I believe it's actually spelled "playa," but I agree with you completely.
The question is, what's the solution? To some extent, I think that the same methodology used for pharmaceutical patents could be applied. Pharmaceutical patents are granted for 20 years and after that anyone can make a generic version of the drug.
20 years is way too long in the computing world, though. For example, with some notable exceptions, software projects go from planning->release much more quickly than a drug will go from research->distribution. (Methinks that much of the time discrepancy may have to do with the public's tolerance for defects in the respective products.) Also, while I can see people (mostly men) being big fans of Viagra years down the road, I don't see people being so wild about Windows 3.1 in the future.
Regardless, legally protecting your product's uniqueness will encourage continued innovation. After that, all that's left is to develop something useful. Or useless, but with good marketing.
Great example. I think the story that was posted on/. was in regards the "new," soon-to-be-televised iteration of the original Milgram experiment.
And I agree completely with your original post. I think it would be most interesting to hear whether BofA has reported a decline in phishing incidents/password theft since the instantiation of the SiteKey. (I tried browsing the BofA website, but it's moving a bit slowly right now.)
I totally agree with you. Much as with your example of the rotary phone, the world will pass this user by if he does not adapt to the new keyboard layout. This is precisely why the Western world was able to move beyond the inefficient QWERTY keyboard with only limited resistence.
I applaud your efforts to avoid 30 seconds of work, and especially the hour you've subsequently spent bitching about it.
RTFP. That's why I said "...GWB was attempting to place a ban..."
I construed the strong restrictions placed on the availability of funding as a ban.
Bush has appropriated very, very little money (relatively speaking, as far as high-tech research is concerned) towards embryonic stem cell research. He has provided much stronger funding for alternative methods to obtaining stem cells.
Don't get me wrong. When I first heard that GWB was attempting to place a ban on embryonic stem cell research, I was very upset. This would put the US behind the ball with respect to many other countries who were already so advanced in the field. Not to mention what this would do to the economies of California and (especially Cambridge) Massachusetts, who have established themselves as biotech powerhouses.
But then the research started pouring in, showing that there were alternative methods to obtaining stem cells, illustrating that the potential benefits could be reaped without all of the controversy.
Bottom line: I think stuff like this should be decided on a state-by-state basis (that's one of the reasons why we have states in the first place, or so I thought); but sometimes it's good to force the issue, 'cause them smrt people usually find another way if you force them to.
I think the ultimate, best-case solution to this would be if software development companies would make the source code for their products available to the general public. Maybe they could call it "Open Source," or something along those lines. Yeah, that's got a nice ring to it.
That way, instead of just bitching on a message board that a free product doesn't work exactly the way someone wants it to, they could step up to the plate and actually show the world how they could make a better product.
...is being paid USD$100K over 3 years. That's less than a drop in the bucket for a corporation, and less than an eighth of what's being paid to the NPO (Stanford). That's the basis for my disagreement with your original post.
Granted, I'm sure Symantec will be able to reserve some sort of right to license any product(s) that is/are generated via the joint venture, which could potentially more than make up that difference.
Still, I think the benefit of having a broader degree of input (academia/NPO and corporations) outweighs the perceived (by some) negative consequence of having a government institution pay a corporation for input on OpenSource tools.
Stating that a $100K grant to a corporation to develop tools to secure the online world isn't money being "used for the right stuff" because it's not going to help the poor is sort of a bizarre statement. Especially if that $100 laptop ever takes off:)
Right. 'Cause Stanford's a commercial organization. Look at how much profit they got for becoming the second node on ARPANET. Not to mention how much a school like Dartmouth got for coming up with a concept like Blitzmail, which gave free email to its students long before most people even knew what it was.
Thanks for reminding me about how rich all of those academicians are.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I can tell, NASA & the military seem to be running neck-and-neck in terms of their ability to predict the duration of engagements.
And what would that logic imply about your response? One can only infer that you have small diction.
No, but I'd watch out for a bus next time you cross the street; you're due for a big one.
