If you aren't sure, call the number on your credit card(, bank statement, utility bill, phone book or whatever other trusted source you know is legit) and verify it that way.
...it's not likely that NVidia and ATI will ever open their drivers completely.
You say it's not likely, but you give no reason.
From TFA:
ATI's driver remains proprietary for intellectual property reasons, the Canadian company said. "There's third-party intellectual property that ATI has licensed that is required by law to be protected," said Matthew Tippett, ATI's Linux software engineering manager. "And the graphics market is hotly competitive, and particularly in the high-end cards, we have lots of intellectual property. We want to maintain the proprietary, trade-secret nature of that as long as possible."
Religious convictions aside, it seems they could be bound by law to keep their drivers proprietery. If this is unacceptable to you, feel free to use a low-budget card with OSS drivers. I however like my QuadroFX and will use whatever drivers make it work.
There is absolutely no valid reason why any proprietary element is unavoidable!
Again covered by the quote from TFA above.
Whatever religious convictions the FSF may have, if they really want Linux and OSS to compete with Microsoft and dominate in the market, there are simply times where they will have to cooperate with proprietary companies. They aren't going to open up just because we want them to, and if we refuse to support them, guess what, Microsoft is still the dominating OS out there so losing Linux customers isn't that big of a dent in their revenue; and we will have just closed one door to try and get ahead.
// make sure you test your code comment exampl // submitting it to a site using css might cho // end of your comment lines leaving you looki // stupid.
Yes, I'll give you that... I suppose my frustrations do lie more with the FSF/GNU community than all of OSS. I should not generalize so much...
I suppose I feel frustrated or almost embarassed even, when I see those pushing for Linux to become the dominating OS, at they same time fighting against the very companies they need to make that happen.
Not if the Open Source community has anything to say about it...
Don't get me wrong. I like open source software and I try to promote it as much as I can. But there are things the open source community does that I feel is basically shooting themselves in the foot.
I think my biggest pet pieve with open source software is not the concept itself, but how OS zealots treat proprietary software. Getting to my point, take for example Linux. (I think this is where my karma goes to hell...) In particular, how Linux treats loadable kernel modules. If you load a kernel module that does not explicity state that it is GPLed you start to see messages in the log like "AHH! Proprietary software! The kernel is TAINTED! I'm melting!!!!"
Everyone complains that hardware vendor X doesn't support Linux. But then if they finally build support, and don't open their IP up to the world, they get bitch slapped for it. "Ah! you're tainting my kernel!" You know, I haven't seen whiners like that since elementary school.
Yeah, running in kernel context grants 3rd party software access that can potentially change how the kernel functions. However, most of the time the LKMs simply add the necessary support for the hardware and leave everything else untouched. The only noticable difference is that the hardware _actually_ works. (which is also sometimes debatable...)
I know, technically, according to the verbage of the GPL, all LKMs should be GPLed. I really feel that is too restricting if you want the support from 3rd party vendors. Which is why I'm guessing, that non-GPLed LKMs are still able to be loaded. But if you want the support, quit whining about it!
My question is, how long is it going to be until necessary kernel symbols are no longer exported to proprietary LKMs? When is the final bullet going to be fired into your foot where no commercial company is going to be able (or rather willing) to support Linux at all?
I build drivers for both Linux and Windows. I have YET to see Windows complain about whether or not my source code was GPLed or proprietary!
If you want open source and commercial software to coexist, we really need to get with the program here!
Ok, rant mode off... goodbye sweet karma! it was nice knowing you...
It's not up to every guy who runs a bakery or a stationary store or whatever to come up with entirely new business models whenever they hit hard times, and nobody expects them to - yet for some reason, people do expect that when it comes to the web.
Actually, it is. If a guy running a bakery has problems selling his bread he certainly can't stand outside his shop with a bat forcing patrons in. He absolutely should be thinking of ways to improve his business model, wether it's specials, new recipes, contests, whatever... I'm not saying he should convert to selling cars but if what he's doing isn't working it's his responsibility to fix it. And I would absolutely expect him to fix it and not cry about how unfair it is that people just don't except his business model for what it is.
