how do you explain problems with GIF and JPEG file formats...
I believe the big issue was with the patented LZW compression algorithm that GIF uses rather than the file format itself. Here's the first link I found on Google.
In prefoming that demonstration, are those thoughts a patent infringment?
No..
Thinking, studying, learning a pattented invention is not an infringement on the pattent. In fact, by definitition, it is encouraged. Pattented technologies are taught in colleges. The LZW compression algorithm can be found in many college texts.
Is it possible for thoughts to be prohibited by law?
If you are not going to ask insightful questions I'm not going to continue this discussion. This just makes you look stupid and is just an attempt to dig under my skin.
then how could that non-patentable non-invention magically become a patentable invention...
First, you have not shown the invention to be non-patentable. Up to this point you've only assumed it. Your argument is begging the question as this is what you are trying to prove.
Second, If you can think of a way to solve a problem in a unique, non-obvious way, it is a patentable invention. Be it a hardware apparatus or a set of instructions. Just because you can't pick it up doesn't mean it isn't a tool. A computer is a useless hunk of plastic without people trying to invent ways to combine it's intruction set to solve problems.
I can find a better way to cut french-fries. Sure there are already ways to do it but if I find a unique way to do it (perhaps even better) that's a pattentable invention. There are ways to compress images but if I find a unique way to do it (perhaps even better) that's a pattentable invention. You can choose to license my new technology (fries or images) or continue using the old technology.
You are even free to study and examine my pattent to see how I did it. Learn from it, or improve on it.
when you take the blatantly obvious step of using an plain old computer simply to speed up the exact same calculation?
Just because you don't need a computer to execute instructions, doesn't mean the instructions are not a unique or useful invention.
You are trying to argue an Ad populum fallacy by exclaiming that the popular consensus on Slashdot is that software should not be pattentable, therefore, software isn't patentable.
You start out by stating the majority opinion of this site: Software and math and mental processes are not inventions.
Then you try to prove it by saying they can't be because you can trace programs in your head. This still fails to show how the discovered means to an end is not an invention.
I can have a pattent for applying a motor that turns the wheel of a cheese slicer. Just because I can stand there and turn the wheel by hand doesn't make the pattent any less valid.
And then you add this gem: Sure some software would take thousands or millions of years to fully execute mentally, but either software patents are valid or they are not.
I can't even comprehend what point you are trying to make here. These two statements have nothing to do with each other: It takes a long time to execute software but software is either an invention or it is not. What?
Then you conclude by stating another question that is intended to lead to the only conclusion that, since you can trace software in your head, software is not an invention.
You state your opinion, argue no support for it, and come to a majority rules conclusion...
I currently have a project I've been working on in my own time. I've invested about a year or so of my personal time and money in designing implementing and testing the concept. It is a software application that implements something that I don't beleive has been done before. I am currently talking with a pattent attorney about how best to proceed.
Now why should I just give it to you because it's a list of instructions instead of a pile of nuts and bolts. A pattented apparatus (a unique assembly) of nuts and bolts that accomplishes a specific task is no different than a unique set of instructions that accomplishes a specific task.
There is nothing stopping you from creating a different assembly of nuts and bolts to accomplish the same task, just as there is nothing stopping you from writing your own instructions that accomplish the same task.
The GIF pattent wasn't a pattent that prevented you or anyone else from creating digital images. It was to protect the inventor of the GIF format and compression algorithm. You were absolutely free to invent your own compression and image format.
I feel I have a unique invention. I want to protect myself and be rewarded for my time I put into inventing it. I don't want to give it to you for free. I sure as hell don't want to give it to Microsoft so they can earn my money from it.
All pattents on nuts and bolts apparatus are pattents on a process in disguise. There is no physical apparatus in the pattent office representing the invention, but the blueprints or instructions on how to create the invention. You better believe if someone pattented the lever when it was invented, anyone moving a rock with a stick would have had the bejesus sued out of them. You could learn how it was done from the pattent which may give you ideas for your own invention. But you either have to buy a lever or license the technology to build your own or come up with some other way to move the rock. I know this is a simplistic example but I just don't want to go into the intricate details of some existing complicated pattent like a blender or Mr. Poppiel's slicer/dicer/chopper... (you can still slice an onion, just not his pattented way unless you pay for it... or invent your own method...)
Now, as far as being able to trace/run/demonstrate software mentally, that is what pattents were intended for anyway. The pattent system was founded for two reasons, one was to be able to publicly share your invention with the rest of the world so that society and the community can learn from it while two, being granted a temporary monopoly over the invention so you can be duely compensated for your efforts without worrying about someone stealing your IP.
Pattents, unlike diamonds and copyrights, are not forever. They do expire, just like the GIF pattent, and, once the government feels you've had enough time to be compensated (i.e. exparation) the technology is entered into public domain. Also, while a pattent protects an invention, you are free to pattent an improvement to an existing invention. Or build on an existing invention.
