Excellent point. No patent or copyright treaty means that there is no violation outside of a specified jurisdiction. We see that between countries today.

The interesting thing about copyright & free software advocates is the way they define 'free'. If free means that I can give my work to others without anyone placing encumbrances, then that's a good definition to advocate. More often than not, I hear the sentiment that since software must be free, anyone can take someone else's work whether they like it or not.

'Free to give' seems to evoke sharing, while 'free to take' creates feelings of protectionism...

Perhaps ... as long as the definition of 'freedom' doesn't morph to equal 'piracy'...

Not even commenting on the article's content, is it really better to trust a pirate?

In 1995, I built systems for the USAF / AFRL based on data gloves and Polhemus trackers and I was not the 1st. We used this for 3D environment interactions and had many types of gesture recognition. Reading Google's patent claims, Google positioned the sensor on the finger tip (ours was on the back of the hand) and then applied all prior art to that minor and obvious 'novelty'. This is a minor departure from prior art, but is inline with how the US patent system works: you get a patent in exchange for full disclosure, then others get the opportunity to improve upon your invention and then patent their improvements. As a technologist, I look at this as a cheap copy, but from a patent perspective, they took prior art and built in a new way. If this spawns innovation, then cool, and if not, then it doesn't matter. I predict that, if successful, Google will see a few patent challenges.

Tell her the US Government has a copy of everything and they never go away. With proper identification, she can possibly request the pics under FOIA. ;-)

To test the phone, they could do more controlled experimentation here on earth... Also, most of the components were derived from those tested for the space programs and the work that NASA has already done, so it would seem that they don't need to reinvent the wheel. See (http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/)

The constitutional model just means that the rules are known in advance and doesn't refer to what those rules actually are (left or right). During the last several of decades, the US has given Presidents "Executive Authority" and Congress has failed to assert its constitutional check. The "BS" to which you refer is not due to the constitutional model, but rather to the departure from it.

Open source has a lot of excellent qualities, but applying it to finance may not be good. What is needed is a "Constitutional" model whereby all the rules are known in advance, solidified, and very difficult to change. This will keep opportunists from changing the rules to help them gain, financially. Even if all the rules are not perfect, being able to plan on them creates an environment of stability. The US financial model is not as stable as it was, because those unwilling to make difficult calls have chosen to simply print more money as a way of masking the problem and hoping it will go away. Now, business is trying to keep up with these non-sensical debt fetishes by the Fed decision makers. When we can get our leaders to calm down, survey the situation, and make slow and calculated changes according to established norms, then things will get better. If the Michigan Gov wants to make things better, then it is best to *not* try an use all the power that the office allows; rather restraint is more prudent.

So, all the individual nations' missile defense systems will now be linked into a single network? Have these leaders read the news about 'cyber' warfare and how it's starting to pick up? It would seem that creating an electronic pathway from other nations should raise concern for the security of one's own defenses. Prior to a physical attack, it would be convenient to knock out the missile defenses of your adversary and this network now provides that conduit...

When I drive in my car, I enjoy the security of having airbags -- but I still wear my seatbelt. Together, they enhance safety. Desktop firewalls work with network measures to enhance security. Besides, desktop firewalls have the added benefit of letting users monitor what software is always communicating via the 'net...and block it...