This is the same attitude the MP/RIAA have by crying to the government in an attempt at forcing people to support their broken system rather than embracing the change in consumer demand.
In the beginning content was free on the net and it still can be. The content I search for and am mainly interested has been around since the beginning of time in places like usenet, educational institutions, government, etc... eComerce sites, news portals, and the like are relatively new in the scheme of things, and while they are very useful and convenient, I won't miss them if they start charging for service. Just because comercial corporations are the dominating presence on the internet does not mean we need to bow to their will. They can conform or die.
Amazon makes money from me by selling me books not advertizements. If nytimes.com wants to charge me a subscription for their service, if I find value in it, I will pay for it, if not, believe me, I can do without.
If website owners are only in it for the money and they go belly up because they don't offer a service people want, I don't feel sorry for them.
I would imagine any D&D would be prior art in a general games category? MSoft wasn't exactly the first company to get into games. I'm not sure how they can get a pantent on how points are awarded. Any D&D DM has subjective power to award points, and MS didn't exactly put D&D out there.
You seem to have missed the key prhases: "on the internet" or "using a computer". Those two phrases alone make the idea new and unique and prior art becomes moot... Atleast that's how it seems these days...
Well, then perhaps he shouldn't have boasted about his new patent on his blog, and invited others to respond. I'm sure he would have kept the blog open if all the conversation was mindless adulation for his cleverness (which it looks like he was expecting), but since he got a little heat, he just shut down and ran.
Yeah, perhaps he shouldn't have, but as you pointed out, I don't think he was expecting to get flamed for it either. I'm sure we've all done something we've perceived as a personal achievement and sought recognition and congratulations from our peers only to be less than enthusiastically received (I know I have...). They knock you down a few pegs and you want to crawl under a rock for a while...
Granted, a public forum probably wasn't the best place to boast. However, I would think it reasonable for him, since it is his blog, to expect that most (surely not all) people reading his blog are his peers (or atleast people who think like he does) and he would receive a warm reception. It's not like he posted it to Slashdot...
As for not following through, he wasn't planning on getting into the religious argument in the first place. He post wasn't "Hey, software patents kick ass and here's why...". He was just looking for a pat on the back from his peers...
...he gets a barrage of posts criticizing him for stifling innovation, and instead of addressing them, he closes the thread. Yes, yes, I'm well aware it's his blog, and if he doesn't want to play, he' s well within his rights to close the thread...just like that kid who would always take his ball and go home when the game didn't go his way...
Actually, what would anyone expect him do do? Arguing the current patent system is as bad or worse than arguing religion. There are good and bad points to both sides of the argument and nothing anyone says could possibly sway the other side's opinion. Especially when their opinion is strong enough to cause them to take the time out of their day to bitch slap someone on their blog...
That being said, I'm sure Dan doesn't want to sit there and get flamed all day... or waste his time getting into a religious argument. The only thing defending himself would do would be to invite more flames... Really, I can't blame him for closing the discussion...
Given that quoted paragraph and the following, it is apparent that even after interviewing the creator, the author has absolutely no idea what bit torrent is for or how it works.
He [Cohen] sketched out a protocol: To download that copy of Meet the Fokkers...
Yeah, I'm sure that's what he was thinking when he created the protocol...
a user's computer sniffs around for others online who have pieces of the movie
No, trackers keep track of who is downloading or seeding the file, there is no sniffing around. Infact, there is no search capability that I am aware of...
The more files you're willing to share, the faster any individual torrent downloads
Are you kidding me? No... the more people downloading/seeding an individual torrent, the faster it downloads. More files have nothing to do with anything.
I personally haven't been that worried about my credit because I've only bought one thing on credit...
Even if you've never bought anything on credit it's still a good idea to request a report once in a while (yearly). If someone has stolen your identity and has credit in your name, they won't be sending bills to your house. They're smart enough not to tip you off that easily... You'd never know untill it was too late.