As you can tell I am for software pattents. I feel if I discover a unique way to solve a problem that would give me an edge over they way it's currently done, by all means I want to bennefit from it, not just give it away...
Now, I also need to argue for pattent reform. I feel the current pattent system allows for too broad, too vague, obvious inventions to get through. This does hinder innovation. Instead of pattenting something like an image format (just as an example), pattents that cover all images are getting through. (Or something more concrete, the browser pluggin fiasco for instance)
I also don't believe pattented IP should be introduced into open standards which has been the topic of this thread. Unless you are willing to grant anyone implementing or using the standard a royalty-free license, and submit a binding contract stating such to the standards committee, the standard is no longer open.
Actually, they should open a back door and hijack their machine. Effectively, increasing the resources the company has to work with to develop more secure software.
Kind of an eye-for-an-eye. You steal my software, I steal your computer resources...
Of course, _implementations_ of certain algorithms can be protected, but that's what copyright is for.
I wasn't going to reply to your post as from your recent history you are usually either modded "troll", "flamebait", or "offtopic" or you are ignored completely. However, by this statement, you obviously have no idea what patents are intended for in the first place.
Patents are absolutley intended to give the inventor a monopoly over the technology invented. This monopoly is only TEMPORARY however. Patents are intended to protect an inventor from having his time, effort and invention stolen from him by someone else.
If you invent some technology, say some new compression algorithm, that you want to market. You've invested your own time and resources into this invention (or derivation of some mathematical axiom), perhaps a lot of time and a lot of money. Patents protect you from some large corporation, say Microsoft, from taking your work and marketing it as their own. I'm willing to bet if you tried to go head to head competing with a big corporation, you will lose. They will take your work and you won't see a dime.
Patents, instead, allow you a temporary monopoly on your technology, which is supposed to spur innovation. Corporations like Microsoft can choose to license your technology, where you earn money from your effort, or they can invent their own competing technology which may or may not be better than yours. Eventually, the patent expires and the technology enters public domain. But not before you've been rewarded for your investment.
Copyright isn't going to protect your invention, just your implementation.
The "Patents are evil" arguments on this site are not that their should be no software patents, but rather there needs to be patent reform because the current system is easy to abuse. There are too few, overwhelmed, non-tech savy patent officers granting overly broad patents that are killing the tech industry. Those that think there should be NO software patents, in my opinion, just don't get it.
Back to my argument, patents have their place. Just not in open standards. In order for applications to work together smoothly, a lot of money is going to have to flow in one direction. Some people, OSS developers for instance, who don't have the cash are not going to adopt the patented technology and the standard is then broken.
I believe you'd still have to deal with trademarks
That's a good point. tepples mentioned it earlier. Has there been trademarks on earlier works that have since entered public domain (either still enforced or no longer)?
I agree, software patents aren't necessarilly all bad. But they have their place.
If someone were to patent some software technology that people would find useful and they wanted to license it then that's fine. If someone else didn't want to license it then they can come up with their own technology that acomplishes the same thing. That's what the patent system is for.
But to force patented technology to be licensed by everyone by making it part of a standard is an abuse of the system.
The internet is based on open standards which allows applications on any platform to communicate and interoperate. As soon as you introduce patented technology, some will be willing to pay the royalties and others will not. Once that happens, you have two different protocols that no longer interoperate smoothly and they system breaks down.
Look at what Microsoft already did with HTML, Java, XML, (insert favorite technology here...) by trying to introduce their own "extensions."
No, you will die before the copyrights on works first published in 1977 expire.
Yes, I know. The question was hypothetical.
In 2073, provided there's no Chastity Bono Act...
Given current trends, there very well could be, hence the "by some miracle..."
So, then, given the original copyright actually expires, could my great-grandchildren create a derivative Star Wars story with Luke Skywalker as a character if Luke is still under the copyright of Lucas's re-re-release derivative work?
Not quite. The modified version is a derived work of the original, which has its own term of copyright. The copyright on the originals will still expire at the same time though.
Which is technically true. Here's a question that has never (to my knowledge) been tested. Say by some miracle, copyrights will actually expire someday... If the original movie is no longer under copyright but the derivative still is, could I write my own Star Wars story using Luke, Leia, etc... or would they (the characters) be protected still by the derivative work?
I've only ever paid for one pay-per-view program. That was the Rolling Rock Town Fair from a few years ago because I was there. I paid for it. I taped it (yeah, what a lamer). And I plan on keeping it.
Why does someone else have a right to put a limit on how long I can keep a record of part of my life experience.
Also, note that "receiving stolen goods" is a crime in much of the world.
Actually, receiving stolen goods is only a crime if you accept them knowing they are stolen or suspect they might be stolen. If you accept goods in good faith and have no reason to suspect the transaction to be anything less than legal, the worst that can happen is you will loose the goods and probably whatever you paid in the deal.
