Hmm. I could easily see commercial parking lots putting in these readers at their entrances if they could make money reporting the cars..
I usually stack the shows, then binge-watch. Much easier to track serials this way.
So.. someone got their hands on the Marauder's Map..
Since it is the fuel source that burns in the car (Tesla or gasoline), is granite your fuel?
peek and poke..
Computers have gone downhill since they no longer have those programming calls. Sometimes, I just want to see what is in a specific memory location and other times, I just want to put something there. F**k pointers.
well, the problem is that he has taken about 20 different groups and whatever and has combined them and then went wherever he imagined was his own reality...
His overlap between Burning Man and startups is not really that supportable. Actually, this reads like just a long diatribe of "Things Milo Hates" more than anything coherent.
seriously, go through that article and write down all the things he complains about and then draw a Venn Diagram of the items and how they overlap.
I personally have trouble focusing on lettering when the background color/shade varies.
500 miles one-way from Denver still puts you 500-1000 miles from major destinations. A 200 mile round trip is a day trip for the guys in my office to go between the Denver and Cheyenne offices.
You just happen to live and have a job that does not require significant travel.. Don't mistake that for being representative of much beyond that, or as to the feasibility of your solution.
And the really wonderful thing is that they have already used your facebook password and profile as well as your google info to prefill in all your forms..
The only thing you about torrent you need to consider is that there is no inherent billing mechanism. Anything made available is available without restriction.
There is no connection between items in torrent and their legality. They can be any file. Used a lot for stolen materials, but also legal distributions. Here in the US, you can not be prosecuted for theft unless a theft occurs. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one. If the rights holder distributed solely in this channel, then they made it available exclusive of any billing optionss.
The key point you are missing is that Prenda has been suing people for downloading these files. Files which Prenda uploaded with no restrictions or billing mechanisms.
In *none* of Prenda's filings or disclosures did they ever mention that themselves loaded those files. Their legal filings claimed a massive loss of money as a result of these files being downloaded via torrent rather than purchased. Even the kindest interpretation, this is fraud. Even when asked directly if they had anything to do with the upload, they denied it. Prenda's actions went from unethical to criminal.
The ability to do this has been around a long, long time.
If you bought a TV guide back in the 1990's, there was a number in parenthesis next to the show title. So you would see something like "9:00 channel 13 Beverly Hills 90210 (938458764): description of the episode"
The number is a number embedded in the signal of the episode that notifies automated systems what the content is being shown then. You could program your equipment to record that number. It would cut out all commercials. You never had to set the time either. It would record whenever it saw that number. It is part of the video spec.
Actually, the University of California is *owed* money. It does not owe money. The University of California is the original patentee.
A lot of people are jumping in here claiming patent troll, but I remember enough about where the state of the Internet was in 1993 to feel that he was sincere in these patents. They did release a browser. they did offer licensing.
At the time he started development, there were under 100 total websites on the entire planet. A lot of people were pushing applications development to direct connect to services. For example, If you played internet chess, you opened XBoard, then pointed at a chess server. A lot of others were pushing other application specific services. There were competing paradigms in how things were going to develop. The whole idea of a web browser handling everything was not even close to being universally accepted.
So, he gets a patent. Launches a browser, but after Netscape launched their browser. No real traction with VC's as they were dumping their money into providing the services. The browser tanks, so he offers the tech for licensing. Microsoft among others says no. Then, Microsoft submits a set of patent applications that cover the exact same stuff under different names, then incorporates that tech into IE.
I dunno. Sure. Looks like a troll. He is suing to get money from his invention. But, then again, where Microsoft is concerned, he had a very solid case that they stole his ideas. He met with them, then they declined to license the technology, then they submitted patents covering the same material.
Now, given what we know now, embedded apps within HTML looks obvious, but there were other competing ideas and this one just won out. From our perspective in 2013, this was a clear winner, but when he patented it? Not so sure. And, under current laws of first-to-file, this patent would have held up.
I think the main problem I have with people claiming trolls is this: Whether a product is successful or not - in this case a browser, the IP behind it is still valid. If I invent a widget, but get swamped by companies with bigger bankrolls, that does not mean people can just take those ideas after my business goes under. IP is still property. The *only* reason this was overturned by prior art is because Microsoft decided it was cheaper to void their own patents rather than pay the lawsuit they lost.
Was there prior art? Yes... by a couple months. Did he know about it? There is enough doubt in that to overturn the patent. Was he strictly a troll? Nope. The date here is so early in development of the WWW that there were competing paradigms and multiple approaches being argued and discussed. He legitimately thought this was a valid patent.
The Sym-1 had 256 bytes.
Back in the early days of automobile and aircraft manufacturing, there were similar problems to this. In aircraft manufacturing, the Wright-Curtiss lawsuits held back aircraft development by a couple decades.
There automotive industry came up with a fairly decent solution fairly quickly, which is interesting as the Ford Company was well on its way to becoming a monopoly when it agreed to the terms set out. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) was formed as a licensing and technology sharing organization. Any member of that organization could license the technology of any other member of that organization.
"Q. What is the SAE patent policy with regard to standards in development? What must be disclosed, by whom and by when during the standards development process?
A. SAE's IP Policy provides the following guidance:
It has been traditionally the position of SAE to avoid the use of patented technology in Technical Reports where the principal objective is conformance to the Technical Report as defined by the SAE Technical Standards Board. However, with the advent of more complex technologies, it is not always possible to provide Technical Reports that meet today's needs without incorporating technologies that are patented. It has become difficult, if not impossible, to develop standards that do not take advantage of or otherwise incorporate the use of products, systems or process that implementation would necessarily infringe a claim of such a patent. Accordingly, SAE Technical Reports may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, if there is in the opinion of the committee developing the Technical Report technical justification and provided that SAE receive assurance from the patent holder that it will license applicants under reasonable terms and conditions for the purpose of implementing the standard. This assurance shall be provided without coercion and prior to the approval of the standard or reaffirmation when a patent becomes known after the initial approval of the standard. This assurance shall be a letter that is in the form of either:
2.3.1 A general disclaimer to the effect that the patentee will not enforce any of its present or future patent(s) whose claims would be necessarily infringed by implementation of the proposed SAE Technical Report against any person or entity implementing the mandatory provisions of the Technical Report to effect compliance or;
2.3.2 A statement that a license will be made available to all applicants without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination."
The problem now is that people are a) allowed patents of pretty basic concepts that are quite obvious and b) using patents to stifle competition rather than license technologies.
If I were looking at reforming patents, I would look at the "obvious" clause and how to address license agreements. I don't have anything against patents as long as someone is bending hardware and selling products based on it.