What they seem to be implying is that they are increasing the depth of the field oxide, seperating the poly from the substrate. This would hardly take five years to come up with....,
There is nothing wrong advertising MP3 players if they do infact have plans to begin distributing their music *themselves*, from *their* website. Of course since they probably don't.. the point is moot.
My personal thoughts all along have been that;
a) Although it is in contradiction to the stance that the band has taken against commercialism. They do have a right, in our society, to be reimbursed for the work that they do. If they want to ban Napster users, who might or might not (depending if they own the albums), be stealing music, then they should be able to.
b) This stance does them no good publically to appear so advesarial (SP?) to their listening public. What they should offer as a remedy is the ability to download MP3's from a Metallica controlled website. That would require some sort of registration with Metallica, that would also include proof of purchase for the albums that have been bought. Sort of like a fan club distribution.
For those of you who never belonged to a band's fan club, the band usually sends out singles once a year to its members. If they were to distribute such singles off their website they would gain; direct contact with their fanbase; a distribution system that would eventually allow direct to consumer selling, they could double the normal price of a single, and the consumer would still be seeing a savings.... anyway, I'm rambling.. bottom line is Metallica is wrong to be attacking Napster, right to be asking Napster to ban fans, and wrong not to be offering those same fans the opportunity to purchase or recieve copies of those songs directly from Metallica..
anyway just my $0.02, (well 0.01 cents since I'm in Canada.)
I had a friend in university who had a special section of his web page called:
"Dirty Pixxx" "Hard Wood" and, "Filthy Pixxx"
When you clicked on them you would get pictures of:
Dirt A Tree Dirty Laundry
He then logged your IP address and ISP name and put it up on his web-page with the headliner "People with dirty minds"... it was pretty funny. It was a good link to feed the "anybody got some pRon" trolls.
I play violent video games all the time, and I'm not psychotic... WE SHOULD FIND THESE PSYCH GUYS AND FRAG 'EM QUAKE STYLE!!!!!!!!! Just wait till I get a hold of the Plasma rifle on level 32.. then there will be trouble.
This crap is just like the 80's when they told me that my 50 hours a week of AD&D would make me become evil and wicked.... I showed them with my invisibility ring and my +5 STR Sword of Slaying. Banished forever to the realm of Urgot the stench-ridden. That'll show 'em.
Isn't it about a bunch of US Marines who end up dying after stealing an enigma machine off a German U-boat and thus help the allies win world war II?
Remember when "Armaggedon" came out and suddenly NASA decided an asteroid was going to crash into the earth in 2025.. then released that they're was a million to chance that an asteroid was going to kill us all... lame, lame, lame.
I wanted to see U-571 anyway, they didn't have to go and stage this lameness...
Unless you had permission from the holder of the copyright. You can't post someone else's protected works without their permission. Posting the source code to Windblows, would be the same as posting the entire text of "Angela's Ashes".
Interesting argument, however patents on code are never written as code. They are not allowed to be, if someone has a 'software patent' they are obligated to write them in 'means+function' language.
Essentially what this means is you can patent the algorithm, but you can't patent the code itself. This is the realm of copyright(in my opinion the first recognition by the state that code is and always has been speech).
Everyone's favorite patent. And as you can see from the front page, the first figure is described by a flow chart demonstrating the alogorithm of the patent.
After reading the ninth court ruling related to the SONY V. CONNECTIX case, it seems to be that reverse engineering a product to determine how it operates is considered 'fair use'. So why wouldn't this include the encryption used in the DeCSS case? It included Sony's BIOS. Here is the ruling. (For those of you who didn't read the/. article.)
AAaaahhhh my eyes. I read Katz's name in your post and it forced me to read the rest of the article. My IQ has dropped two points and it's your fault Slashdot!