It's up to the prosecutor to prove that you knew what you were doing was illegal.
Up to this point SCO hasn't shown they own anything Linux. Anyone using Linux has no reason to believe they are using stolen IP. If by some freak occurance we are all transported to some universe where SCO is shown to own parts of Linux, then users will have two choices. Stop using Linux or pay the license fees (or three, have the IP removed and continue using Linux). SCO may be able to collect retroactively (possibly?) but no one is currently or will be prosecuted as a criminal.
the popup window will be officially dead in a year's time.
Sounds nice in theory, unfortunately, advertizers are already finding ways around popup blockers. I run Mozilla which does an excellent job of blocking the typical popup. However, every once in a while I run across one of those scripts that doesn't actually popup a window but "draws" its own popup which has the same annoying affect...
I haven't looked at the script to see how they work. But once someone figures out a way to block them, advertizers will just come up with something else...
I was wondering that myself. If it's a required work expense then you should be able to write it off... however, if it's something that you might normally purchase for a reason other than work then probably not. For instance, where I live, if I dug ditches, I could write off my steel toes and work jeans, however, I write code and can't write off my kahkies. The mentallity is: if it's something you could wear to church then you can't take the deduction.
I'm going to guess that no, it couldn't be written off. Regardless if broadband was or wasn't a required work expence, I'd still have it.
I don't beleive that is always the case. For instance, where I work we have places we are not allowed cell phones. I am not even allowed to have my cell phone in the building because it has a camera. However, most people, myself included, have access to email, have CD burners in our desktops, floppies, USB thumb drives, hell we even have an anonymous public ftp so we can trasfer larger files between external networks and clients.
I don't believe it's a misunderstanding of the policy but rather a flawed policy. I can't bring in my phone because it has a camera, yet, if I were to try to steal anything, I can think of much easier ways to do it than with crappy low-res jpegs.
A security policy doesn't work if you lock down only one thing and leave gaping holes everywhere else. Then it becomes not we who do not understand the policy but the security people themselves who are trying to make it.
The daleks trundling about would look pretty pathetic to modern kids.
Eh, they'd just update them a little like they did with the Klingons. Make them a little more modern to the point they would be unwilling to discuss their heritage with outsiders.
So do you agree the 5-4 majority oppinion is fundamentally broken?
I wouldn't say it's broken. That's the way our system works.
That it denies innocent and non-arrested "suspects" fundamental rights that are normally assured even after you are arrested?
Actually, all "suspects" are innocent (at least they had better be presumed innocent according to our system) and aren't arrested until an investigation turns up enough evidence to justify it.
Witholding your name is not a fundamental right in that being required to produce it does not violate your 4th and 5th amendment rights.
When you are investigated as a suspect you have always been required to produce some form of identification when asked to do so. Please note I'm not talking about simple "Terry" stops here. Even if the police do not have enough evidence to make an arrest, they still need to know who you are and how to get ahold of you if they need to follow up the investigation, or make an arrest if they later have enough evidence. Many times as a suspect (innocent or not, from the police point of view that's what they are trying to determine), many times as a suspect you are even bound from leaving the city, county, etc... pending the investigation. (I forget the actual term at the moment, but then that's another discussion).
The 4th ammendment only protects you from unreasonable search and seizure, it does not protect you from being investigated as a suspect, even if you truely are innocent. And under an investigation you are compelled to cooperate. The 5th ammendment protects you, not from remaining silent but only from being "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Having a name and presenting it does not incriminate you so, during an investigation it can be requested and required.
Now, the unfortunate outcome of this case. Some states have always had laws that require you to present identification, be it verbaly or otherwise, during even a simple "Terry" stop. Nevada, in this case is one of them. Up until now, it has been up in the air about the constitutionallity of such a law. This fact is also in the Case document:
Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3.
But then in the next sentence, the court makes its unfortunate ruling:
The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.
So, what was once up in the air has now been set in stone. Nothing else has really changed.
The conspiracy theorists are up in arms about how, now people can be stopped for any or no reason, even non-suspicious activity, and be required to present identification, verbally or otherwise, under threat of arrest, and that simply is not the case.
From the ruling: They are met by the [Court ruling]requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified" the initial stop. Terry, 392 U. S., at 20. [Finally]Under those principles, an officer may NOT arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.
Four situations can happen,
This is the one for the conspiracy theorists. 1, you are sitting on a bench in a park feeding pigeons. An officer walks over for no reason and requests ID. Even under this ruling, you are NOT required to identify yourself, as the officer is not investigating anything. You can ask him what seems to be the trouble, etc... If you are not suspect of anything you do not have to answer and he cannot arrest you.
You are suggesting that in the absence of cause and the absence of arrest a person has LESS rights than when there is cause and has been an arrest. That is absurd.
