Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Pinto (Score 1) 143

by mcrbids (#49566571) Attached to: The Engineer's Lament -- Prioritizing Car Safety Issues

Nope. Poor breaking behaviour doesn't cause crashes, people not keeping a safe distance causes crashes.

Nope. What causes crashes is hunks of metal ramming into other hunks of metal. It would be complicated except that it's not. We choose to ascribe "cause" to other events that precede the ramming behavior, but it's really arbitrary.

For example, it's widely understood that driving cars is *dangerous* and yet we don't ascribe standard risk factors for *driving at all*.

Skiing is inherently dangerous. In order to use a ski slope, I have to acknowledge this risk. Why aren't car manufacturers covered with a similar legal conract?

Comment: Re:This is a response to RISC-V (Score 1) 36

by Bruce Perens (#49566497) Attached to: Imagination To Release Open MIPS Design To Academia

Repeating the AC because he's posted at karma 0. That's "University of California at Berkeley", AC, but the rest of this is spot on:

Berkeley University is pushing really hard to get universities to adopt RISC-V (an Open ISA and set of cores) as a basis for future processor and architecture research. The motivation behind RISC-V was to have a stable ISA that isn't patent encumbered, isn't owned by one company, and is easily extensible (OpenRISC didn't fit the bill here).

I can see that ARM and MIPS would have a problem with this, especially as there is nothing particularly innovative or performance gaining about either ISA, and some recent RISC-V cores have demonstrated similar performance to some recent ARM cores in half the area. This is there way of fighting back against something open that stands to lose them significant marketshare.

Cool. Someone found us the agenda!

Comment: Re:It's marketting, not "open source". (Score 1) 36

by Bruce Perens (#49566485) Attached to: Imagination To Release Open MIPS Design To Academia

I get paid to train EEs within large companies on intellectual property issues, and to help the companies and their attorneys navigate those issues. Infringement is rife within software companies. Not because anyone wants to infringe, but because of a total lack of due diligence driven by ignorance.

Comment: Re:Talk to us first if you wish to patent the chan (Score 1) 36

by Bruce Perens (#49566471) Attached to: Imagination To Release Open MIPS Design To Academia

You've made my point for me.

And any informed patent holder knows that any violation must be prosecuted, or the validity of the patent evaporates.

No, that's just the ignorance of the uninformed that "everybody knows", but it's wrong. You don't lose your patent from failing to enforce it. You might be confusing it with trademarks, which can go into the public domain if you allow them to become generic terms rather than specific brands. And you can sometimes lose the capability of being able to enforce against a specific infringer if you hold back until the market develops, that's the Doctrine of Laches. But you don't lose your patent. Nor would you lose your copyright due to failure to enforce.

Comment: Re:"That can be reversed on request" (Score 0, Troll) 63

by rtb61 (#49565911) Attached to: New Privacy Threat: Automated Vehicle Occupancy Detection

So let me get this straight rich gits with chauffeurs get priority over everyone else because why, why the fuck, why? So do you or do you not count a professional driver in the car with one, just one fucking person actually travelling to a destination. That other person is just a labour saving device and not a person going to a destination, yet the rich git in the back gets priority over the nobodies who can not afford a limousine with an associated driver. Should a taxi with one passenger be in the HOV lane or not, reality is no but in order to favour limousine passenger, oh yeah.

Comment: Re:How you drive: (Score 1) 143

by rtb61 (#49565837) Attached to: The Engineer's Lament -- Prioritizing Car Safety Issues

So car safety should take into account in the other half of "Its how you drive the car more than what you drive that get's you into trouble", assuming a two car collision and one making a mistake whilst the other is just an innocent victim of that mistake. "So is is what you drive and how others drive, that gets people into trouble".

So the whole system should be revised because statistics prove it is extremely dangerous and causing a huge amount of pain and suffering. Just barely reasonable for the past and most certainly not good enough for the future.

Comment: Re:Talk to us first if you wish to patent the chan (Score 1) 36

by Bruce Perens (#49565243) Attached to: Imagination To Release Open MIPS Design To Academia

OK. Can we see your agreements, please? Because that did sound very much like trolling for additional intellectual property to add to your portfolio.

People who read this article have pointed out three open CPU designs in addition to the one that I remembered.

While your product might be "production ready", please keep in mind that open projects are very often written to a higher standard than commercial ones, and the researchers involved are no less professional than your own developers. And their projects come with fewer intellectual property issues than yours.

Comment: Re:Talk to us first if you wish to patent the chan (Score 1) 36

by Bruce Perens (#49565025) Attached to: Imagination To Release Open MIPS Design To Academia

The patent terms are whatever they want them to be. In general "reasonable" and "patent" don't happen together much. And "tiny", well I really doubt it.

Having a company provide funds for a research grant and then reap the patent royalties isn't in general a good thing for society. The student researchers get paid like slave labor (if they get paid at all) and put what may be the best idea of their lives in some company's pockets.

Comment: Talk to us first if you wish to patent the changes (Score 1) 36

by Bruce Perens (#49564231) Attached to: Imagination To Release Open MIPS Design To Academia

It's very common these days for companies to allow universities to use their technology at the cost of tying the company into the university's patent revenue. And of course this is often publicly-funded research, so not only is the taxpayer paying for the development of patents used to sue that same taxpayer, the patents go directly to a company from academia.

The net effect is to feed intellectual property centered companies at the expense of the technology sector in general and small technology companies in particular.

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson

Working...