They ask questions like: "If you knew the DOJ was proposing a regulation that would end up increasing the cost of software to consumers, would you support it?" Duh, ummm would you like to pay more for something or less? And the question they use to get thier 63% figure: "If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would give the government the power to decide how to design parts of Microsoft's software, would you support or oppose the regulation?" Umm, would you like lawyers to make software for you or Micro$oft? The questions they ask are obviously loaded and looking for specific answers, the only thing that makes me upset about it is that the soundbite on CNN will "63% of Americans don't want government regulation of Microsoft". Ignoring the souce, and ignoring the actual questions.
Canada has no such policy against software patents.
Although the last conference that I attended had a Canadian patent agent that claimed that the courts were much more favourable towards copyright infringement than to patent infringement in software cases, and usually advised his clients to pursue registered copyrights on their software than the costly application for a patent.
But if you don't believe me you can download the Canadian laws regarding patents from here.
Essentially software patents are nothing more than flow charts of logic and are more similar to business method patents than "normal" patents.
Hey! Made-up-word violation!
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 2
Jon, you're only allowed to make up one word in an article, and you made up two in the first paragraph!
Can I just point out that the English language is complex enough without pretentious journalists adding words exponenetially? Where is the regulation? If we keep adding all these words at this rate in a few decades the English language will end up being some kind of incomprehensable dribble. French will seem sensible by comparison! Please stope adding new words. Think of the non-english speaking minorities that have to learn all the new words! Please won't someone think of the children!
2. Members may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment, provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by their law.
3. Members may also exclude from patentability:
(a) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals;
(b) plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. The provisions of this subparagraph shall be reviewed four years after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement.
It seems like the main priniciple behind it is to allow the patent of plant life that has been genetically engineered... which I don't see a problem with, although I do agree with a previous poster that the method should be patentable but not the gene.
That is the way it works with computer programs, you can patent the method but not the result, although you can place a copyright on the code itself.
There are also obvious exemptions for medical technology which, as long as they remain in place, are a good thing.
Any patent worth having is going to be expensive.. The price index falls between $20K and $40K. This is a bunch more information on the US Patent Office I've been told theres a list of Lawyers there but I've never bothered to look. There's lots of information regardless.
Patents are not only killed by prior art they can be killed in several ways:
1) Novelty: This means prior art, essentially the patent must be a new idea, or the patent must improve on an existing idea.
2) Non - obviousness: definition "so trivial as to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art" (which would appear to apply in this case, although it's wasn't obvious to me, but I'm of no skill in the art:))
3) Usefulness - has to be useful, that's about it.
4) Enablement - patent must teach how to make and use the invention. If the patent is poorly written or doesn't make any sense to "one of ordinary skill in the art" then you can kill the patent. You also have to disclose all information you have at the time, if you have some secret you don't want in the patent and someone finds out you knew in advance they can kill the patent.
5) Inventorship - name the 'actual' inventors, example: if your group manager automatically gets his name on all patents from his group even if he didn't do anything for them and someone can prove this later, the patent is invalid.
sorry to ramble on, but it really sounds like an obvious invention and would probably be best attacked on that front, course I would probably still do a prior art search... anyway no I'm not a lawyer.
The web is 90% porn, saying that MP3's and porn are intrinsically linked is like saying that water kills people since the entire world is covered in water and people die everywhere.
I read this article on ZDNET , and they made the interesting point that this might affect websites that use a trademarked word in the title, so websites like ihatemicrosoft.com could face legal action.
I guess free speech only matters to those who can afford it.
It's the ultimate in prior art... when you get to court just bring your dad to the stand. "And when were you born sir?" "April 3, 1942" "And did you have blue eyes then?" "yes" " I submit to the court your honour that this gentleman had blue eyes before the filing date of the, 'blue eyed patent'."
Slashdot Mirror
What they seem to be implying is that they are increasing the depth of the field oxide, seperating the poly from the substrate. This would hardly take five years to come up with....,
There is nothing wrong advertising MP3 players if they do infact have plans to begin distributing their music *themselves*, from *their* website. Of course since they probably don't.. the point is moot.