Of course that is absurd. But I think we are trying to make the same point here. Based on the outcome of this ruling, you now can be required by law to identify yourself during one of these "Terry stops".
From the ruling: Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop.
Note the require a suspect... piece. Some States may vary whether you are actually required and what penalties... but yes, the Supreme Court just made it real.
This is the whole reason this made it to Slashdot.
But to debunk the conspiracy theorists who I complain should have read the court documents
From the ruling: Hiibel argues unpersuasively that the statute circumvents the probable-cause requirement by [Hiibel's claim] allowing an officer to arrest a person for being suspicious, thereby creating an impermissible risk of arbitrary police conduct. These familiar concerns underlay Kolender, Brown, and Papachristou. They are met by the [Court ruling]requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified" the initial stop. Terry, 392 U. S., at 20. [Finally]Under those principles, an officer may NOT arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.
[my emphasis]
So, no, an officer can't just ask you for your name for no reason and arrest you if you don't comply.
The point of my original post was the fact of the unfortunate outcome of this case when the circumstances involved in this case had nothing to do with a random stop.
All the conspiracy theorists in this thread are crying about how this innocent bystander was approached for no reason and arrested for not cooperating. This was not just a random stop.
Again from the ruling: The sheriff's department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove was dispatched to investigate. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the truck parked on the side of the road. A man was standing by the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The officer observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe it had come to a sudden stop. The officer approached the man and explained that he was investigating a report of a fight...
Previously in the ruling: Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion,...
The officer was dispatched to his location because of a report of a possible assault on a woman and given a description of Hiibel's truck. He was not approached for no reason as Hiibel and the conspiracy theorists seem to think.
From the Court ruling: Nevada's "stop and identify" statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself.
Hiibel tried to play dumb like he was just hanging out minding his own business. He got burned. He knew better. The officer surely knew better or there would never have been a report of a possible assult at that location involving that truck, etc. The officer was conducting an investigation and Hiibel was compelled to cooperate and did not. That's why he was arrested.
But because Hiibel wanted to stick to his story about playing dumb and being randomly harrassed, the Supreme Court has now extended the requirement of identification to include Terry stops as well.
No, the only thing that came out of Tipper Gore's crusade 15 years ago was a VOLUNTARY labeling system by the RIAA. And what a blow that was... put an "explicit lyrics" label on a CD and watch those sales rise!
No, actually, why the officer approached him is not moot. The officer approached him while conducting an investigation and given information up to that point (location, description, etc...), Hiibel was a suspect.
The phone tip and standing next to the truck with skid marks did legally amount to an investigation to which Hiibel was trying to play dumb. [I don't know what you are talking about officer, I was just minding my own business. That caller that reported an assult with a description of my truck in this location didn't know what they were talking about... what skid marks? I skidded for a different reason other than fighting with my daughter, yada yada yada...]
You are correct that the tip and skid marks are not enough to hold him. They are enough, however to warrant the investigation. Since the description and location of Hiibel's vehicle were in the tip along with a man assulting a woman, Hiibel, being in that location, with his daughter, with the truck, with the skid marks, did obligate him to cooperate with the officer. Hiibel wasn't approached for "no reason", he was approached for a very specific reason. If we could all legally play dumb and not cooperate, then no one would ever be able to be investigated or even arrested unless the police officer was the primary witness to the actual crime.
The investigation of a possible crime may or may not lead to anything more that the officer could then use to hold him. That's the point that's moot. The fact that Hiibel was trying to play dumb and refused to give up his name while he was being investigated is what he then was in trouble for.
The point of my post was that the outcome, whether an officer has the right to require someone to present ID when they are not under suspicion, has no relevance to this case. Hiibel was not approached for no reason and he knew it. He had an altercation that was reported and when the officer showed up to investigate he tried to play dumb.
Assuming the transcript of the video is accurate (I can't hear the audio here at work), the only thing Hiibel might have had going for him was that the officer never really makes it clear what it is that he is investigating. One would think the officer would atleast inform him that "we had a report of a disturbance in this vicinity..."
Now whether or not there was an altercation, or if Hiibel really was just hanging out minding his own business you could also say is moot. What matters is, the claim of this case, that Hiibel was approached for no reason, is baseless since the officer was there for a very specific reason: to investigate a report of a possible crime of which Hiibel was a suspect.
I will have to retract my statement about _never_ seeing police officers approaching random people for no reason... I'm sure most of us have been through atleast one DUI checkpoint. But then, the constitutionallity of that is still being decided...
Did you even read my post? Did you look at the sources I cited? Half my post was cited directly from the Case Documents, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada , ET AL.
Slashdot Mirror
seems not to be broadcasting now. Anyone knows why...
/.ed it.
Yeah, you just
God I hope so! I was worried for a second!
how do you explain problems with GIF and JPEG file formats...
I believe the big issue was with the patented LZW compression algorithm that GIF uses rather than the file format itself. Here's the first link I found on Google.
