I believe that in some towns in Scotland where there were established restaurants call McDonalds, that the large multi-national could not make them change their name. But they, of course, could not use the golden arches and look of the burger chain's logo.
ATi doesn't reveal much about their 3D hardware, not solely out of choice, but because they were patented by SGI and have no permission to share.
Isn't it one of the requirements of patenting something that the details about it are released into public knowledge? Thus, unlike trade secrets, others can learn from and improve the invention.
I have never understood why so many ISPs provide dynamic IP addresses on DSL. It made sense with dial-up, allocate an IP address to each dial-in port and use this for the customer who is connecting via that port. But with DSL, is it not easier to also allocate a fixed IP address to each physical DSLAM port and hence to each customer's connection?
The ISP I use only provides static IP addresses, and welcomes customers using their own incoming and outgoing SMTP servers.
But in the case of 'mistaken identity' they are not acting as the agent as the copyright holder, they are acting as the agent of the entity claiming to be the copyright holder. Which makes their claim false. Or is this too subtle a point for the legal process?
And you also use symbol versioning within the library, so that libxyz.so.2 version 2.3.4 might contain foo()@2.0.0, foo()@2.2.1 and foo()@2.3.4 so that applications which are built against older libxyz versions will still run with the latest libxyz.so library. Yes, I know that this is not perfect, such as when an application has been linked with a static library which uses an older version of a versioned symbol (as the symbol version information is lost)
While not in an enterprise situation, my experience is that opensource software is often better supported than most 'commercial' software. All support for commercial software often offers is help in using the product (and then only if you are attempting to use it in a way 'supported' by the supplier) and workarounds for bugs. Opensource support, though, often offers fixes to the bugs. Also it often provides support for using the software in ways which the author did not anticipate.
Which is even more reason to allow people to buy from any store. Your 'local' store may not have the track you want, but it may be available in another country's store.
So why do they not take a more 'global' approach and license the music from the cheapest source in the EU and sell it EU wide? That way they would be putting the various national licensing organisations in competition with each other. As has already been noted, it is possible to buy CDs from any other EU country, so it should be possible with online music downloads. The only difference in price (paid by the consumer) should be accounted for by the varying VAT rates.
I do not think that they do own the patent. They are just claiming potential IPR (and refusing to state exactly what this covers), so at most they applied for a patent on it.
But they are not authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner, as it is not the copyright owner (of the file to be taken down) which has instructed/authorized them to take the action.
So what is needed is for some way to make the agencies tasked with enforcing the law do their job and enforce it. Does the US law have the concept of 'Mandamus'? This is an application made to a court to issue an order which requires a public servant or agency to 'do their duty'.
But XML is one of the features from Caller-ID which MARID has rejected. So if that is all Microsoft are claiming rights to, Sender-ID will not need a license from Microsoft - end of problem. But as Microsoft are still claiming a license is required, there must be something licensable still in Sender-ID.
And much of the original Caller-ID has been rejected, so there is far more of SPF in Sender-ID than there is Caller-ID.
Also nowhere have I seen any indication from Microsoft as to exactly what they are claiming the IP rights for. All that I have seen is that they stated that parts of Caller-ID are covered by a parent application and require to be licensed.
Some people have suggested that the patent is on the PRA algorithm (which determines the 'responsible' sender of the email) but this is basically just a codification of the way sysadmins have determined it by manually examining the headers. So should not be patentable because it is obvious to "those practitioners skilled in the art".
Just because someone does not like one party/president (Bush in this case) does not automatically mean that they like or support his opponent. I wish that politicians would realise that many votes are not positive votes for them or their policies but are more negative votes for the "least bad" candidate. It would be very good if all elections had to include a "none of the above" option.
Yet I am sure that Mandrake installation does not attempt to upgrade the CDROM firmware. So the fact that it is flashable should be irrelevent. So this problem must have been caused by the kernel sending 'standard' AT/APTI commands to the drive - which should not break it.
If publishers do not have the right to allow Amazon to do this, what about O'Reilly's Safari? This allows subscribers to search the text in all the books in the system not just those on the user's bookshelf.
Try a different ISP. For my home DSL line I have full control of both the forward and reverse DNS via the ISP's web interface. Using that same interface I could, if I wanted to, set the DNS server to anywhere I want, including delegating the reverse DNS, but I am quite happy for the ISP to host the DNS for me.
But only if all of the recipients of the spam have implemented the checking. The spam with your forged domain will be delivered to people who have not implemented the checking, and they will probably still complain and bounce it back to you etc.
Trade secrets are only valuable while they remain secret. Whether to patent or keep as a trade secret is a case of risk analysis.
If you keep the secret for longer than patent protection would apply (as in the case of Coca Cola formula), then you win by keeping it as a trade secret. However you run the risk of someone discovering the secret, when you lose control of it. Even worse is if as well as discovering the secret, the other person patents it - granting them a temporary monopoly, as I believe that trade secrets do not count as prior art.
If you decide to patent then you have a temporary monopoly, but once this expires anyone can take advantage of it. Also there is the risk that by publishing, someone else could improve it and take the business away from you.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that in some towns in Scotland where there were established restaurants call McDonalds, that the large multi-national could not make them change their name. But they, of course, could not use the golden arches and look of the burger chain's logo.
Most of an artist's profit for a work is going to come in a relatively short period of time
On the other hand, it is common for an artist's work to only become popular, and increase in value, after the artist's death.
