Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Actually may be stealing in the deprived sense (Score 1) 84

The owner was not deprived of the trade secrets. The owner still has all the information. It's just not secret anymore.

Its not that simple. The legal and property protections offered by a trade secret, a legally recognized type of intellectual property, is lost. The owner deprived of its benefits.

Let's say I buy a Ford F series truck. It's "America's best selling car". Now lets say a Toyota model gains the title. Was an "America's best selling car" stolen from me?

That is a title not a trade secret. Again a trade secret is a legally defined type of intellectual property that offers the owner specific legal rights and privileges. For example something in the process that Ford uses to manufacture those trucks. A Ford employee could not take that process to Toyota.

Comment: Actually may be stealing in the deprived sense too (Score 1) 84

Stealing? So he REMOVED it from them with intent to deny them the use of it? Surely you mean copying? "Unlawful use of secret scientific material." wow, America is full of comedy laws.

It may actually be stealing in the sense of depriving someone too. The code supposedly included trade secrets. Trade secrets are no longer valid once disclosed. The disclosure does not have to be intentional, my understanding is that accidental, negligent, etc disclosure counts too. So if the trade secrets were lost through the source code being copied then the owner was deprived of their trade secrets and theft would have occurred.

"secret scientific material" is probably a pseudonym for trade secrets. Sorry, but if so then the charge is quite reasonable. Trade secrets are intellectual property just like copyrights.

Comment: Re:Just the good guys? (Score 1) 173

by perpenso (#49590251) Attached to: FBI Slammed On Capitol Hill For "Stupid" Ideas About Encryption

You're right about restricted access, but you're misinterpreting the sentence. He's talking about a backdoor created *for* the good guys. As in, they wanted to have it, so it was put in. Not as in it's ours so only we can use it.

My point is about an intentionally manufactured backdoor, specifically how can it be engineered so that it is restricted to only the good guys?

Comment: Just the good guys? (Score 1, Insightful) 173

by perpenso (#49590087) Attached to: FBI Slammed On Capitol Hill For "Stupid" Ideas About Encryption

"Creating a technological backdoor just for good guys is technologically stupid," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a Stanford University computer science graduate.

How is "a technological backdoor" restricted to just the good guys? I don't think we need to go to the Orwellian level to demonstrate how misguided such a notion is. The fact that bad guys will likely gain access as well should be sufficient.

Comment: Re:So cars go to US/EU rather than China (Score 2) 118

I don't know where you picked you stats, but recently Tesla just announced otherwise.

Actually I watched the recent excitement regarding Tesla on CNBC earlier this month, but googling shows:
"April 5 (UPI) -- Tesla Motors announced it broke a company record for the first quarter of 2015 ... The record was broken through a 55 percent sales increase for the same period from the previous year."

Comment: So cars go to US/EU rather than China (Score 1) 118

Tesla recently sold a record number of cars, exceeding expectations.

It doesn't matter if demand in China is lower than expected when demand in the US and Europe is unfulfilled. Units that might have been originally planned for China get redesignated for US or Europe during production.

Comment: Fascisms gives power to workers not owners ... (Score 1) 118

corporatism (which is the politically correct modern name for fascism)

The idea that fascism is synonymous with corporatism is wrong. Its a false meme often repeated by some on the left for political purposes, a technique of manipulating the ignorant. Much like some on the right toss around the word "communistic".

In reality fascism is a form of syndicalism, where workers are formed into syndicates to counter the power of owners. Fascism is actually quite socialistic in this respect. Fascism does not fit neatly into the political spectrum, it is a weird combination of ideas from the left and right.

More importantly under fascism both the corporation (owners) and the workers are subservient to the state. The state created a somewhat level playing field for the two to negotiate on but they damn well better put aside any labor squabble if its going to interfere with state requirements.

Comment: "Lost" is a nautical term (Score 1) 193

"Lost" can mean (1) you don't know where something is OR (2) you no longer possess something. In the second case you may no longer possess something but still know where it is. For example you lost something to a friend in a bet.

This second case is also somewhat of a nautical term. The Captain of a ship and its Chief Engineering can be standing on the bridge of the ship and the Chief Engineer may report the ship to be "lost", meaning uncontrollable sinking.

Also when a ship is sunk you only have the position of where it slipped below the surface, you don't necessarily know how it traveled on the way to the bottom. More importantly prior to GPS ship position weren't necessarily that accurate. Wrecks are often considered lost until someone has eyes (real or synthetic, ex side scan sonar) on them. Which is what seems to be happening here.

Comment: Re:Just staggering... (Score 1) 193

Things are more complicated than that ...

Scuttled naval vessels sometimes become artificial reefs that greatly support the food chain for local fisheries. This can have a positive economic effect. A long term one at that.

As for live fire testing. Laboratory testing and mockups are one thing, but how a missile performs against an actual ship is something else. What is the cost of an anti-ship weapon system that turns out to be ineffective against modern ships? Sadly real ships are a necessity for such testing.

Comment: Re: IBM PC was an open platform (Score 2) 179

by perpenso (#49491451) Attached to: Cyanogen Partners With Microsoft To Replace Google Apps

Compaq had to reverse engineer the PC BIOS using engineers who had never looked at the BIOS. These engineers wrote a spec that a separate set of engineers then had to implement.

That's not how it worked. The first team absolutely looked at the BIOS to create that spec. Its the second team that implemented the spec that had never seen the BIOS.

Comment: Re:Clean room design has dirty and clean teams (Score 1) 179

by perpenso (#49490491) Attached to: Cyanogen Partners With Microsoft To Replace Google Apps

This is a night and day difference with respect to reverse engineering...

No, it isn't. They had to go further out of their way to dance around that issue in order to make a legal clone.

The half of the clean room effort that does the implementation are the one's making the clone, they don't see source code, disassemblies, etc. The other half doing the reverse engineering in order to develop the specification have to discover the *intent* of the original developers with respect to functionality. That discover is easier when you have their commented source code rather than a disassembly of a binary.

The dancing you refer to is for non-clean room scenarios where the developer implementing the compatible non-infringing clone has access to the original copyrighted code. And that dance occurs regardless of whether he/she is working from a binary disassembly or commented source code. Lawyers literally look at the code and say these ten or so lines in the new are too similar to these ten or so lines in the original. Disassembly or source has this same problem. Now source still has the advantage of better divining the original intent, so having the source is also a win in the non-clean room scenario.

...and the fact that IBM didn't want a compatible BIOS to be produced does not change this.

It changes this part:

Compaq et al were able to create clones because the IBM PC was an open platform.

No, it didn't. The fact that IBM provided source code to all PC programmers as a way of documenting the BIOS API actually made things simpler despite such a desire. If IBM was to act in a manner more consistent with that desire so as to hamper Compaq et al they would have simply provided PC programmers with registers for input/output parameters and the interrupts to use to invoke an API call. As was done with DOS.

Weekend, where are you?