Tcpa and palladium

[kegetys 2]

The page doesn't load for me.

Try the google cache.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, I watched a BBC documentary on software and patents the other week...

About which country? In the US, software patents are valid and legal, and have already been used to enforce things like the "fight" on tabbed toolbars between adobe & macromedia.

[bn880 5]

Yeah check this out:

Quote[/b] ]Copyright © 1988-2001 Altera Corporation. All rights reserved.

This material is made available for use under a license from Altera and its use is subject to all conditions and restrictions provided by the license agreement. U.S. and foreign patents apply to the software program and the semiconductor components which are programmed using the software program.

This program, these components, and the system comprising both may be covered by one or more of the following U.S. patents:

6,169,417; 6,167,364; 6,163,195; 6,163,166; 6,161,211; 6,161,211; 6,160,419; 6,157,212; 6,157,210; 6,157,208; 6,154,059; 6,154,055; 6,150,840; 6,147,511; 6,144,573; 6,137,313; 6,134,707; 6,134,705; 6,134,173; 6,134,166; 6,130,555; 6,130,552; 6,128,692; 6,128,215; 6,127,865; 6,127,846; 6,127,844; 6,127,217; 6,122,720; 6,122,209; 6,121,790; 6,120,550; 6,118,720; 6,118,302; 6,114,915; 6,114,312; 6,112,020; 6,110,223; 6,108,239; 6,107,854; 6,107,825; 6,107,824; 6,107,822; 6,107,820; 6,104,208; 6,102,964; 6,097,211; 6,094,064; 6,091,258; 6,091,102; 6,085,317; 6,084,427; 6,081,449; 6,080,204; 6,078,521; 6,076,179; 6,075,380; 6,072,358; 6,072,332; 6,069,487; 6,066,960; 6,064,599; 6,060,903; 6,058,452; 6,057,707; 6,052,755; 6,052,309; 6,052,327; 6,049,223; 6,049,225; 6,045,252; 6,043,676; 6,040,712; 6,038,171; 6,037,829; 6,034,857; 6,034,540; 6,034,536; 6,032,159; 6,031,763; 6,031,391; 6,029,236; 6,028,809; 6,028,808; 6,028,787; 6,026,226; 6,025,737; 6,023,439; 6,020,760; 6,020,759; 6,020,758; 6,018,490; 6,018,476; 6,014,334; 6,011,744; 6,011,730; 6,011,406; 6,005,379; 5,999,016; 5,999,015; 5,998,295; 5,996,039; 5,986,470; 5,986,465; 5,983,277; 5,982,195; 5,978,476; 5,977,793; 5,977,791; 5,968,161; 5,970,255; 5,966,597; 5,963,565; 5,969,051; 5,963,069; 5,963,049; 5,959,891; 5,953;537; 5,949,991; 5,949,710; 5,949,250; 5,949,239; 5,954,751; 5,943,267; 5,942,914; 5,940,852; 5,939,790; 5,936,425; 5,926,036; 5,925,904; 5,923,567; 5,915,756; 5,915,017; 5,909,450; 5,909,375; 5,909,126; 5,905,675; 5,904,524; 5,900,743; 5,898,628; 5,898,318; 5,894,228; 5,893,088; 5,892,683; 5,883,526; 5,880,725; 5,880,597; 5,880,596; 5,878,250; 5,875,112; 5,873,113; 5,872,529; 5,872,463; 5,870,410; 5,869,980; 5,869,979; 5,861,760; 5,859,544; 5,859,542; 5,850,365; 5,850,152; 5,850,151; 5,848,005; 5,847,617; 5,845,385; 5,844,854; RE35,977; 5,838,628; 5,838,584; 5,835,998; 5,834,849; 5,828,229; 5,825,197; 5,821,787: 5,821,773; 5,821,771; 5,815,726; 5,815,024; 5,815,003; 5,812,479; 5,812,450; 5,809,281; 5,809,034; 5,805,516; 5,802,540; 5,801,541; 5,796,267; 5,793,246; 5,790,469; 5,787,009; 5,771,264; 5,768,562; 5,768,372; 5,767,734; 5,764,583; 5,764,569; 5,764,080; 5,764,079; 5,761,099; 5,760,624; 5,757,207; 5,757,070; 5,744,991; 5,744,383; 5,740,110; 5,732,020; 5,729,495; 5,717,901; 5,705,939; 5,699,020; 5,699,312; 5,696,455; 5,693,540; 5,694,058; 5,691,653; 5,689,195; 5,668,771; 5,680,061; 5,672,985; 5,670,895; 5,659,717; 5,650,734; 5,649,163; 5,642,262; 5,642,082; 5,633,830; 5,631,576; 5,621,312; 5,614,840; 5,612,642; 5,608,337; 5,606,276; 5,606,266; 5,604,453; 5,598,109; 5,598,108; 5,592,106; 5,592,102; 5,590,305; 5,583,749; 5,581,501; 5,574,893; 5,572,717; 5,572,148; 5,572,067; 5,570,040; 5,567,177; 5,565,793; 5,563,592; 5,561,757; 5,557,217; 5,555,214; 5,550,842; 5,550,782; 5,548,552; 5,548,228; 5,543,732; 5,543,730; 5,541,530; 5,537,295; 5,537,057; 5,525,917; 5,525,827; 5,523,706; 5,523,247; 5,517,186; 5,498,975; 5,495,182; 5,493,526; 5,493,519; 5,490,266; 5,488,586; 5,487,143; 5,486,775; 5,485,103; 5,485,102; 5,483,178; 5,477,474; 5,473,266; 5,463,328, 5,444,394; 5,438,295; 5,436,575; 5,436,574; 5,434,514; 5,432,467; 5,414,312; 5,399,922; 5,384,499; 5,376,844; 5,371,422; 5,369,314; 5,359,243; 5,359,242; 5,353,248; 5,352,940; 5,309,046; 5,350,954; 5,349,255; 5,341,308; 5,341,048; 5,341,044; 5,329,487; 5,317,210; 5,315,172; 5,301,416; 5,294,975; 5,285,153; 5,280,203; 5,274,581; 5,272,368; 5,268,598; 5,266,037; 5,260,611; 5,260,610; 5,258,668; 5,247,478; 5,247,477; 5,243,233; 5,241,224; 5,237,219; 5,220,533; 5,220,214; 5,200,920; 5,187,392; 5,166,604; 5,162,680; 5,144,167; 5,138,576; 5,128,565; 5,121,006; 5,111,423; 5,097,208; 4,912,342; 4,903,223; 4,899,070; 4,899,067; 4,871,930; 4,864,161; 4,831,573; 4,785,423; 4,774,421; 4,713,792; 4,677,318; 4,617,479; 4,609,986; 4,020,469; Additional patents are pending.