Thank you for that well thought out response. This was a real education for me. While I knew things are not as cut and dry as everyone on here (including myself) feels they should be, the logical, black-and-white software engineer in me keeps me focused only on what the law states, ignoring any case interpretation of that law. I suppose to the logical mind of the average Slashdot geek, and I find myself falling into the same trap, there is no room for interpretation. Black and white. It either is or is not novel. It either is or is not obvious. There is no middle ground to a geek. The law states "X" so it either meets "X" or it does not.
I think that's probably the source of contention on here. We see some patents granted on things that aren't very novel or unique like the "One Click" patent or the ludicrous "the method of swinging sideways on a swing..." and we wonder if the USPTO is doing its job. It's a common belief that the job of the USPTO is to accept or reject a patent application based on cut and dry criteria. Based on what you've explained to me, this is a huge over simplification of what really happens.
This of course leads to the crys for reform as there are a lot of people, myself included, that feel more should be done within the USPTO itself and the majority of the disputes left out of the courts. The USPTO employs the subject matter experts that are reviewing the applications and really should be making the final decisions. Basing decisions on case law made by a judge who probably isn't an expert in the topic of controversy probably isn't the best way to go. An uninformed judge is alot easier to sway than an more knowledgable patent examiner.
a patent that is honestly "too broad" will be easily defeated in court.
Maybe I missed something but, I thought it was the USPTO that was supposed to decide what was patentable and not the courts. Not, allow anything through and let the courts figure it out later.
You know... I feel I must apologize for my previous post. I don't usually fly off the handle like that. However, it seems like every time I comment on patents, I end up in a pissing match with someone, and your attacks on character are not cool.
So, I am at work and do not have time to study patent law or this patent or the claims of this case in general. I thought I made that clear when I acknowledged that Granted, I haven't read the complaint or the terms of the patent... and then presented my opinion and solicited for more information.
Now, I will rebut your counter-claims that were not attacks on my character. I am not going to dust off any patent law books or hire a patent lawyer. I am just going to use what I find on the USPTO website.
The term is "novel" and in the context of patent law, it does not mean "unique".
Please show me where this is stated in patent law. In all the dictionary/thesarus references I've seen, these two words are synonyms.
The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before...
unique? novel? original? Note that the term "novel" is only mentioned 3 times on this entire page and it seems to mean what a dictionary would define it as.
the concept of "non-obvious" does not mean what you think it means...
Continuing the last sentence:
...that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention.
And the previous sentance:
Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious.
That's pretty much what I thought it meant.
From the same page:
...and abstract ideas are not patentable...
An "abstract idea" like, say, mouse traps vs. a specific implementation of a mouse trap.
So substitue "novel" and "abstract ideas" for "unique" and "overly broad" and my original argument stands.
Seriously though, when are we going to overhaul these amazingly archaic patent laws?
Actually, I don't really beleive it's the laws that need overhauled but the patent system in general. Patents (or atleast the concept of) were at one time a good thing. However, these tools working in the patent system are clueless. They seem to be forgetting two very important terms when it comes to granting pattents. "Unique" and "non-obvious". (I'm sure we can slip 'not overly broad' in there somewhere too).
Recommending items to customers is definitely not something new and unique and has been done on and off the net for years. Hell... "would you like fries with that?" or "this coat would go great with that vest"...
Granted, I haven't read the complaint or the terms of the patent, and that 5 sentence article gives just enough information to raise everyone's blood pressure and not much else. The general "Recommending shit based on what others wanted" in itself isn't patentable. It's overly broad and obvious as hell. Now, if Cendant has patented "a unique method of storing user information and presenting recommendations to others" and Amazon is using "that exact same method" then they have a case.
One company may hold a patent on a particular mouse trap, but no-one can hold a patent on "trapping mice." If Cendant were able to obtain such a pattent, may [your respective deities] help us all...
Anyone have anymore information on the complaint?
Re:Coming soon to a street corner near you...
on
Battle Roomba Tractor
·
· Score: 2, Funny
The ED209 was a bouncer at one of our shows last year.
Slashdot Mirror
When did Dvorak start working for Netcraft?
If you aren't sure, call the number on your credit card(, bank statement, utility bill, phone book or whatever other trusted source you know is legit) and verify it that way.