I believe it's actually spelled "playa," but I agree with you completely.
The question is, what's the solution? To some extent, I think that the same methodology used for pharmaceutical patents could be applied. Pharmaceutical patents are granted for 20 years and after that anyone can make a generic version of the drug.
20 years is way too long in the computing world, though. For example, with some notable exceptions, software projects go from planning->release much more quickly than a drug will go from research->distribution. (Methinks that much of the time discrepancy may have to do with the public's tolerance for defects in the respective products.) Also, while I can see people (mostly men) being big fans of Viagra years down the road, I don't see people being so wild about Windows 3.1 in the future.
Regardless, legally protecting your product's uniqueness will encourage continued innovation. After that, all that's left is to develop something useful. Or useless, but with good marketing.
Let me guess: your SiteKey isn't a donkey. And HRC probably shouldn't count on your vote next November.
Great example. I think the story that was posted on /. was in regards the "new," soon-to-be-televised iteration of the original Milgram experiment.
And I agree completely with your original post. I think it would be most interesting to hear whether BofA has reported a decline in phishing incidents/password theft since the instantiation of the SiteKey. (I tried browsing the BofA website, but it's moving a bit slowly right now.)
I totally agree with you. Much as with your example of the rotary phone, the world will pass this user by if he does not adapt to the new keyboard layout. This is precisely why the Western world was able to move beyond the inefficient QWERTY keyboard with only limited resistence.
I applaud your efforts to avoid 30 seconds of work, and especially the hour you've subsequently spent bitching about it.
RTFP. That's why I said "...GWB was attempting to place a ban..."
I construed the strong restrictions placed on the availability of funding as a ban.
Bush has appropriated very, very little money (relatively speaking, as far as high-tech research is concerned) towards embryonic stem cell research. He has provided much stronger funding for alternative methods to obtaining stem cells.
Don't get me wrong. When I first heard that GWB was attempting to place a ban on embryonic stem cell research, I was very upset. This would put the US behind the ball with respect to many other countries who were already so advanced in the field. Not to mention what this would do to the economies of California and (especially Cambridge) Massachusetts, who have established themselves as biotech powerhouses.
But then the research started pouring in, showing that there were alternative methods to obtaining stem cells, illustrating that the potential benefits could be reaped without all of the controversy.
Bottom line: I think stuff like this should be decided on a state-by-state basis (that's one of the reasons why we have states in the first place, or so I thought); but sometimes it's good to force the issue, 'cause them smrt people usually find another way if you force them to.
At least we know no animals will be harmed in the construction of such a device.
You bring up a good point.
I think the ultimate, best-case solution to this would be if software development companies would make the source code for their products available to the general public. Maybe they could call it "Open Source," or something along those lines. Yeah, that's got a nice ring to it.
That way, instead of just bitching on a message board that a free product doesn't work exactly the way someone wants it to, they could step up to the plate and actually show the world how they could make a better product.
Won't that be the day.
And Symantec?
...is being paid USD$100K over 3 years. That's less than a drop in the bucket for a corporation, and less than an eighth of what's being paid to the NPO (Stanford). That's the basis for my disagreement with your original post.
:)
Granted, I'm sure Symantec will be able to reserve some sort of right to license any product(s) that is/are generated via the joint venture, which could potentially more than make up that difference.
Still, I think the benefit of having a broader degree of input (academia/NPO and corporations) outweighs the perceived (by some) negative consequence of having a government institution pay a corporation for input on OpenSource tools. Stating that a $100K grant to a corporation to develop tools to secure the online world isn't money being "used for the right stuff" because it's not going to help the poor is sort of a bizarre statement. Especially if that $100 laptop ever takes off
Right. 'Cause Stanford's a commercial organization. Look at how much profit they got for becoming the second node on ARPANET. Not to mention how much a school like Dartmouth got for coming up with a concept like Blitzmail, which gave free email to its students long before most people even knew what it was. Thanks for reminding me about how rich all of those academicians are.