Altera Corporation acknowledges the trademarks of other organizations for their respective products or services mentioned in this software.

EDIT: But I'm with Denoir on this OS issue. I have written software to compile under and compile with multiple OS's myself and it was not splendid. Currently working a bit under QNX Neutrino and... ok, use that if you have to for Realtime applications otherwise stay back, I even have an exit (0); in a signal handler that won't exit a child... hmm

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Comes under intellectual property in the UK

Flatmate (and other guys who did games technology) did a module on it so are pretty clued up on the issue, but he's not here ATM.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, I watched a BBC documentary on software and patents the other week...

About which country? In the US, software patents are valid and legal, and have already been used to enforce things like the "fight" on tabbed toolbars between adobe & macromedia.

It was about USA. Here is some more information on the patent issue:

Can I patent my software?

The history of software patents

So basically in theory software is not patentable in the US since the supreme court has declared that software is equivalent to mathematic algorithms. But, and it's a big but - this is just in theory. In practice parts of software can be patented. At first it was required that the software had a direct physical application but now it's more open. The basic rule now is that you can patent form, but not function. You can't patent a whole application, like say Word or Emacs.

Then there is intellectual property which exists regardless of patent. You can't entirely rip off a product and sell it as your own. But again, the line is very blurry there when it comes to software.

[denoir 0]

The page doesn't load for me.

Try the google cache.

That's quite interesting. I wasn't aware that they were trying to patent it. Keep in mind that it hasn't been patented but that they've just applied for a patent. I have a difficult time seeing it getting approved as it's nothing really new - which is a general requirement for patents and furthermore because they're not the ones that came up with it.

Well, we'll see I suppose...