My personal thoughts all along have been that;
a) Although it is in contradiction to the stance that the band has taken against commercialism. They do have a right, in our society, to be reimbursed for the work that they do. If they want to ban Napster users, who might or might not (depending if they own the albums), be stealing music, then they should be able to.
b) This stance does them no good publically to appear so advesarial (SP?) to their listening public. What they should offer as a remedy is the ability to download MP3's from a Metallica controlled website. That would require some sort of registration with Metallica, that would also include proof of purchase for the albums that have been bought. Sort of like a fan club distribution.
For those of you who never belonged to a band's fan club, the band usually sends out singles once a year to its members. If they were to distribute such singles off their website they would gain; direct contact with their fanbase; a distribution system that would eventually allow direct to consumer selling, they could double the normal price of a single, and the consumer would still be seeing a savings.... anyway, I'm rambling.. bottom line is Metallica is wrong to be attacking Napster, right to be asking Napster to ban fans, and wrong not to be offering those same fans the opportunity to purchase or recieve copies of those songs directly from Metallica..
anyway just my $0.02, (well 0.01 cents since I'm in Canada.)
The girl is this guy's girlfriend, its her computer but they think he did it. Read ZDnet
They also mention a 20-year old suspect from Germany studying in Australia.
I had a friend in university who had a special section of his web page called:
"Dirty Pixxx"
"Hard Wood" and,
"Filthy Pixxx"
When you clicked on them you would get pictures of:
Dirt
A Tree
Dirty Laundry
He then logged your IP address and ISP name and put it up on his web-page with the headliner "People with dirty minds"... it was pretty funny.
It was a good link to feed the "anybody got some pRon" trolls.
I play violent video games all the time, and I'm not psychotic... WE SHOULD FIND THESE PSYCH GUYS AND FRAG 'EM QUAKE STYLE!!!!!!!!! Just wait till I get a hold of the Plasma rifle on level 32.. then there will be trouble.
This crap is just like the 80's when they told me that my 50 hours a week of AD&D would make me become evil and wicked.... I showed them with my invisibility ring and my +5 STR Sword of Slaying. Banished forever to the realm of Urgot the stench-ridden. That'll show 'em.
May the force be with them...
Is it possibly some kind of really, really lame movie promotion for the new Bill Paxton movie?
U-571
Isn't it about a bunch of US Marines who end up dying after stealing an enigma machine off a German U-boat and thus help the allies win world war II?
Remember when "Armaggedon" came out and suddenly NASA decided an asteroid was going to crash into the earth in 2025.. then released that they're was a million to chance that an asteroid was going to kill us all... lame, lame, lame.
I wanted to see U-571 anyway, they didn't have to go and stage this lameness...
The Riddler!
y BATMAN!
Holy puzzles-wrapped-in-an-enigma-surrounded-by-myster
Unless you had permission from the holder of the copyright.
You can't post someone else's protected works without their permission. Posting the source code to Windblows, would be the same as posting the entire text of "Angela's Ashes".
Interesting argument, however patents on code are never written as code. They are not allowed to be, if someone has a 'software patent' they are obligated to write them in 'means+function' language.
Essentially what this means is you can patent the algorithm, but you can't patent the code itself. This is the realm of copyright(in my opinion the first recognition by the state that code is and always has been speech).
For example
Everyone's favorite patent. And as you can see from the front page, the first figure is described by a flow chart demonstrating the alogorithm of the patent.
With their beady eyes, and floppy heads...
After reading the ninth court ruling related to the SONY V. CONNECTIX case, /. article.)
it seems to be that reverse engineering a product to determine how it operates is
considered 'fair use'.
So why wouldn't this include the encryption used in the DeCSS case?
It included Sony's BIOS. Here is the ruling.
(For those of you who didn't read the
AAaaahhhh my eyes. I read Katz's name in your
post and it forced me to read the rest of the article.
My IQ has dropped two points and it's your fault Slashdot!
DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!
Come again?
They ask questions like:
"If you knew the DOJ was proposing a regulation that would end up increasing the cost of software to consumers, would you support it?"