They can go ahead and sue a non-profit organziation. I wonder what kind of goodwill that'll bring.
Unless that non-profit organization is a charity saving children or whales, no one outside the Open Source community is going to care.
In prefoming that demonstration, are those thoughts a patent infringment?
No..
Thinking, studying, learning a pattented invention is not an infringement on the pattent. In fact, by definitition, it is encouraged. Pattented technologies are taught in colleges. The LZW compression algorithm can be found in many college texts.
Is it possible for thoughts to be prohibited by law?
If you are not going to ask insightful questions I'm not going to continue this discussion. This just makes you look stupid and is just an attempt to dig under my skin.
then how could that non-patentable non-invention magically become a patentable invention...
First, you have not shown the invention to be non-patentable. Up to this point you've only assumed it. Your argument is begging the question as this is what you are trying to prove.
Second, If you can think of a way to solve a problem in a unique, non-obvious way, it is a patentable invention. Be it a hardware apparatus or a set of instructions. Just because you can't pick it up doesn't mean it isn't a tool. A computer is a useless hunk of plastic without people trying to invent ways to combine it's intruction set to solve problems.
I can find a better way to cut french-fries. Sure there are already ways to do it but if I find a unique way to do it (perhaps even better) that's a pattentable invention. There are ways to compress images but if I find a unique way to do it (perhaps even better) that's a pattentable invention. You can choose to license my new technology (fries or images) or continue using the old technology.
You are even free to study and examine my pattent to see how I did it. Learn from it, or improve on it.
when you take the blatantly obvious step of using an plain old computer simply to speed up the exact same calculation?
Just because you don't need a computer to execute instructions, doesn't mean the instructions are not a unique or useful invention.
You are trying to argue an Ad populum fallacy by exclaiming that the popular consensus on Slashdot is that software should not be pattentable, therefore, software isn't patentable.
You start out by stating the majority opinion of this site: Software and math and mental processes are not inventions.
Then you try to prove it by saying they can't be because you can trace programs in your head. This still fails to show how the discovered means to an end is not an invention.
I can have a pattent for applying a motor that turns the wheel of a cheese slicer. Just because I can stand there and turn the wheel by hand doesn't make the pattent any less valid.
And then you add this gem: Sure some software would take thousands or millions of years to fully execute mentally, but either software patents are valid or they are not.
I can't even comprehend what point you are trying to make here. These two statements have nothing to do with each other: It takes a long time to execute software but software is either an invention or it is not. What?
Then you conclude by stating another question that is intended to lead to the only conclusion that, since you can trace software in your head, software is not an invention.
You state your opinion, argue no support for it, and come to a majority rules conclusion...
I currently have a project I've been working on in my own time. I've invested about a year or so of my personal time and money in designing implementing and testing the concept. It is a software application that implements something that I don't beleive has been done before. I am currently talking with a pattent attorney about how best to proceed.
Now why should I just give it to you because it's a list of instructions instead of a pile of nuts and bolts. A pattented apparatus (a unique assembly) of nuts and bolts that accomplishes a specific task is no different than a unique set of instructions that accomplishes a specific task.
There is nothing stopping you from creating a different assembly of nuts and bolts to accomplish the same task, just as there is nothing stopping you from writing your own instructions that accomplish the same task.
The GIF pattent wasn't a pattent that prevented you or anyone else from creating digital images. It was to protect the inventor of the GIF format and compression algorithm. You were absolutely free to invent your own compression and image format.
I feel I have a unique invention. I want to protect myself and be rewarded for my time I put into inventing it. I don't want to give it to you for free. I sure as hell don't want to give it to Microsoft so they can earn my money from it.
All pattents on nuts and bolts apparatus are pattents on a process in disguise. There is no physical apparatus in the pattent office representing the invention, but the blueprints or instructions on how to create the invention. You better believe if someone pattented the lever when it was invented, anyone moving a rock with a stick would have had the bejesus sued out of them. You could learn how it was done from the pattent which may give you ideas for your own invention. But you either have to buy a lever or license the technology to build your own or come up with some other way to move the rock. I know this is a simplistic example but I just don't want to go into the intricate details of some existing complicated pattent like a blender or Mr. Poppiel's slicer/dicer/chopper... (you can still slice an onion, just not his pattented way unless you pay for it... or invent your own method...)
Now, as far as being able to trace/run/demonstrate software mentally, that is what pattents were intended for anyway. The pattent system was founded for two reasons, one was to be able to publicly share your invention with the rest of the world so that society and the community can learn from it while two, being granted a temporary monopoly over the invention so you can be duely compensated for your efforts without worrying about someone stealing your IP.
Pattents, unlike diamonds and copyrights, are not forever. They do expire, just like the GIF pattent, and, once the government feels you've had enough time to be compensated (i.e. exparation) the technology is entered into public domain. Also, while a pattent protects an invention, you are free to pattent an improvement to an existing invention. Or build on an existing invention.
