Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I'm starting to think it's this simple... (Score 1) 63

by Dahamma (#48686689) Attached to: De-escalating the Android Patent War

It's a crap idea. If patents could not be transferred, then if person X worked for company Y, and then went to company Z, they'd be taking the patents with them with no means to leave them with the company that was using them.

You need to read what I said a bit better. Of course they can be assigned to the original company who funded the work (i.e. the employer of the inventor(s).

company X can buy company Y and then give themselves free licensing rights and have their legal team take over suing others just as companies do now

If a company completely *buys* another company, in effect it is now that company. But that would SIGNIFICANTLY cut down on patent trolls (the whole point of this) as it would make it a much more expensive, complex, and risky undertaking. For example. Google did buy Motorola, keep most of the patent rights, and sell of the rest - but it cost them MANY billions of dollars to do that (and luckily Google was just doing it defensively, though of course they could assert them).

Regardless, one could still assign full rights to manage said patent portfolio to some 3rd party company. That would be nearly impossible to avoid - just consider the 3rd party as a bunch of lawyers and have them do all the same stuff those 3rd parties are doing today, simply leaving the actual patent assignment where it was.

Why is it impossible to avoid? As part of not being able to sell/permanently assign the patents to that 3rd party company (i.e. the troll), it follows that only the original owner can actually sue for infringement. Again, the idea was trying to prevent patent trolls, not patents.

And OBVIOUSLY it was all just a suggestion. No off the cuff 2 paragraph statement is going to solve patent trolling. But making it harder for the trolls to acquire them is definitely something to consider.

Comment: Re:I'm starting to think it's this simple... (Score 1) 63

by Dahamma (#48686631) Attached to: De-escalating the Android Patent War

Who said they can't license the patent? Of course they can license it, they just can't sell/transfer it outright, and none of the licensees can directly sue other companies for violating it. If anything that does protect the original inventor (or the original company it was assigned to).

Comment: Re:I'm starting to think it's this simple... (Score 1) 63

by Dahamma (#48686607) Attached to: De-escalating the Android Patent War

Not at all. There is a huge difference between *licensing* a patent and *selling* the patent. Licensing means someone pays you to use it. Selling it means someone buys it and can do whatever they want with it (and in fact, you have given up the right to use it).

If you invent something, you can have an exclusive on it, or you can license it to companies that want to use it. That's how the system was INTENDED to work, and how it has worked for a ling time. Patent trolls (usually companies made mostly of lawyers) buying up large quantities of questionable patents and speculatively suing anyone with a remotely related product are a relatively new thing (largely enabled by the crazy vagueness of software patents).

Comment: Re:I'm starting to think it's this simple... (Score 1) 63

by Dahamma (#48665543) Attached to: De-escalating the Android Patent War

But how does that change my point? (and I know you don't necessarily disagree...)

Assign the patent to the corporation sponsoring the patent, fine, I agree with that. Just don't allow it to be transferred to another of those corporate peoples. Or hell, maybe if the corporation is bought outright, you could consider transferring *all* patents, etc. But the fact is many patent trolls just pick and choose absurd patents that their lawyers end up finding an angle that's good enough for the ignorant juries who decide the outcomes...

Comment: Re:Are you kidding me? (Score 1) 224

by Dahamma (#48665527) Attached to: Tech's Gender Gap Started At Stanford

You are totally correct in that. And even 20+ years later, my mom was working in admissions at a major university and was passed up for promotion because she "was probably getting married soon, and would just have kids and leave" (which she did, ie. ME, but I still don't agree with that any more than "preexisting conditions").

But 60 years later, that argument is just not true any more (especially at Stanford, my alma mater), and should be put to bed. The GP comment was what I would call "totally douchey" but the article is also absurd in somehow claiming gender bias started at a single school in a single year. Bullshit sensationalistic headlines... because anyone who actually READ the article would probably find it interesting, and not particularly biased or inflammatory (besides the fact that, yes, Peter Thiel and David Sacks were total a-holes back then).

Comment: Re:A Brand New World In Which Men Ruled (Score 1) 224

by Dahamma (#48665491) Attached to: Tech's Gender Gap Started At Stanford

I was in Stanford class of 1994 - which means, yes, I started in 1990. And, yes, we barely knew what real "email" was, since pretty much no 18 year old in high school had it. I had been on BBSs for 4-5 years before that, but at that point for even the leading edge outside of academia it was private BBS or CompuServe, etc.

