Unless they included a printed copy of the EULA, so you can evaluate it prior to breaking the label, then it's still invalid. These "agreements" MUST be presented up front!
maybe clippy is the sort of thing linux is lacking, an animated tux that will on click do something pointless and unnecessary and waste some nice proc cycles. i miss clippy in open office.....
That sounds a lot like how rsync works... checksum the file(s), piece by piece, and transfer only the portions which are different. It's been able to do that for several years now, if I'm not mistaken. --
The DVDCCA/MPAA wasn't able to provide any proof that anything was obtained improperly. They're the ones who have to prove their case (innocent until proven guilty, remember?).
--
The FCC seems to have gone out of their way to ignore all of the DMCA comments which didn't come from big business. Any reason to think they'd take us seriously this time?
This is meant as a serious question, although I can see how it might be interpreted as trolling...
--
Yes it is. And the thing you are holding in your hand to scan barcodes isn't just "base64+xor67". It's an actual product that gets mass produced for a relative low cost. Somewhere, deep down, it does "base64+xor67". But there's more than "base64+xor67" to make an actual scannar.
So who copied the actual scanner??? Last I heard, DC was objecting to the driver.
--
If they do, can I sue them under the DMCA for using "view source" to crack my heavy duty source code encryption?
Sure! Just add a comment stating "The following is encrypted via "XOR 0x00"; Unauthorized decryption is a violation of the DMCA.".
It actually has a lot in common with CSS... it's a really lousy encryption scheme, and the key is distributed alongside the "protected" content! On the plus side, it doesn't impair fair use.:-)
--
I just checked, and it's still available at the original site (D'oh! I guess I'm a criminal now!!!:-). There's a brief comment about having been under a DOS attack, tho.
--
Well, if you mean by at-fault, someone going out there and uding the system for his own benefit, then he's definitely at-fault. He's not necessarily screwing everyone.
What I meant by "screwing everybody" was that the added cost is inevitably passed on to the consumer. So everyone who does business, directly or indirectly, with an affected company foots the bill. In some cases this is undoubtedly legit... business method patents are not among them.
I personally don't have a problem with his using the system that exists to do what other companies and people have done. the operative thing here is that he's patenting a process..not just calculating a shipping rate, but the shipping rate, the monetary exchange rate, applying for the necessary shipping paperwork and such. That's a lot of work and if he's come up with a one-touch means of doing this, then i certainly think he deserves to haew some control over being the first one in with that idea.
There may be a number of details involved, but it's still merely an extension of what's been done for years via pen and paper. Hardly unique or non-obvious.
After all, being there first with a patent is a time-honored tradition, not only in this company, but in others also.
And the problem is that so many of them are meritless, this one included.
--
Unfortunately, the fault, as I can see it, lies not in Mr. Pool, but in the patent office for granting a patent on such an ephemeral thing as an idea.
I think they're both at fault here. Sure the patent office seems to be almost mind-numbingly incompetent, but that doesn't make abuse of the system (thereby screwing everybody) right. Not that I don't understand why a person would be tempted to do so...
--
Slashdot Mirror
Try vigor.
...provided that you base the controller on our innovative ActiveElevator(TM) technology.
Personally, I greatly prefer white and/or gray on black. Too much time staring at the bright-white backgrounds tends to give me a headache...
Unless they included a printed copy of the EULA, so you can evaluate it prior to breaking the label, then it's still invalid. These "agreements" MUST be presented up front!
--
And they could codename it "Butthead Cryptographer"! (-:
--
WIN == Windows Isn't Needed
--
That sounds a lot like how rsync works... checksum the file(s), piece by piece, and transfer only the portions which are different. It's been able to do that for several years now, if I'm not mistaken.
--
The DVDCCA/MPAA wasn't able to provide any proof that anything was obtained improperly. They're the ones who have to prove their case (innocent until proven guilty, remember?).
--
This is meant as a serious question, although I can see how it might be interpreted as trolling...
--
[with apologies to Napoleon XIV]
--
DC: We gave away a product for free, and now people are figuring out that they can actually use it! What can we do?!?
DrS: That's a very good question... I better put on my patented Stuponitron helmet.
--
--
--
It actually has a lot in common with CSS... it's a really lousy encryption scheme, and the key is distributed alongside the "protected" content! On the plus side, it doesn't impair fair use. :-)
--
It wouldn't do to forget Disne y's search engine... them being among the Plaintiffs, after all.
--
I just checked, and it's still available at the original site (D'oh! I guess I'm a criminal now!!! :-). There's a brief comment about having been under a DOS attack, tho.
--
Take a look at this comment.
--
--
--
According to the posting at Cryptome, GnuPG 1.0.1 is not vulnerable. I'd assume that applies to all of the older versions as well.
--