As you can tell I am for software pattents. I feel if I discover a unique way to solve a problem that would give me an edge over they way it's currently done, by all means I want to bennefit from it, not just give it away...
Now, I also need to argue for pattent reform. I feel the current pattent system allows for too broad, too vague, obvious inventions to get through. This does hinder innovation. Instead of pattenting something like an image format (just as an example), pattents that cover all images are getting through. (Or something more concrete, the browser pluggin fiasco for instance)
I also don't believe pattented IP should be introduced into open standards which has been the topic of this thread. Unless you are willing to grant anyone implementing or using the standard a royalty-free license, and submit a binding contract stating such to the standards committee, the standard is no longer open.
I know
Actually, they should open a back door and hijack their machine. Effectively, increasing the resources the company has to work with to develop more secure software.
Kind of an eye-for-an-eye. You steal my software, I steal your computer resources...
Of course, _implementations_ of certain algorithms can be protected, but that's what copyright is for.
I wasn't going to reply to your post as from your recent history you are usually either modded "troll", "flamebait", or "offtopic" or you are ignored completely. However, by this statement, you obviously have no idea what patents are intended for in the first place.
Patents are absolutley intended to give the inventor a monopoly over the technology invented. This monopoly is only TEMPORARY however. Patents are intended to protect an inventor from having his time, effort and invention stolen from him by someone else.
If you invent some technology, say some new compression algorithm, that you want to market. You've invested your own time and resources into this invention (or derivation of some mathematical axiom), perhaps a lot of time and a lot of money. Patents protect you from some large corporation, say Microsoft, from taking your work and marketing it as their own. I'm willing to bet if you tried to go head to head competing with a big corporation, you will lose. They will take your work and you won't see a dime.
Patents, instead, allow you a temporary monopoly on your technology, which is supposed to spur innovation. Corporations like Microsoft can choose to license your technology, where you earn money from your effort, or they can invent their own competing technology which may or may not be better than yours. Eventually, the patent expires and the technology enters public domain. But not before you've been rewarded for your investment.
Copyright isn't going to protect your invention, just your implementation.
The "Patents are evil" arguments on this site are not that their should be no software patents, but rather there needs to be patent reform because the current system is easy to abuse. There are too few, overwhelmed, non-tech savy patent officers granting overly broad patents that are killing the tech industry. Those that think there should be NO software patents, in my opinion, just don't get it.
Back to my argument, patents have their place. Just not in open standards. In order for applications to work together smoothly, a lot of money is going to have to flow in one direction. Some people, OSS developers for instance, who don't have the cash are not going to adopt the patented technology and the standard is then broken.
I believe you'd still have to deal with trademarks
That's a good point. tepples mentioned it earlier. Has there been trademarks on earlier works that have since entered public domain (either still enforced or no longer)?
I agree, software patents aren't necessarilly all bad. But they have their place.
If someone were to patent some software technology that people would find useful and they wanted to license it then that's fine. If someone else didn't want to license it then they can come up with their own technology that acomplishes the same thing. That's what the patent system is for.
But to force patented technology to be licensed by everyone by making it part of a standard is an abuse of the system.
The internet is based on open standards which allows applications on any platform to communicate and interoperate. As soon as you introduce patented technology, some will be willing to pay the royalties and others will not. Once that happens, you have two different protocols that no longer interoperate smoothly and they system breaks down.
Look at what Microsoft already did with HTML, Java, XML, (insert favorite technology here...) by trying to introduce their own "extensions."
No, you will die before the copyrights on works first published in 1977 expire.
Yes, I know. The question was hypothetical.
In 2073, provided there's no Chastity Bono Act...
Given current trends, there very well could be, hence the "by some miracle..."
So, then, given the original copyright actually expires, could my great-grandchildren create a derivative Star Wars story with Luke Skywalker as a character if Luke is still under the copyright of Lucas's re-re-release derivative work?
Not quite. The modified version is a derived work of the original, which has its own term of copyright. The copyright on the originals will still expire at the same time though.
Which is technically true. Here's a question that has never (to my knowledge) been tested. Say by some miracle, copyrights will actually expire someday... If the original movie is no longer under copyright but the derivative still is, could I write my own Star Wars story using Luke, Leia, etc... or would they (the characters) be protected still by the derivative work?
I've only ever paid for one pay-per-view program. That was the Rolling Rock Town Fair from a few years ago because I was there. I paid for it. I taped it (yeah, what a lamer). And I plan on keeping it.
Why does someone else have a right to put a limit on how long I can keep a record of part of my life experience.
Just some food for thought...
When I first saw the previews it reminded me of Last Exile that was ran on TechTV a while back.
Isn't this a dupe of a previous article?
Also, note that "receiving stolen goods" is a crime in much of the world.