Duh, ummm would you like to pay more for something or less?
And the question they use to get thier 63% figure: "If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would give the government the power to decide how to design parts of Microsoft's software, would you support or oppose the regulation?"
Umm, would you like lawyers to make software for you or Micro$oft?
The questions they ask are obviously loaded and looking for specific answers, the only thing that makes me upset about it is that the soundbite on CNN will "63% of Americans don't want government regulation of Microsoft". Ignoring the souce, and ignoring the actual questions.
Voters is spelt 'v - o - t - e - r - s', you've spelt Microsoft.
Canada has no such policy against software patents.
Although the last conference that I attended had a Canadian patent agent that claimed that the courts were much more favourable towards copyright infringement than to patent infringement in software cases, and usually advised his clients to pursue registered copyrights on their software than the costly application for a patent.
But if you don't believe me you can download the Canadian laws regarding patents from here.
Essentially software patents are nothing more than flow charts of logic and are more similar to business method patents than "normal" patents.
Jon, you're only allowed to make up one word in an article, and you made up two in the first paragraph!
Can I just point out that the English language is complex enough without pretentious journalists adding words exponenetially? Where is the regulation? If we keep adding all these words at this rate in a few decades the English language will end up being some kind of incomprehensable dribble. French will seem sensible by comparison! Please stope adding new words. Think of the non-english speaking minorities that have to learn all the new words! Please won't someone think of the children!
The patent is pretty general, as most patents are, and doesn't go into depth as to how it actually works..
it mentions a MASER but doesn't really explain it does anyone know what a MASER is?
exerpt:
2. Members may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment, provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by their law.
3. Members may also exclude from patentability:
(a) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals;
(b) plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. The provisions of this subparagraph shall be reviewed four years after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement.
It seems like the main priniciple behind it is to allow the patent of plant life that has been genetically engineered... which I don't see a problem with, although I do agree with a previous poster that the method should be patentable but not the gene.
That is the way it works with computer programs, you can patent the method but not the result, although you can place a copyright on the code itself.
There are also obvious exemptions for medical technology which, as long as they remain in place, are a good thing.
Any patent worth having is going to be expensive..
The price index falls between $20K and $40K.
This is a bunch more information on the US Patent Office I've been told theres a list of Lawyers there but I've never bothered to look. There's lots of information regardless.
Patents are not only killed by prior art they can be killed in several ways:
:))
1) Novelty: This means prior art, essentially the patent must be a new idea, or the patent must improve on an existing idea.
2) Non - obviousness: definition "so trivial as to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art" (which would appear to apply in this case, although it's wasn't obvious to me, but I'm of no skill in the art
3) Usefulness - has to be useful, that's about it.
4) Enablement - patent must teach how to make and use the invention. If the patent is poorly written or doesn't make any sense to "one of ordinary skill in the art" then you can kill the patent. You also have to disclose all information you have at the time, if you have some secret you don't want in the patent and someone finds out you knew in advance they can kill the patent.
5) Inventorship - name the 'actual' inventors, example: if your group manager automatically gets his name on all patents from his group even if he didn't do anything for them and someone can prove this later, the patent is invalid.
sorry to ramble on, but it really sounds like an obvious invention and would probably be best attacked on that front, course I would probably still do a prior art search... anyway no I'm not a lawyer.
The web is 90% porn, saying that MP3's and porn are intrinsically linked is like saying that water kills people since the entire world is covered in water and people die everywhere.
I read this article on ZDNET , and they made the interesting point that this might affect websites
that use a trademarked word in the title, so websites like ihatemicrosoft.com could face legal action.
I guess free speech only matters to those who can afford it.
It's the ultimate in prior art... when you get to court just bring your dad to the stand.
"And when were you born sir?"
"April 3, 1942"
"And did you have blue eyes then?"
"yes"
" I submit to the court your honour that this gentleman had blue eyes before the filing date of the, 'blue eyed patent'."