By 1994 email was ubiquitous, Usenet was already long in the tooth, the Mosaic browser had been released, and we all had wired Ethernet in our dorm rooms (which still was definitely NOT the norm for college campuses - but it was nice). I wrote the first TCP/IP driver for DOOM so we could play multiplayer in the dorms once they blocked IPX after the initial DOOM IPX driver killed a lot of campus networks ;)

Anyway, the point is that range of 1990-1994 was in fact one of the critical periods for those developing the *commercial* Internet, and Stanford was at ground zero of a lot of it. And another point of the article is (if you read the whole thing) while at Stanford, Peter Thiel and David Sacks were not just the total dicks described in the article - they were WORSE. They basically started the Stanford Review to counter/insult any effort at racial or gender diversity/progress on campus. Even they apologized (according to the article) for the crap they wrote at the time (and Thiel came out of the closet eventually) and at the time it was BAD...

All that being said, the title of this slashdot post is FUCKING STUPID. It's in NO way what the article said, and as you know it's ridiculous to claim tech or ANY OTHER gender gap in business, engineering, or whatever somehow started in *1990* (more like 1790? 1690? 1690BC?) or at a single location...

Comment: I'm starting to think it's this simple... (Score 5, Interesting) 63

by Dahamma (#48665423) Attached to: De-escalating the Android Patent War

Patents should be granted to an individual or their assigned company - and then NOT allowed to be transferred. If it's really intellectual property, require that it be used by the intellectual who came up with it, not randomly sold to some giant team of lawyers who try to "monetize" it 10 years after the fact.

That would allow any person - or company that person worked for at the time - to take full advantage of the patent for its original purpose (since almost all patent trolls are not the original inventors) while preventing the soul-sucking leeches on innovation who just want to buy up a bunch of "intellectual property" and speculatively sue anyone who might be doing something remotely similar.

Comment: Re:Can we stop the embellishment? (Score 1) 177

by Dahamma (#48665179) Attached to: Hackers Used Nasty "SMB Worm" Attack Toolkit Against Sony

No, I'm just saying that those here who keep saying "any 16 year old with a computer" could have done it are way underestimating it. Since I'm assuming most here are older than 16 and have a computer, are you all saying you could do this trivially given a few hours, a pizza, and a couple Mountain Dews? Bullshit.

Comment: Re:Can we stop the embellishment? (Score 1) 177

by Dahamma (#48644909) Attached to: Hackers Used Nasty "SMB Worm" Attack Toolkit Against Sony

Yeah, I had read that, too. By took control I meant literally "took control". They infiltrated it (and there are rumors there was an insider to help with that) but then they activated everything very quickly, without warning, and basically stole data and destroyed the servers before anyone had a chance to do anything.

My point was the overall attack was way WAY beyond some simple trojan worm getting an admin password...

Comment: Re:Can we stop the embellishment? (Score 3, Insightful) 177

by Dahamma (#48640191) Attached to: Hackers Used Nasty "SMB Worm" Attack Toolkit Against Sony

Really? Apparently they quickly took control of almost every one one of Sony's servers and workstations. Literally took entire control, stole all of the useful data, wiped out all of their servers, and then owned all of the workstations so that they were useless but able to broadcast any message they wanted to them.

That's a *bit* more coordinated than "your average trojan worm". Unless you really think based on extremely limited information you know more than all of the security researchers and government investigators looking into it... (hint: sorry, you don't).

Comment: Re:correct if wrong (Score 1) 177

by Dahamma (#48640185) Attached to: Hackers Used Nasty "SMB Worm" Attack Toolkit Against Sony

Not samba, SMB. Samba is just the name of the open source Windows SMB server implementation. Most likely they were targeting Windows machines (though I admit I haven't seen anything on that either way).

Also, it's highly unlikely (but also possible I guess) they had SMB open to the Internet. But they just needed to compromise one internal machine (almost trivial these days) to attack SMB...

Comment: Re:Supreme Leader (Score 2) 177

by Dahamma (#48640175) Attached to: Hackers Used Nasty "SMB Worm" Attack Toolkit Against Sony

Except for a privileged few, North Koreans are completely blocked off from the outside world

Umm, I think you answered that question already. You don't think North Korea's cyberterrorism military unit just might be part of those "privileged few"?

Why would North Korea reveal its capabilities and tactics in such dramatic fashion to achieve nothing of any value

Maybe because their Supreme Leader is a total loon? This is the same guy who has among hundreds of other insane actions decreed that anyone with his name needed to change it immediately. He lives for drama and vanity and wants his citizens to think of him as a demigod. He's a fucking international drama queen of the highest level...

Comment: Re:But but but (Score 1) 330

by Dahamma (#48614621) Attached to: 11 Trillion Gallons of Water Needed To End California Drought

The main problem with desalination plants is that they are a risky investment. If the drought ever does end then you are basically priced out of the market

Not just risky in CA - impossible. Because everyone knows the drought *will* end in less than 20 years, so if there is enough rainwater to cover usage the plants will be shutdown and not profitable. The technological solution will be something that has a relatively low initial capital investment but a possibly high recurring cost.

The first time, it's a KLUDGE! The second, a trick. Later, it's a well-established technique! -- Mike Broido, Intermetrics

Working...