Good question:-) I posted without actually being familiar with the machine vision field, sorry. So I looked it up a bit but could only find Lemelson's enemies' point of view. From here, I'd say the litigation was more about lack of detail in the patents than the actual invention (this website is probably from his opponents): That page claims:
Despite the issuance of a dozen patents, it is far from clear what actual contribution, if any, Mr. Lemelson's work made to the field of machine vision. The particular machine vision system described in Lemelson's patents was never built as a practical machine in the real world.
and
The theory regarding the Lemelson machine vision patents is that no one using 1954 knowledge and technology could have built a machine vision system capable of functioning as described in Lemelson's patents.
IIRC there was a lawsuit by a company called Cognex and they won it after 4 years of litigating (1998-2002).
This is a very negative article from Cognex' website: (so again, info from an opponent of the late Mr. Lemelson): fortuneandlemel.pdf
Another article says Cognex also won in appeal (2005): appeal
so that's 7 years of lawsuits.
Oh! do you mean in 5 years, when the MS-Novell agreement runs out? That's clever.. I did wonder why it said "we won't sue your users for 5 years". I wonder what the attention span of the average slashdotter is and whether we'll have a countdown to 2 November 2011:-)
Microsoft further reserves the right to terminate this pledge and revoke this pledge to You upon the expiration or termination of that certain patent agreement entered into by and between Microsoft and Novell Inc., dated as of November 2, 2006.
I really don't think that's the main issue here (IANAL though): if they don't sue in a timely manner, this limits the monetary damages they can claim if they win the suit. Agreed.
HOWEVER, in case of a patent suit, can't they still block competing technology by means of their legal monopoly on software (i.e. what a software patent means)? Maybe they can't order Linux users and producers to pay damages, but they can (and probably will) force them to stop spreading the infringing software, impose conditions ("Microsoft Tax"), etc..
IMHO this clearly shows how damaging software patents can be, if a thrice-convicted monopolist (U.S.A, Europe, and South Korea) can pull tricks like that and legally get away with it. Also I doubt if "coding around" software patents is always as easy as some slashdotters boast it is.
MS would gain much more than money (which would indeed be limited by "laches"); they would gain government-sanctioned suppression of their competition in all countries that allow their software patents. I ask you: is that beneficial to the software market in those countries?
I like the notion that somebody here on slashdot had that if a corporation is convicted of monopoly abuse in a country, that they then lose all monopolies that that government itself has granted them, i.e. trademarks, copyright, and patents, because clearly they don't deserve government help keeping their monopoly.
If our governments don't take a turn for the worse and lengthen copyright yet again, then George Orwell's "1984" will already be in the public domain in only 13 more years! Doubleplusgood, proles!
In a similar vein, Burgess' "1985" will be public domain in 2063, but I don't like that book anyway so I don't mind if I don't live that long.
It's tricky but not as hard as you make it sound. Look at Debian if you don't believe me: this picture shows what percentage of the programs is compiled for each architecture: stats.png it's usually over 95%. This includes little- and big-endian (mips, mipsel), 32-bit and 64-bit (x86_64), and weirder (s390). Also note the x-axis on the picture runs from the year 2001:-) And yes, I know, compiled doesn't mean it actually also works:-)
As to why Adobe can't be bothered to create a working flash player for (at least) 64-bit AMD64: I have no idea; we can't see the source so we can't see how difficult it would be to port it.
Could you compare Schäuble to U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch? Then, the U.S. slashdotters have a point of reference.
I'm not sure if it's a valid comparison (so, no offence), but I though Hatch also liked that kind of surveillance laws.
Imagine Orrin Hatch as the patron (or Protector) of the Open Source Business Conference.
Would be interesting to read the transcript of his speech!
He's not just a sponsor, he's the Schirmherr though I'm not sure what that means. In dutch, "beschermheer" is the kind of scary monster Larry Niven conjures up in his book Protector. (Think: the Brennan-Monster). Sure sounds scary to me...
Weren't Protectors noted for their paranoia? (and looking like old men too.. hmm..)