Actually, receiving stolen goods is only a crime if you accept them knowing they are stolen or suspect they might be stolen. If you accept goods in good faith and have no reason to suspect the transaction to be anything less than legal, the worst that can happen is you will loose the goods and probably whatever you paid in the deal.
It's up to the prosecutor to prove that you knew what you were doing was illegal.
Up to this point SCO hasn't shown they own anything Linux. Anyone using Linux has no reason to believe they are using stolen IP. If by some freak occurance we are all transported to some universe where SCO is shown to own parts of Linux, then users will have two choices. Stop using Linux or pay the license fees (or three, have the IP removed and continue using Linux). SCO may be able to collect retroactively (possibly?) but no one is currently or will be prosecuted as a criminal.
the popup window will be officially dead in a year's time.
Sounds nice in theory, unfortunately, advertizers are already finding ways around popup blockers. I run Mozilla which does an excellent job of blocking the typical popup. However, every once in a while I run across one of those scripts that doesn't actually popup a window but "draws" its own popup which has the same annoying affect...
I haven't looked at the script to see how they work. But once someone figures out a way to block them, advertizers will just come up with something else...
can you write it off on your taxes...?
I was wondering that myself. If it's a required work expense then you should be able to write it off... however, if it's something that you might normally purchase for a reason other than work then probably not. For instance, where I live, if I dug ditches, I could write off my steel toes and work jeans, however, I write code and can't write off my kahkies. The mentallity is: if it's something you could wear to church then you can't take the deduction.
I'm going to guess that no, it couldn't be written off. Regardless if broadband was or wasn't a required work expence, I'd still have it.
I don't beleive that is always the case. For instance, where I work we have places we are not allowed cell phones. I am not even allowed to have my cell phone in the building because it has a camera. However, most people, myself included, have access to email, have CD burners in our desktops, floppies, USB thumb drives, hell we even have an anonymous public ftp so we can trasfer larger files between external networks and clients.
I don't believe it's a misunderstanding of the policy but rather a flawed policy. I can't bring in my phone because it has a camera, yet, if I were to try to steal anything, I can think of much easier ways to do it than with crappy low-res jpegs.
A security policy doesn't work if you lock down only one thing and leave gaping holes everywhere else. Then it becomes not we who do not understand the policy but the security people themselves who are trying to make it.
The daleks trundling about would look pretty pathetic to modern kids.
Eh, they'd just update them a little like they did with the Klingons. Make them a little more modern to the point they would be unwilling to discuss their heritage with outsiders.
So do you agree the 5-4 majority oppinion is fundamentally broken?
I wouldn't say it's broken. That's the way our system works.
That it denies innocent and non-arrested "suspects" fundamental rights that are normally assured even after you are arrested?
Actually, all "suspects" are innocent (at least they had better be presumed innocent according to our system) and aren't arrested until an investigation turns up enough evidence to justify it.
Witholding your name is not a fundamental right in that being required to produce it does not violate your 4th and 5th amendment rights.
When you are investigated as a suspect you have always been required to produce some form of identification when asked to do so. Please note I'm not talking about simple "Terry" stops here. Even if the police do not have enough evidence to make an arrest, they still need to know who you are and how to get ahold of you if they need to follow up the investigation, or make an arrest if they later have enough evidence. Many times as a suspect (innocent or not, from the police point of view that's what they are trying to determine), many times as a suspect you are even bound from leaving the city, county, etc... pending the investigation. (I forget the actual term at the moment, but then that's another discussion).
The 4th ammendment only protects you from unreasonable search and seizure, it does not protect you from being investigated as a suspect, even if you truely are innocent. And under an investigation you are compelled to cooperate. The 5th ammendment protects you, not from remaining silent but only from being "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Having a name and presenting it does not incriminate you so, during an investigation it can be requested and required.
Now, the unfortunate outcome of this case. Some states have always had laws that require you to present identification, be it verbaly or otherwise, during even a simple "Terry" stop. Nevada, in this case is one of them. Up until now, it has been up in the air about the constitutionallity of such a law. This fact is also in the Case document:
Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3.
But then in the next sentence, the court makes its unfortunate ruling:
The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.
So, what was once up in the air has now been set in stone. Nothing else has really changed.
The conspiracy theorists are up in arms about how, now people can be stopped for any or no reason, even non-suspicious activity, and be required to present identification, verbally or otherwise, under threat of arrest, and that simply is not the case.
From the ruling:
They are met by the [Court ruling]requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified" the initial stop. Terry, 392 U. S., at 20. [Finally]Under those principles, an officer may NOT arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.
Four situations can happen,
This is the one for the conspiracy theorists.
1, you are sitting on a bench in a park feeding pigeons. An officer walks over for no reason and requests ID. Even under this ruling, you are NOT required to identify yourself, as the officer is not investigating anything. You can ask him what seems to be the trouble, etc... If you are not suspect of anything you do not have to answer and he cannot arrest you.
