Um, it's no big trick to put fingerprints of files into a hash table (Perl, Python, Ruby, etc.) and save that to a file (YAML, etc.) or a database; it happens all the time. Aside from the usual discussion of prior art and non-obviousness, it's only a Patent violation if someone attempts to sell a product that uses that functionality.
Getting huffy about someone who educates others is a sure way to prove that patents stifle education as well as innovation. Seriously, how can you be sure you're not violating a patent if you don't learn about the patent before you go to sell your product. That's why patents aren't violated until the patent appears for sale in an unlicensed product.
This is just more of the confusion over the differences between patents and copyrights.
Not pure sugar, as that would be better for your teeth. The Ce De Smarties are almost as tart as SweeTarts, which means that they have gobs of enamel eating acid. My teeth ache just thinking of their lip puckering tartness, and yet I crave them still. And, I like the non-Ce De Smarties as well, but not at the same time.
I realize that this isn't the point of this article, but I don't like the feeds that provide full articles. I get the point that truncated feeds, particularly the severe ones, are not an effective tool. However, I actually do not like feeds that provide full articles; and when given a choice, I will select the feed with the executive summary, if well done (and thank you very much to those who do provide such a choice). But, that brings up a another pet peeve of mine: good summaries are rare. And, while I understand that it takes a fair amount of skill to provide useful summaries, I still find it surprising that those who are capable of producing lengthy, well-written articles rarely bother with a decent executive summary. Well, that's one of my favorite gripes, not that this will change anytime soon. I would just be happier if I could choose a summary RSS feed over full articles.
If the roads were all private property, what kinds of things would we see? Would the number of lanes between areas be affected? Would there be tolls between shopping centers?
Of course, I don't want this to go to an extreme where all ISP's would be owned by the government. But, I want my ISP to be just an ISP and not in competition with content owned by others. And yet, we are not proposing laws that would forbid ISP's from offering any content. We just don't want them secretly pinching the hose when they get jealous of that competing content.
And, (how many times do we have to say this), we don't want an ISP bill that looks like a cell-phone bill (diseased and perverted as they are).
So, I don't see how we can avoid having some manner of Net Neutrality regulation. We can only hope that the rules are, not just fair, but clear and concise. But then, is there any hope that the laws, which ever way this goes, will not be a jumble influences from lobbyists and special interests, like that of the DMCA?
And, what about the silly complaints from those who do like social networks?
I have successfully avoided any contact with Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace. My excuse is that with so many people, these environments must be overly mainstream. But, I don't really know this because I haven't been there.
And, I don't see any reason to add to what is a fairly busy and fulfilling life outside of those walls. Do I really need to be corralled into a controlled environment? Do I really need to be part of some carrot-on-a-stick social game?
Most of the intelligent arguments (as opposed to the silly ones) about these social environments tells me that I really don't need to waste my time with such things.
Just like they expect people to buy all new equipment for Selectable Output Control?
Yes, they will be dumb enough. That's how they work. They are not interested in maximizing revenue or profits, let alone any cultural value or enhancement of the free market. They are interested only in maximizing control.
They WILL do everything they can to gain every bit of control that can be engineered and codified, and this will be no exception. The only question is how soon will they start on this one. Perhaps it will take no longer than it did for them to go from the Broadcast Flag to Selectable Output Control.
While interesting, this anticipated relationship between vertical and horizontal may also be dependent upon other factors.
Back before software patents, these concepts seemed relatively intuitive, particularly for mechanical patents. Back then, a patent would typically be discussed in terms of a particular product design, with implementations available for purchase. Back then it was easy to see how a particular feature of a product was worthy of a patent. However, the patents we see for software never seem to be taken in this light. Software patents always seem to lack a solution to a problem and seem to lack any unique innovation. This is how we have come to say that the bar for software patents is set way too low.
And, how can software patents be innovative when they are so common that they are traded as a bulk commodity.
So, what I'm suggesting is that this theory would be much more meaningful in combination with some measure of how low the bar has been set for the issuing of patents. More specifically, there should be a measure of how specific a patent is to a particular working solution to a problem, as opposed to being so general that it is little more than an approach to a problem.
We may very well find that patents do a much better job of encouraging innovation, as this theory of horizontal and vertical suggest, when the bar is set high--rather than so low that patents become bulk commodities.
Clearly there must be a limit or boundary on what can become property.
In one recent article, it was made clear that patents are actively traded like stocks and commodities.
This is the primary resource for patent trolls.
Note that our current economic strife was caused in part by the commodification of debt, specifically, sub-prime mortgages.
What if there were no limits on what could be traded. Any contract or business arrangement/relationship could become transferable.
And, if that's the direction that everything going, despite the lesson of the current economic crisis, then...
Ah, I've repeated this rant too many times... We, will end up with DRM regulated brains where we will have micro payments for every little thought that involved some word that wasn't in the dictionary a hundred years ago--because even words will be commodities.
Transmutation of information into information that behaves like physical objects is somehow counter-rational. They want to take something abstract/artificial and use an artificial means to impose abstract rules that mimic a natural/physical behavior. That's like two wrongs attempting to make a right. Umm, the double entendre was totally un-intentional, but might as well let it stand.
Whatever rights may ultimately come out of this, and other schemes along this line, will remain with us into the times when brains are enhanced by artificial circuitry. And, I very much want to make a distinction between data and human memory. That is, I do not want someone claiming that my memories and experiences of someone's content to be considered the physical property of someone else. Your content may be yours, but my memories are not to be messed with.
So, I don't want to have experiences residing in a Kindle enhanced brain erased at the whim of someone else, and I'm really not interested in what may one day end up being digital Alzheimer's.