When Microsoft objected to the state of Massachusetts wanting to switch to ODF for its internal documents, they dragged a few unsuspecting groups of blind Massachusetts computer users into the fray to prove "You see (pun intended)? That OpenOffice (conflating OpenOffice==ODF) would ruin equal access for these poor blind people. You ARE an equal opportunities government, aren't you?"
Now when they do tricks like that, would you be paranoid or not when they suddenly change their tune about this exact specific topic?
BTW AFAIK (though I'm not vision-impaired) almost all accessibility problems they mentioned were FUD, except for a revision in ODF (v1.1) so that vision impaired people can read the caption-id and desc(-ription) tags on a picture. ODF seems to have been thoroughly vetted accessible now (v1.1): appendix E, p. 728.
Sorry if my post is insensitive. I hope that Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice and ODF will help you better than "jaws", if you're vision impaired.
Says who? Microsoft? Why didn't they join the OASIS committee then, when they were invited but declined? Microsoft WAS INVITED to send a representative to throw all their necessary document features on the table and incorporate them into ODF. They weren't interested -- then. If they're now crying that ODF doesn't support those features, it's really only their problem.
The European Commission politely asked Microsoft whether they would please consider joining that OASIS tech committee because it would encourage interoperability.
I can't believe that you're the first one to point out this obvious question, whereas that report was published in Bangkok not even two weeks ago. It was headline news in the Netherlands but, looking at this foam-at-the-mouth slashdot discussion, apparently not in the USA or Canada:-)
I'm sorry, but the way you put it is very misleading. You're right that the court case *NOW* is about breach of contract, but this is already the third try, to be specific, the "Second Amended Complaint". Breach of contract (about Intel IA-64, project Monterey? I forget) is the only thing SCO still has on the table.
IIRC SCO tried all sorts of tricks, changing the court case whenever it suited them, to protract its conclusion. Remember that they needed all versions of AIX, and got them? Afterwards they claimed it would take them 16000 years or so to sort it all out, and asked for an extension. Why did they need all versions of AIX to litigate that breach of contract claim?
Besides, wasn't project Monterey with Santa Cruz Operation, i.e. Old-SCO? They exchange both names whenever they see fit, it's as bad as watching a con-man with a pea and 3 cups.
Once I surfed to a website of a company that sold security measures for Microsoft IIS, claiming to vastly improve its security. (I'm sorry but I REALLY don't remember which company it was).
After reading further, it turned out that their security measure was the following:
They claimed to modify IIS to mimick the server response of Apache, not just the HTTP header but the webserver response timings etc. as well. As a result, any prospective Joe Random Cracker would attack the website, see that it was running on Apache
...
and leave, searching for easier targets (in other words, IIS)
And I remember thinking: If this company is successful with their product, that proves that IIS is a LOT less secure than Apache:-).
There are human tetrachromats? I thought that only happened to cereals? Are they in a band called "half man half biscuit"?
IIRC, the front of the brain or neocortex does all the "higher functions" so not just I/O, so I'm not sure about your assumption that the mutation is involved in communication.
Actually I'd hope that you are right and that future (mutated) generations can extend their "monkeysphere" to more than 150 individuals:-) I think that would definitely be a survival trait in a closely interlinked world.
Slashdot Mirror
But is that a hardware or a software issue?
HOWEVER, in case of a patent suit, can't they still block competing technology by means of their legal monopoly on software (i.e. what a software patent means)? Maybe they can't order Linux users and producers to pay damages, but they can (and probably will) force them to stop spreading the infringing software, impose conditions ("Microsoft Tax"), etc..
<rant>
Witness Unisys and JPEG, the submarine patents, the one guy who single-handedly blocked progress in computer vision for 20 years, etc.
IMHO this clearly shows how damaging software patents can be, if a thrice-convicted monopolist (U.S.A, Europe, and South Korea) can pull tricks like that and legally get away with it. Also I doubt if "coding around" software patents is always as easy as some slashdotters boast it is.
MS would gain much more than money (which would indeed be limited by "laches"); they would gain government-sanctioned suppression of their competition in all countries that allow their software patents. I ask you: is that beneficial to the software market in those countries?
