Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: "Could have allowed"? (Score 5, Informative) 36

by gnasher719 (#49137775) Attached to: Lizard Squad Claims Attack On Lenovo Days After Superfish
As far as I understand it, this didn't just allow hackers to create a man-in-the-middle attack. Your Lenovo computer with the hardware would actively perform a man-in-the-middle attack against the user to analyse any encrypted traffic to https websites. For example when you enter a credit card number on the website of a reputable company using https, the adware could read what you posted.

This is plainly unforgivable.

Comment: Re:I wonder why... (Score 1) 185

Cities don't license plumbers, painter, interior decorators, electricians, doctors, lawyers, nannies, or nurses. Even though these people need much more training.

Come to Germany. Your plumber is licensed, and has done at least 3 years training before he is allowed to appear at your home without a supervisor who has the necessary license. Same for the painter, interior decorator, or nurse. Electricians the same, but they can get into deep legal trouble for shoddy works. Doctors and lawyers are _really_ licensed.

Comment: Re:The patents (Score 1) 185

by gnasher719 (#49132519) Attached to: Jury Tells Apple To Pay $532.9 Million In Patent Suit

Looks like 7334720 is just applying DRM "over the internet," using a portable computer. How can anyone be granted such wide patents?

There is the remote possibility that such a patent wasn't obvious many years back when it was granted. There are now new rules, where combining existing prior art is obvious and cannot be patented, unless the effect of the combination is something unexpected.

If you think that a patent should be valid for a shorter time than normal if the general progress in knowledge has made it obvious, then I would agree.

Comment: Re:Companies ask for it (Score 1) 185

by gnasher719 (#49132493) Attached to: Jury Tells Apple To Pay $532.9 Million In Patent Suit

Remove software patents and there will be no motivation to invest millions/billions in innovative software that can be cloned by competitors in a year or two.

Most software isn't one bit innovative. Not in the sense that is patent worthy. Do you think anything in the operation of Facebook is worth a patent? I don't think so. Now start cloning and see where you get.

Apple makes more profit selling desktop and laptop computers than all their competitors together. Is any of that due to patents? No. There is copyright protection for their operating system and their other software, but there isn't anything special in their hardware that could be patented. So start cloning.

Your argument just doesn't work.

Comment: Re:Companies ask for it (Score 1) 185

by gnasher719 (#49132441) Attached to: Jury Tells Apple To Pay $532.9 Million In Patent Suit

Start reforming what can be patented. No software patents, and throw out the crap that is obviously not invention but intellectual property land-grabbing.

Software patents are not the problem. They are just a symptom, and to many people reading Slashdot obvious software patents look obvious, while obvious patents about building refrigerators don't look obvious to us.

The problem is that the purpose of the patent system has been lost. The reason for granting patents is that instead of an inventor keeping an invention secret to exploit it to avoid others copying it, the inventor is given a time-limited monopoly on the patent, but has to publish it. That way, others can read the patent, improve on it, and society benefits.

Now if an invention is so clever that only one person could have invented it, that makes sense. But if I invent something and 100 other people are clever enough to invent the same thing if they feel the need to solve the same problem, then nobody benefits from me publishing the patent. If anyone needed to solve the problem, they would just do it. Instead they lose time and money by having to fight the patent system.

The problem isn't software patents. If I had a software problem that I couldn't solve and my colleagues couldn't solve and I found that someone had a patented solution, then I wouldn't see any reason why my company shouldn't pay for a license. The problem is that patents are granted for things that hundreds of programmers could easily figure out in a short time. There are patents for things that I would ask as interview questions and expect you to answer.

Comment: Re:Live by the sword... (Score 1) 185

by gnasher719 (#49132203) Attached to: Jury Tells Apple To Pay $532.9 Million In Patent Suit

No, Google uses patents defensively. Apple uses them offensively, to attack other companies and get their products either banned or crippled.

Well, absolutely. Google is good and Apple is evil. Therefore any patents that Google uses are to fight evil and therefore good, while any patents that Apple uses are evil. That's the logic, isn't it?

Now explain to me the four billion dollar lawsuit that Google lost against Microsoft. Was that defensive?

Comment: Re:Live by the sword... (Score 1) 185

by gnasher719 (#49132173) Attached to: Jury Tells Apple To Pay $532.9 Million In Patent Suit

I don't give a flying fuck whether Apple are making a product or not. They're attempting to use patents that should never have been granted to prevent other companies from making products, and that is patent trolling.

On the other hand, it was Samsung who was threatened by the EU with a 13 BILLION dollar fine if they didn't stop patent trolling.

And it was Google through their purchase of Motorola who demanded 4 BILLION dollars from Microsoft for two MP3 related patents (I think they ended up paying Microsoft, as patent trolls should do).

Comment: Re:Blame email clients (Score 2) 286

by gnasher719 (#49126097) Attached to: Moxie Marlinspike: GPG Has Run Its Course

The first mistake made by email clients is they added support for a broken-by-design protocol called S/MIME which used asymmetric encryption through the entire message and was thus cripplingly slow.

Who says it uses asymmetric encryption through everything? It makes up a symmetric key, and encrypts only that key with the public keys of all recipients.

Comment: Re:Advantages of phone (Score 1) 185

by gnasher719 (#49119043) Attached to: Google Teams Up With 3 Wireless Carriers To Combat Apple Pay

Not to mention they are supposed to be connected but if you don't have reception or there is an interruption to cell service you can't pay.

I don't think Apple Pay needs any WiFi or 3G service to work. Obviously the terminal might, but if that has no connection, then nothing will work.

Comment: Re:Why not in the US? (Score 1) 82

Apple fronted GT Technologies the money to build the facility in order to build displays for Apple products, and requred GT itself as collateral. Apple then chose not to buy GT-manfuactured Sapphire screens, and acquired GT when they could not pay back the money fronted. Tell me again how that's an honest business practice.

You forgot the part where GT didn't actually manage to produce the Sapphire Crystal displays that they had promised they could deliver. And you forgot the part where GT management lined their pockets with stock options, making sure that they made their money, no matter whether the company did well or not.

Comment: Re:Legality (Score 3) 113

Its not protected by some EULA because the device is sold before the EULA can be read, which courts have already ruled invalidates the EULA.

Says who?

What is confusing you is that the sale isn't completed until you accept the EULA. It may be true that you can't read the EULA when you hand over the money, but in that case you can take the computer or software home, read the EULA, decide that you don't want to accept it, take the computer back to the store and get your money back.

That said, a computer which allows a third party to read for example a credit card number that I enter into my browser, is not "fit for purpose", and on these grounds you should be able to return it to the seller and get your money back if you live in the EU or some other places.

Comment: Re: Umm... Lulz.... (Score 1) 253

Absolutely, it's all Germany's fault.

Your problem is that you don't have to convince yourself of that, but since you want Germans to pay for the mess the Greece are in, you have to convince the Germans. And knowing how they are pissed off with the Greek and have had just about enough of it, you'll have a hard time doing that.

A formal parsing algorithm should not always be used. -- D. Gries