to have their privacy violated by the US feds.
This is not how a Silicon Valley legend should end.
How should they end?
Spectacular bankruptcy like Enron?
Seems like most in silicon valley do a slow fade into oblivion and are eventually acquired for peanuts and never heard from again. 3DO, Transmeta, Borland, Quarterdeck, SGI, etc...
MS has sued exactly one company for infringing one of their software patents.
Would that "one company" be Primax or TomTom? Or are they apparently the same company in your world?
What part of "software" in "software patent" do you fail to understand?
MS sued Primax over their tilt-wheel patent on their mice.
In case that's still not clear enough for you - that was a hardware patent.
And, of course, there is a industry-wide, agreed upon standard for the 3D encoding and formats, right? Right??
It is a work in progress. SMPTE has already defined the requirements, and is working on actual specifications. Sony likes to be proprietary when they can, but I doubt they would ignore a SMPTE standard. They aren't the only manufacturer that's been talking up 3D in 2010.
You (then): "only MS has a large patent portfolio."
You (now): "MS has got 100x more patents than Google or anyone else you've named.
"So, which is it - are you backpedaling because you're wrong, or are you defining "large" as "however many patents MS has, that's the definition of 'large'"?
You sure are dense. I put a number up there so you would have something to hit. You are still too much of a coward to even take a swing.
How big is google's patent portfolio? How do you define large? Are you a hypocrite who is going to define "large" as "however many patents google has?"
And for the third time, you keep ignoring the point that none of those companies have any significant reliance on their patents. MS has sued exactly one company for infringing one of their software patents.
Your thesis sucks, you know it and that's why you won't defend it.
Or it's to prevent scammers and phishers from making Google-like homepages.
...
You could potentially do a lot of damage if you had the patience to go around scraping major sites and just making static HTML pages that sent username and password back to a database.
So, your thesis is that google got this patent in order to added another legal penalty to criminals who are already breaking a bunch of laws?
I dunno, maybe its just me, but I don't see it.
Thanks for understanding the FA. Apparently many people here only read the misleading title...But I am not surprise.
What other point do you think IBM has, except to mislead, by making that claim? This isn't a case of people not understanding the FA, its a case of them reacting to deliberately misleading wording that the FA is reporting on.
So, apparently your idea of 'addressing all the points' is to make shiat up. Frankly, I'm not interested in having a hypothetical discussion about situations that are exactly opposite to reality.
Coward. If you were right you could back your shit up. I'm confident that MS's has got 100x more patents than Google or anyone else you've named. Prove me wrong bucko.
Funny too how you've completely ignored my primary point that none of those companies derive significant value from their software patents either - that their patents are almost universally defensive.
I'm afraid you are the one who's been making shiat up and when pressed on it, you just run away.
I didn't say "software patent licensing", you goober. I implied that software has value in its patentability.
Then you are even crazier than I thought. The patent-ability of software has had just about nothing to do with those companies becoming successful. Of those listed, only MS has a large patent portfolio and they only started building it in earnest earlier this decade when they hired Marshall Phelps.
Oh, you have heard of pagerank. So what was that bullshiat up there about "Google's value has zero to do with patents"?
What part of "everything to do with being in a dominant market position" so you do you fail to understand?
Come up with a consistent position and then maybe we can attempt to discuss this. Sheesh.
I was simply addressing all the points that a reasonable person would propose to defend your position. Simply put (a) patents are not significantly important to Google, but even if they were important (b) expiration of their most famous one is right around the corner. The fact that you can't grasp simple logic suggests says just about everything one needs to know about the reasoning behind your arguments.
Furthermore, if you think that the Supreme Court is going to throw out software patents altogether when they rehear Bilski, and instantly cut the GDP of the country by 2/3rds, you're insane.
Exaggerate much?
Seriously, what kind of whackadooddle thinks that 2/3rds of the US GDP is derived from software patent licensing.
And crashing the net worth of Google, Microsoft, Apple, and a million other companies? Probably not Congress' intent in writing the statute.
Lol, I guess you do exaggerate much. Google's value has zero to do with patents and everything to do with being in a dominant market position, plus all the money they raised in their unconventional IPO that put cash in their coffers instead of in the pockets of cronies of the banks. The patent on PageRank expires in 2011 anyway.
If you reduce software patent terms to 5 years.
With the recent Bilski ruling, it seems like the term on software patents has been reduce to 0 years.
My money is on that ruling being the motivator for MS to make this call for "global harmonization" - as they are one of the largest holders of software patents they are looking for a way to get Bilski invalidated through the backdoor.
I'm not a racist, now matter what ignorant twats like you think. Go fuck yourself.
You just keep telling yourself that.
No asshole is ever smart enough to realize he is an asshole though, self-denial is real popular with people like you.
can you please list in your user-agent string the fact that you use ad blockers so I can redirect you to pages which are "just headlines", since you seem to have decided that you're incapable of filtering information for yourself?
So let me get this straight...
You want him to help you filter him out because you think he's a putz for using a tool to help him filter you out?
Is that not just a TAD hypocritical?
Don't you realise that just pushes the asteroid problem along to the next planet?
Nah, asteroids impacts are crimes of passion.
a) sex in space: easy
b) consequences of sex in space: non-existant
I am pleased.
The pope won't be.
Look for Casti Conubbi II - no sex in space on pain of excommunication.
A rich fucker like him could've easily gone to one of those clinics in Europe and ended it in a more dignified manner. Imagine the poor bastard who ended up discovering his corpse... What an asshole.
Imagine the poor bastard who had to clean up the room. He had better have left a huge tip.
If the IRS is right, then yes, his actions were unjust. If he's right, then more power to him.
On the other hand, practically nobody thinks they are "the bad guy" even mass murders and evil despots - they've always got a rationalization for why their actions are OK.
Eventually we'll reach a mature, stable decision one way or the other.. but you can't rush it.
Whoo-hoo! Death Panels FTW!
I hate Fox and Rupurt Murdoch, but they were the ones to push the envelope with media. It's too bad Fox didn't have the foresight to buy properties like Marvel so that the seriously adult themes in comics can be fully developed.
Disney bought Miramax in 1993. That's the studio that has released just about every Quentin Taratino film as well as titles like Priest and the Crying Game. I'm not saying Miramax is perfect, far from it, but even under Disney they've released many movies with adult themes.