I like the notion that somebody here on slashdot had that if a corporation is convicted of monopoly abuse in a country, that they then lose all monopolies that that government itself has granted them, i.e. trademarks, copyright, and patents, because clearly they don't deserve government help keeping their monopoly.
</rant>
2a. (For the 5 years of the MS-Novell agreement)
I'll never understand what that was all about.
What's next, the Alexis de Tocqueville institute about how Linus didn't really write Linux but stole it from Bill Gates just after Gates patented it?
Sheesh.
In a similar vein, Burgess' "1985" will be public domain in 2063, but I don't like that book anyway so I don't mind if I don't live that long.
Hey, some of us are amateur groklavians as well, you know..
As to why Adobe can't be bothered to create a working flash player for (at least) 64-bit AMD64: I have no idea; we can't see the source so we can't see how difficult it would be to port it.
Imagine Orrin Hatch as the patron (or Protector) of the Open Source Business Conference.
Would be interesting to read the transcript of his speech!
Weren't Protectors noted for their paranoia? (and looking like old men too.. hmm..)
Now when they do tricks like that, would you be paranoid or not when they suddenly change their tune about this exact specific topic?
BTW AFAIK (though I'm not vision-impaired) almost all accessibility problems they mentioned were FUD, except for a revision in ODF (v1.1) so that vision impaired people can read the caption-id and desc(-ription) tags on a picture. ODF seems to have been thoroughly vetted accessible now (v1.1): appendix E, p. 728.
Sorry if my post is insensitive. I hope that Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice and ODF will help you better than "jaws", if you're vision impaired.
The European Commission politely asked Microsoft whether they would please consider joining that OASIS tech committee because it would encourage interoperability.
Here (not primary source): http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/50273/index.h tml
Doesn't the JCL give you belly-ache? I have SUCH bad memories of that language.
If the NYSE is happy with the transition then it's yet another feather in the .. well where Tux has its other feathers.. of Linux.
High-profile roll-outs like this do make it more difficult to spread FUD that you shouldn't run Linux in your company because it is shoddy, methinks.
Here you go: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
Have you ever heard of the Sahel? (with a stress on the "Hell")
I think all the foam-at-the-mouth types are currently on the global warming discussion:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/1 6/1757244 which is at the level of Homer Simpson's: "Scientists.. pff.. what do THEY know"
so there seems to be balance in the slashdot-universe :-)
Wow that was insightful :-)
IIRC SCO tried all sorts of tricks, changing the court case whenever it suited them, to protract its conclusion. Remember that they needed all versions of AIX, and got them? Afterwards they claimed it would take them 16000 years or so to sort it all out, and asked for an extension. Why did they need all versions of AIX to litigate that breach of contract claim?
Besides, wasn't project Monterey with Santa Cruz Operation, i.e. Old-SCO? They exchange both names whenever they see fit, it's as bad as watching a con-man with a pea and 3 cups.
Only if your load average is especially threatening, I guess: bubblefishymon
Once I surfed to a website of a company that sold security measures for Microsoft IIS, claiming to vastly improve its security. (I'm sorry but I REALLY don't remember which company it was).
After reading further, it turned out that their security measure was the following:
They claimed to modify IIS to mimick the server response of Apache, not just the HTTP header but the webserver response timings etc. as well. As a result, any prospective Joe Random Cracker would attack the website, see that it was running on Apache
and leave, searching for easier targets (in other words, IIS)
And I remember thinking: If this company is successful with their product, that proves that IIS is a LOT less secure than Apache :-).
Naah.. just slap an addendum on the license "Not for sale or use in the USA and its vassal states" Oops.. that includes us. Never mind..
IIRC, the front of the brain or neocortex does all the "higher functions" so not just I/O, so I'm not sure about your assumption that the mutation is involved in communication.
Actually I'd hope that you are right and that future (mutated) generations can extend their "monkeysphere" to more than 150 individuals :-) I think that would definitely be a survival trait in a closely interlinked world.