From TFA:
ATI's driver remains proprietary for intellectual property reasons, the Canadian company said. "There's third-party intellectual property that ATI has licensed that is required by law to be protected," said Matthew Tippett, ATI's Linux software engineering manager. "And the graphics market is hotly competitive, and particularly in the high-end cards, we have lots of intellectual property. We want to maintain the proprietary, trade-secret nature of that as long as possible."
Religious convictions aside, it seems they could be bound by law to keep their drivers proprietery. If this is unacceptable to you, feel free to use a low-budget card with OSS drivers. I however like my QuadroFX and will use whatever drivers make it work.
There is absolutely no valid reason why any proprietary element is unavoidable!
Again covered by the quote from TFA above.
Whatever religious convictions the FSF may have, if they really want Linux and OSS to compete with Microsoft and dominate in the market, there are simply times where they will have to cooperate with proprietary companies. They aren't going to open up just because we want them to, and if we refuse to support them, guess what, Microsoft is still the dominating OS out there so losing Linux customers isn't that big of a dent in their revenue; and we will have just closed one door to try and get ahead.
Besides, you're making a defence by appeal to authority
Umm... isn't that what your original post did?
You attacked him not on the merrit of his arguments but your perception of his qualifications to make such arguments...
The argument is either valid or invalid regardless of the qualifications of the speaker.
Wrong Trousers at a shorts festival! HA! I just got that!
Yes, I'll give you that... I suppose my frustrations do lie more with the FSF/GNU community than all of OSS. I should not generalize so much...
I suppose I feel frustrated or almost embarassed even, when I see those pushing for Linux to become the dominating OS, at they same time fighting against the very companies they need to make that happen.
Not if the Open Source community has anything to say about it...
Don't get me wrong. I like open source software and I try to promote it as much as I can. But there are things the open source community does that I feel is basically shooting themselves in the foot.
I think my biggest pet pieve with open source software is not the concept itself, but how OS zealots treat proprietary software. Getting to my point, take for example Linux. (I think this is where my karma goes to hell...) In particular, how Linux treats loadable kernel modules. If you load a kernel module that does not explicity state that it is GPLed you start to see messages in the log like "AHH! Proprietary software! The kernel is TAINTED! I'm melting!!!!"
Everyone complains that hardware vendor X doesn't support Linux. But then if they finally build support, and don't open their IP up to the world, they get bitch slapped for it. "Ah! you're tainting my kernel!" You know, I haven't seen whiners like that since elementary school.
Yeah, running in kernel context grants 3rd party software access that can potentially change how the kernel functions. However, most of the time the LKMs simply add the necessary support for the hardware and leave everything else untouched. The only noticable difference is that the hardware _actually_ works. (which is also sometimes debatable...)
I know, technically, according to the verbage of the GPL, all LKMs should be GPLed. I really feel that is too restricting if you want the support from 3rd party vendors. Which is why I'm guessing, that non-GPLed LKMs are still able to be loaded. But if you want the support, quit whining about it!
My question is, how long is it going to be until necessary kernel symbols are no longer exported to proprietary LKMs? When is the final bullet going to be fired into your foot where no commercial company is going to be able (or rather willing) to support Linux at all?
I build drivers for both Linux and Windows. I have YET to see Windows complain about whether or not my source code was GPLed or proprietary!
If you want open source and commercial software to coexist, we really need to get with the program here!
Ok, rant mode off... goodbye sweet karma! it was nice knowing you...
It's not up to every guy who runs a bakery or a stationary store or whatever to come up with entirely new business models whenever they hit hard times, and nobody expects them to - yet for some reason, people do expect that when it comes to the web.
Actually, it is. If a guy running a bakery has problems selling his bread he certainly can't stand outside his shop with a bat forcing patrons in. He absolutely should be thinking of ways to improve his business model, wether it's specials, new recipes, contests, whatever... I'm not saying he should convert to selling cars but if what he's doing isn't working it's his responsibility to fix it. And I would absolutely expect him to fix it and not cry about how unfair it is that people just don't except his business model for what it is.