[benu 1]

Quote[/b] ]That's bullshit and you know it. I see this everyday at work. And don't come with "export file as word 97 document". Cause if it would make no difference if you save a file as word2003 or as word97 than there would be no reason for a word2003 format. And for word to save in the format by default. Or wait.. maybe there is a reason: to make those documents incompatible to the previous word versions so companies have to upgrade to the new version

There is no such thing as a word2003 format. The format for word has not changed since Word 97. Don't take my word for it here, open this document that was created in Word 2003 in for instance WordPad. This is the default format for Word 2003. The next generation format will be XML which is also supported by Word 2003. Here is the same document in XML format. It's text only, open standard and self describing. In short, no more custom filetypes. You can bet the creators of OpenOffice sent flowers to Microsoft.

Now, I don't care for what reason but the fact is that Billy boy's company has made a 180 turn when it comes to basing their work on open standards as opposed to proprietary closed formats. And that's very good - but I guess that is also why it is met with such resentment by the Microsoft-haters.

To be honest i don't remember what kind of document it was exactly (that's why i wrote "office document" instead of "word document"), i think it was an excel document. It was created with office 2003 and could not be opened with the version before (which our company still used). This is a good example of the point i tried to make earlier, companies have to buy the new version just to be able to read documents from partners/customers.

It's funny to what extent some people loath Microsoft. I personally try to be pragmatic. And the fact is that in most areas because of one reason or another, you end up doing it the Microsoft way and the users of your code expect you to do it the Microsoft way.

I don't want to bash ms for the sake of bashing, but you say it yourself: "one way or another one ends up using ms." And monopolies have their bad sides as well. I use windows to play ofp so i can't really bash ms, least of all in this forum But neither are they the glorious inventors as some portray them. I can think of nothing that ms did not "copy" from someone else (oh wait, some of their multimedia codecs aren't too bad ). And their policy of putting "usability" above security is something i really dislike.

I tend to pragmatic too, but that does not mean that i am not allowed to point out the things i dislike. I can do the same for linunx too: i don't like vendors that ship rpms with incomplete dependency information for example. And as it seems that no vendor seems to be willing to make correct rpms i switched to a linux system where the package installer WORKS, ie gentoo linux. Even with debian stable i got fucked up dependencies, which was kind of disappointing, and 2-3 year old linux software is not what i want to use on the desktop anyway.

[joltan 0]

There is no such thing as a word2003 format. The format for word has not changed since Word 97.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there are problems with the layout consistency of Word97/Word2002 (? Well, the Office XP Pro version) documents. The format may be the same, but when opening certain documents your layout get's ruined completely if they were created/manipulated with the other version before. Same applies for Powerpoint presentations. The problems may not lie in the file format but in other, internal changes - still, the result for the end user is the same. You can't use Office 97 (which I still have on my office computer) interchangably with Office XP (which I use at home) or Office 2000 without running into problems.

Next week I'll have a presentation at a user training and later a project meeting - in both cases I specifically asked for the software versions they were using for the presentations. It's a shame that this is nescessary, as it's just another thing I have to waste my time on.

[denoir 0]

But neither are they the glorious inventors as some portray them. I can think of nothing that ms did not "copy" from someone else (oh wait, some of their multimedia codecs aren't too bad ).

Microsoft policy:

1) Company A makes product P

2) Microsoft makes a cheap-ass inferior rip-off of product P called MS P

3) Using its market weight Microsoft agressivly promotes MS P

4) Microsoft keeps rapidly improving MS P until it reaches the quality of P

5) After having pushing out P in favour of MS P, Microsoft continues to improve it, but at a much slower rate.

The positive thing one can say is that they actually keep improving the product even after they have the monopoly. They still have to sell new versions to make money. And in the end MS P ends up being superior to the original product P.

The down side of a monopoly is that it's Microsof that dictates the terms entirley. They choose what to improve or not to improve and we end up using it anyway. They do however have competition in terms of their own products. They must make MS P 2.0 better than MS P 1.0 because people won't upgrade otherwise. The good part about a monopoly is that we get a firm standard, which is desperately needed in software.

[EiZei 0]

Yeah, after the competition was killed IEs progress has practically halted, they barely bother to fix those security bugs. Thank god we have mozilla/firebird/opera.

[Tamme 0]

Inside my home network the migration is nearly done. I did install Gentoo Linux on my gaming PC last week and Enemy Territory works "out-of-the-ebuild". Total control of what is running on my machine, idle memory usage << 100MB, no need for AntiSpy...

XDM Login Screen (customised; 700kB photo)

The XFce4 Desktop (700kB photo)

Sounds good. I've been thinking of trying Linux. Just to see if it's any good, and just for change really. Is it possible to customise my desktop in Win2k like that? I don't think so. Actually it's the combatibility issues that I've been worrying about. Will OFP work?