ATi doesn't reveal much about their 3D hardware, not solely out of choice, but because they were patented by SGI and have no permission to share.
Isn't it one of the requirements of patenting something that the details about it are released into public knowledge? Thus, unlike trade secrets, others can learn from and improve the invention.
I have never understood why so many ISPs provide dynamic IP addresses on DSL. It made sense with dial-up, allocate an IP address to each dial-in port and use this for the customer who is connecting via that port. But with DSL, is it not easier to also allocate a fixed IP address to each physical DSLAM port and hence to each customer's connection?
The ISP I use only provides static IP addresses, and welcomes customers using their own incoming and outgoing SMTP servers.
But in the case of 'mistaken identity' they are not acting as the agent as the copyright holder, they are acting as the agent of the entity claiming to be the copyright holder. Which makes their claim false. Or is this too subtle a point for the legal process?
And you also use symbol versioning within the library, so that libxyz.so.2 version 2.3.4 might contain foo()@2.0.0, foo()@2.2.1 and foo()@2.3.4 so that applications which are built against older libxyz versions will still run with the latest libxyz.so library. Yes, I know that this is not perfect, such as when an application has been linked with a static library which uses an older version of a versioned symbol (as the symbol version information is lost)
While not in an enterprise situation, my experience is that opensource software is often better supported than most 'commercial' software. All support for commercial software often offers is help in using the product (and then only if you are attempting to use it in a way 'supported' by the supplier) and workarounds for bugs. Opensource support, though, often offers fixes to the bugs. Also it often provides support for using the software in ways which the author did not anticipate.
Which is even more reason to allow people to buy from any store. Your 'local' store may not have the track you want, but it may be available in another country's store.
So why do they not take a more 'global' approach and license the music from the cheapest source in the EU and sell it EU wide? That way they would be putting the various national licensing organisations in competition with each other. As has already been noted, it is possible to buy CDs from any other EU country, so it should be possible with online music downloads. The only difference in price (paid by the consumer) should be accounted for by the varying VAT rates.
No, the lone inventor can license manufacturers to produce and sell it. The difference being that (s)he retains control over the rights.
I do not think that they do own the patent. They are just claiming potential IPR (and refusing to state exactly what this covers), so at most they applied for a patent on it.
But they are not authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner, as it is not the copyright owner (of the file to be taken down) which has instructed/authorized them to take the action.
So what is needed is for some way to make the agencies tasked with enforcing the law do their job and enforce it. Does the US law have the concept of 'Mandamus'? This is an application made to a court to issue an order which requires a public servant or agency to 'do their duty'.
But XML is one of the features from Caller-ID which MARID has rejected. So if that is all Microsoft are claiming rights to, Sender-ID will not need a license from Microsoft - end of problem. But as Microsoft are still claiming a license is required, there must be something licensable still in Sender-ID.
And much of the original Caller-ID has been rejected, so there is far more of SPF in Sender-ID than there is Caller-ID.
Also nowhere have I seen any indication from Microsoft as to exactly what they are claiming the IP rights for. All that I have seen is that they stated that parts of Caller-ID are covered by a parent application and require to be licensed.
Some people have suggested that the patent is on the PRA algorithm (which determines the 'responsible' sender of the email) but this is basically just a codification of the way sysadmins have determined it by manually examining the headers. So should not be patentable because it is obvious to "those practitioners skilled in the art".
Just because someone does not like one party/president (Bush in this case) does not automatically mean that they like or support his opponent. I wish that politicians would realise that many votes are not positive votes for them or their policies but are more negative votes for the "least bad" candidate. It would be very good if all elections had to include a "none of the above" option.
Does this mean that registrars such as Nominet who curently enjoy the monopoly for .uk domains will lose their monopoly?
Yes, but the bug reporting in Mozilla asks your permission before it sends any data. Also it allows you to preview what it is going to send
So the labels should be gratefull that they can save money by not having to spend it on promotions.
One way to get free music is irate. This only provides music for which the copyright owner allows free download.
Yet I am sure that Mandrake installation does not attempt to upgrade the CDROM firmware. So the fact that it is flashable should be irrelevent. So this problem must have been caused by the kernel sending 'standard' AT/APTI commands to the drive - which should not break it.
If publishers do not have the right to allow Amazon to do this, what about O'Reilly's Safari? This allows subscribers to search the text in all the books in the system not just those on the user's bookshelf.
Try a different ISP. For my home DSL line I have full control of both the forward and reverse DNS via the ISP's web interface. Using that same interface I could, if I wanted to, set the DNS server to anywhere I want, including delegating the reverse DNS, but I am quite happy for the ISP to host the DNS for me.
But only if all of the recipients of the spam have implemented the checking. The spam with your forged domain will be delivered to people who have not implemented the checking, and they will probably still complain and bounce it back to you etc.
Trade secrets are only valuable while they remain secret. Whether to patent or keep as a trade secret is a case of risk analysis.
If you keep the secret for longer than patent protection would apply (as in the case of Coca Cola formula), then you win by keeping it as a trade secret. However you run the risk of someone discovering the secret, when you lose control of it. Even worse is if as well as discovering the secret, the other person patents it - granting them a temporary monopoly, as I believe that trade secrets do not count as prior art.
If you decide to patent then you have a temporary monopoly, but once this expires anyone can take advantage of it. Also there is the risk that by publishing, someone else could improve it and take the business away from you.