This is the same attitude the MP/RIAA have by crying to the government in an attempt at forcing people to support their broken system rather than embracing the change in consumer demand.
In the beginning content was free on the net and it still can be. The content I search for and am mainly interested has been around since the beginning of time in places like usenet, educational institutions, government, etc... eComerce sites, news portals, and the like are relatively new in the scheme of things, and while they are very useful and convenient, I won't miss them if they start charging for service. Just because comercial corporations are the dominating presence on the internet does not mean we need to bow to their will. They can conform or die.
Amazon makes money from me by selling me books not advertizements. If nytimes.com wants to charge me a subscription for their service, if I find value in it, I will pay for it, if not, believe me, I can do without.
If website owners are only in it for the money and they go belly up because they don't offer a service people want, I don't feel sorry for them.
I would imagine any D&D would be prior art in a general games category? MSoft wasn't exactly the first company to get into games. I'm not sure how they can get a pantent on how points are awarded. Any D&D DM has subjective power to award points, and MS didn't exactly put D&D out there.
You seem to have missed the key prhases: "on the internet" or "using a computer". Those two phrases alone make the idea new and unique and prior art becomes moot... Atleast that's how it seems these days...
Actually, for me, Netscape was "outta here" when I started finding AOL links in every back corner of my computer.
Well, then perhaps he shouldn't have boasted about his new patent on his blog, and invited others to respond. I'm sure he would have kept the blog open if all the conversation was mindless adulation for his cleverness (which it looks like he was expecting), but since he got a little heat, he just shut down and ran.
Yeah, perhaps he shouldn't have, but as you pointed out, I don't think he was expecting to get flamed for it either. I'm sure we've all done something we've perceived as a personal achievement and sought recognition and congratulations from our peers only to be less than enthusiastically received (I know I have...). They knock you down a few pegs and you want to crawl under a rock for a while...
Granted, a public forum probably wasn't the best place to boast. However, I would think it reasonable for him, since it is his blog, to expect that most (surely not all) people reading his blog are his peers (or atleast people who think like he does) and he would receive a warm reception. It's not like he posted it to Slashdot...
As for not following through, he wasn't planning on getting into the religious argument in the first place. He post wasn't "Hey, software patents kick ass and here's why...". He was just looking for a pat on the back from his peers...
...he gets a barrage of posts criticizing him for stifling innovation, and instead of addressing them, he closes the thread. Yes, yes, I'm well aware it's his blog, and if he doesn't want to play, he' s well within his rights to close the thread...just like that kid who would always take his ball and go home when the game didn't go his way...
Actually, what would anyone expect him do do? Arguing the current patent system is as bad or worse than arguing religion. There are good and bad points to both sides of the argument and nothing anyone says could possibly sway the other side's opinion. Especially when their opinion is strong enough to cause them to take the time out of their day to bitch slap someone on their blog...
That being said, I'm sure Dan doesn't want to sit there and get flamed all day... or waste his time getting into a religious argument. The only thing defending himself would do would be to invite more flames... Really, I can't blame him for closing the discussion...
That tsunami really fsck'd things up didn't it...
In Illinois it's illegal to eavesdrop on your own conversation...
Given that quoted paragraph and the following, it is apparent that even after interviewing the creator, the author has absolutely no idea what bit torrent is for or how it works.
He [Cohen] sketched out a protocol: To download that copy of Meet the Fokkers...
Yeah, I'm sure that's what he was thinking when he created the protocol...
a user's computer sniffs around for others online who have pieces of the movie
No, trackers keep track of who is downloading or seeding the file, there is no sniffing around. Infact, there is no search capability that I am aware of...
The more files you're willing to share, the faster any individual torrent downloads
Are you kidding me? No... the more people downloading/seeding an individual torrent, the faster it downloads. More files have nothing to do with anything.
Just the plastic ones...
I always try to do #2 before the show starts since now that I have a PVR there are no commercial breaks for me to get up to do it later.
I personally haven't been that worried about my credit because I've only bought one thing on credit...
Even if you've never bought anything on credit it's still a good idea to request a report once in a while (yearly). If someone has stolen your identity and has credit in your name, they won't be sending bills to your house. They're smart enough not to tip you off that easily... You'd never know untill it was too late.