This Palladium or whatever shit is really making me angry. If I wan't someone telling me what to say, what to do, what to think, I'll move to China or some other commie country. I wan't to think for myself. Win2k is controlling my doings enough already. I can't decide exactly what drivers I wan't to install, cause Windows won't let me, if it thinks the default drivers are good enough I can't change them!     I'm no n00b, I wan't (and need) total control over my computer.

[denoir 0]

I would like to note that secure platform like Palladium can finally make most ways to cheat not only hard, but impossible. No cheater will be able to change any signed exe or signed data. This sounds like interesting option to me.

First of all, you don't need Palladium for that. Under Windows (.NET) you can now create strong named signed components with MD5 checksums. And the security for that is handled by the framework - no need to send any information to some third-party server.

Second, for Palladium there will be 'alternative' servers up probably before the real ones come up. It's just a question of re-routing the signal. As long as your computer is a box with an isolated I/O interface, there is no such thing as a secure platform. You can always fake the I/O.

In more general terms, there is a great need for secure solutions for ID over net. Mostly for e-commerce but also for various interactions that require authentification (like say voting for instance or declaring your taxes).

Still, I have serious doubts that there will become anything real of Palladin as the ethical concerns are considerable. Also the wishes of a few powerful companies are still much weaker than consumer acceptance and international factors. For instance the EU has said it rather clearly that TCPA would not be legal in the EU (not because of their good heart but because they want to build a similar European system).

This whole thing reminds me of the elaborate copy protections that were developed during the 80's. It all went down the drain because the consumers did not approve of the hassle. My prediction is that so will this, to be replaced by a more reasonable and less centralized system.

[smogmorph 0]

Woah, hold on for sec willya..

So.. I got a new comp coming in late November. Does anyone have the slightest knowledge of a possible appearance of this piece of shit in my new comp?

If so I'm gonna cancel the order and keep my current comp

[theavonlady 2]

Pssst................. wanna buy Longhorn?

Quote[/b] ]Asian Pirates Sell Microsoft's Next Windows System

Mon December 1, 2003 07:49 AM ET

JOHOR BAHRU, Malaysia (Reuters) - Malaysia's brazen software pirates are hawking the next version of Microsoft Corp's Windows operating system years before it is supposed to be on sale.

[kegetys 2]

Pssst................. wanna buy Longhorn?

Quote[/b] ]Asian Pirates Sell Microsoft's Next Windows System

Mon December 1, 2003 07:49 AM ET

JOHOR BAHRU, Malaysia (Reuters) - Malaysia's brazen software pirates are hawking the next version of Microsoft Corp's Windows operating system years before it is supposed to be on sale.

And thats obviously just a beta version, which is far from being complete. The betas leak out to the net, the same has happened with pretty much every windows version, not counting the ancient ones.

[theavonlady 2]

Pssst................. wanna buy Longhorn?

Quote[/b] ]Asian Pirates Sell Microsoft's Next Windows System

Mon December 1, 2003 07:49 AM ET

JOHOR BAHRU, Malaysia (Reuters) - Malaysia's brazen software pirates are hawking the next version of Microsoft Corp's Windows operating system years before it is supposed to be on sale.

And thats obviously just a beta version, which is far from being complete. The betas leak out to the net, the same has happened with pretty much every windows version, not counting the ancient ones.

So.................................... how is it?

[kegetys 2]

So.................................... how is it?

I'm not really interested about it so I dont know :P

[kegetys 2]

The next generation format will be XML which is also supported by Word 2003. Here is the same document in XML format. It's text only, open standard and self describing. In short, no more custom filetypes. You can bet the creators of OpenOffice sent flowers to Microsoft.

I bet they want the flowers back now

(I had to dig this up, sorry ;P)

[denoir 0]

LOL Well, it won't happen.

Regardless, it's a very odd policy that they have. They implement an open file format and then they're trying to prevent others from reading the files

[der bastler 0]

Not to mention that OpenOffice files are based on XML for years. Simply change the suffix from sxw/sxd/sxc/etc. to zip and look into this "archive"...

It's the typical Microsoft policy: watch interesting stuff, develop an own variant, fight back original developer, block competition.

-> browser war, MSHTML, MSJava, MSXML.

Gentoo+XFce4 work very well for me. Mathworks provides a Linux/Mac-Version of MATLAB. I miss SolidEdge, but VariCAD looks interesting...