If he did a
You are suggesting that in the absence of cause and the absence of arrest a person has LESS rights than when there is cause and has been an arrest. That is absurd.
Of course that is absurd. But I think we are trying to make the same point here. Based on the outcome of this ruling, you now can be required by law to identify yourself during one of these "Terry stops".
From the ruling:
Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop.
Note the require a suspect... piece. Some States may vary whether you are actually required and what penalties... but yes, the Supreme Court just made it real.
This is the whole reason this made it to Slashdot.
But to debunk the conspiracy theorists who I complain should have read the court documents
From the ruling:
Hiibel argues unpersuasively that the statute circumvents the probable-cause requirement by [Hiibel's claim] allowing an officer to arrest a person for being suspicious, thereby creating an impermissible risk of arbitrary police conduct. These familiar concerns underlay Kolender, Brown, and Papachristou. They are met by the [Court ruling]requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified" the initial stop. Terry, 392 U. S., at 20. [Finally]Under those principles, an officer may NOT arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.
[my emphasis]
So, no, an officer can't just ask you for your name for no reason and arrest you if you don't comply.
The point of my original post was the fact of the unfortunate outcome of this case when the circumstances involved in this case had nothing to do with a random stop.
All the conspiracy theorists in this thread are crying about how this innocent bystander was approached for no reason and arrested for not cooperating. This was not just a random stop.
Again from the ruling:
The sheriff's department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove was dispatched to investigate. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the truck parked on the side of the road. A man was standing by the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The officer observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe it had come to a sudden stop. The officer approached the man and explained that he was investigating a report of a fight...
Previously in the ruling:
Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion,...
The officer was dispatched to his location because of a report of a possible assault on a woman and given a description of Hiibel's truck. He was not approached for no reason as Hiibel and the conspiracy theorists seem to think.
From the Court ruling:
Nevada's "stop and identify" statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself.
Hiibel tried to play dumb like he was just hanging out minding his own business. He got burned. He knew better. The officer surely knew better or there would never have been a report of a possible assult at that location involving that truck, etc. The officer was conducting an investigation and Hiibel was compelled to cooperate and did not. That's why he was arrested.
But because Hiibel wanted to stick to his story about playing dumb and being randomly harrassed, the Supreme Court has now extended the requirement of identification to include Terry stops as well.
No, the only thing that came out of Tipper Gore's crusade 15 years ago was a VOLUNTARY labeling system by the RIAA. And what a blow that was... put an "explicit lyrics" label on a CD and watch those sales rise!
No, actually, why the officer approached him is not moot. The officer approached him while conducting an investigation and given information up to that point (location, description, etc...), Hiibel was a suspect.
The phone tip and standing next to the truck with skid marks did legally amount to an investigation to which Hiibel was trying to play dumb. [I don't know what you are talking about officer, I was just minding my own business. That caller that reported an assult with a description of my truck in this location didn't know what they were talking about... what skid marks? I skidded for a different reason other than fighting with my daughter, yada yada yada...]
You are correct that the tip and skid marks are not enough to hold him. They are enough, however to warrant the investigation. Since the description and location of Hiibel's vehicle were in the tip along with a man assulting a woman, Hiibel, being in that location, with his daughter, with the truck, with the skid marks, did obligate him to cooperate with the officer. Hiibel wasn't approached for "no reason", he was approached for a very specific reason. If we could all legally play dumb and not cooperate, then no one would ever be able to be investigated or even arrested unless the police officer was the primary witness to the actual crime.
The investigation of a possible crime may or may not lead to anything more that the officer could then use to hold him. That's the point that's moot. The fact that Hiibel was trying to play dumb and refused to give up his name while he was being investigated is what he then was in trouble for.
The point of my post was that the outcome, whether an officer has the right to require someone to present ID when they are not under suspicion, has no relevance to this case. Hiibel was not approached for no reason and he knew it. He had an altercation that was reported and when the officer showed up to investigate he tried to play dumb.
Assuming the transcript of the video is accurate (I can't hear the audio here at work), the only thing Hiibel might have had going for him was that the officer never really makes it clear what it is that he is investigating. One would think the officer would atleast inform him that "we had a report of a disturbance in this vicinity..."
Now whether or not there was an altercation, or if Hiibel really was just hanging out minding his own business you could also say is moot. What matters is, the claim of this case, that Hiibel was approached for no reason, is baseless since the officer was there for a very specific reason: to investigate a report of a possible crime of which Hiibel was a suspect.
I will have to retract my statement about _never_ seeing police officers approaching random people for no reason... I'm sure most of us have been through atleast one DUI checkpoint. But then, the constitutionallity of that is still being decided...
Did you even read my post? Did you look at the sources I cited? Half my post was cited directly from the Case Documents, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada , ET AL.
I know, I know... don't feed the trolls...