Thank you for that well thought out response. This was a real education for me. While I knew things are not as cut and dry as everyone on here (including myself) feels they should be, the logical, black-and-white software engineer in me keeps me focused only on what the law states, ignoring any case interpretation of that law. I suppose to the logical mind of the average Slashdot geek, and I find myself falling into the same trap, there is no room for interpretation. Black and white. It either is or is not novel. It either is or is not obvious. There is no middle ground to a geek. The law states "X" so it either meets "X" or it does not.
I think that's probably the source of contention on here. We see some patents granted on things that aren't very novel or unique like the "One Click" patent or the ludicrous "the method of swinging sideways on a swing..." and we wonder if the USPTO is doing its job. It's a common belief that the job of the USPTO is to accept or reject a patent application based on cut and dry criteria. Based on what you've explained to me, this is a huge over simplification of what really happens.
This of course leads to the crys for reform as there are a lot of people, myself included, that feel more should be done within the USPTO itself and the majority of the disputes left out of the courts. The USPTO employs the subject matter experts that are reviewing the applications and really should be making the final decisions. Basing decisions on case law made by a judge who probably isn't an expert in the topic of controversy probably isn't the best way to go. An uninformed judge is alot easier to sway than an more knowledgable patent examiner.
a patent that is honestly "too broad" will be easily defeated in court.
Maybe I missed something but, I thought it was the USPTO that was supposed to decide what was patentable and not the courts. Not, allow anything through and let the courts figure it out later.
So, I am at work and do not have time to study patent law or this patent or the claims of this case in general. I thought I made that clear when I acknowledged that Granted, I haven't read the complaint or the terms of the patent... and then presented my opinion and solicited for more information.
Now, I will rebut your counter-claims that were not attacks on my character. I am not going to dust off any patent law books or hire a patent lawyer. I am just going to use what I find on the USPTO website.
The term is "novel" and in the context of patent law, it does not mean "unique".
Please show me where this is stated in patent law. In all the dictionary/thesarus references I've seen, these two words are synonyms.
From USPTO:
The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before...
unique? novel? original? Note that the term "novel" is only mentioned 3 times on this entire page and it seems to mean what a dictionary would define it as.
the concept of "non-obvious" does not mean what you think it means...
Continuing the last sentence:
And the previous sentance:
Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious.
That's pretty much what I thought it meant.
From the same page:
An "abstract idea" like, say, mouse traps vs. a specific implementation of a mouse trap.
So substitue "novel" and "abstract ideas" for "unique" and "overly broad" and my original argument stands.
You are such a tool... Also, see my above comments about having a clue... See my previous comment about having a clue... YOU look like a complete tool
How insightful! Way to drive home your argument!
If you are going to refute my argument how about providing facts or counter examples instead of trying to attack my character.
Loser.
Seriously though, when are we going to overhaul these amazingly archaic patent laws?
Actually, I don't really beleive it's the laws that need overhauled but the patent system in general. Patents (or atleast the concept of) were at one time a good thing. However, these tools working in the patent system are clueless. They seem to be forgetting two very important terms when it comes to granting pattents. "Unique" and "non-obvious". (I'm sure we can slip 'not overly broad' in there somewhere too).
Recommending items to customers is definitely not something new and unique and has been done on and off the net for years. Hell... "would you like fries with that?" or "this coat would go great with that vest"...
Granted, I haven't read the complaint or the terms of the patent, and that 5 sentence article gives just enough information to raise everyone's blood pressure and not much else. The general "Recommending shit based on what others wanted" in itself isn't patentable. It's overly broad and obvious as hell. Now, if Cendant has patented "a unique method of storing user information and presenting recommendations to others" and Amazon is using "that exact same method" then they have a case.
One company may hold a patent on a particular mouse trap, but no-one can hold a patent on "trapping mice." If Cendant were able to obtain such a pattent, may [your respective deities] help us all...
Anyone have anymore information on the complaint?
The ED209 was a bouncer at one of our shows last year.
Man, no one would piss with that dude!