As stated in the article my chart shows the time only while she was in charge of HP. My chart shows from 1999 when she was hired until early 2005 when she was fired. The charts over the same time period are identical.
Merely FYI, my legal experience spans back to the mid to late 70s, with the majority of my work being associated with what virtually everyone would call cutting edge technology, and my technical experience reaches back even further into the mid 60s. In fact, my exposure to digital computers, including creating code (Fortran primarily), began with Wang units and IBM mainframes that I used in my undergraduate and graduate aero studies at Annapolis and Monterey.
I used to believe that the principals here might actually appreciate input borne from long experience in my fields of practice. Sadly that has not proven to be the case.
Yes, it is true that my day-to-day experience tends to be mainly with software engineers in the tech industry, but I've spent plenty of time around aerospace engineeers. My father is a PhD in electrical engineering, and worked as a software programmer in the aerospace industry since the mid-1960s until his retirement a few years ago. Nearly all of his friends were as well and the discussions I've had with them seem to match the views of software engineers in the tech industry. They would help the company get patents because it was required, but they found the process to be useless -- one of helping the lawyers get paid. None can ever remember finding a patent useful for their work. None think the patent system functions as a useful tool for development.
I had these discussions with them because I thought that, perhaps, things *were* different in the aerospace industry. I recognize that when you're designing a fighter plane or a missile system (as they did) things need to be pretty exact. My father's PhD thesis actually became a useful algorithm for a variety of other fields (including digital music) and when people tell him he should have patented it, he laughs at the ridiculousness of the idea and points out that doing so would only have held back all these industries that went on to make something either directly out of his work or (as he readily admits) by discovering the same things independently. But the idea of actually finding a patent useful for their work? None of them can remember that ever happening.
Small sample size, perhaps, but considering you seem to think I don't know anyone in that field (why you always make these kinds of wrong assumptions, I can only guess...), just figured I should let you know you're wrong.
That's right folks, Masnick thinks these 7 softballs make up for years of Google cheerleading posts. lol
Um. No. The list is a lot longer than that, but I recognize that no amount of actual evidence about my distrust of Google will make you believe whatever strawman you've built up in your head, so go have fun with it.
It does make me wonder, however, why you feel the need to always flat out misrepresent my position. Does my real understanding of these issues threaten you so much?
You are mistaken in believing I have little experience with software engineers. Quite the contrary. My clients while I was in private practice, and my client while I was in corporate practice, were (and still are) at the leading edge of software development in highly esoteric arts.
I have to say that I don't believe you. I spend a lot of time with software engineers. A lot. None of them agree with you.
Just this week, on our podcast, we had a patent attorney and a software coder, both of whom agreed that they never once found a patent useful in such a way.
I think you're exaggerating to make you believe your position. But you're wrong. Software patents are simply not useful in disclosing anything.
Last I heard it is freedom of speech idiot. Henley can damn well think, say and feel whatever he wants.
Indeed. Just as it is our "freedom of speech" to respond, criticize and critique his speech. And it is your freedom of speech to demonstrate your own ignorance as well.
Isn't America great?
Acting as if you know anything about whats really going on makes you look ridiculous.
I agree. Might want to take a look in the mirror, sparky.
Why don't you find something more constructive to do like finding the balls or tits to fight for something you believe in like Henley is instead of jerking off all day on the internet because you've never had a real date. Go tell mommy to find your pacifier and change your diaper, you are soaking wet......
So you insist we have no idea what we're talking about, yet make no constructive suggestion, nor explain any factual error in our statement, and conclude with an immature insult.
Patent specifications are simply one more technical publication that require rolling up one's sleeves and studying them for content and comprehension.
I think you miss my point. Perhaps it's because you have little experience with software engineers in particular. But, for most, the issue is never the technical challenge. There is no technical challenge. As one recently noted to me, you can make anything you want in software, it's just a question of if it's worth the effort.
They don't learn anything from patent applications at all.
The suggestion that it's because they're just not putting in the hard work to read the claims and understand them is laughably wrong. You've just had little to no contact with actual software engineers it seems.
One of the founding principles underlying IP law is the encouragement of sharing knowledge via widespread dissemination of technical information in the useful arts and original works of authorship in the sciences.
If we used that as the basis of judging the patent system, we should pretty quickly conclude that the vast majority of patents failed to meet that bar. If you talked to engineers, most of them recognize that patents are completely useless for disseminating technical information. They do not do that. Rather, they disseminate a lawyer's vision of what they might later be able to sue over.
Tech douches talking about the music business. Funny.
Make you a deal: we'll stop talking about the music business when you stop pretending that you understand how tech and the online ad industry works? Because, seriously, if you think we don't get the music biz, your total misunderstanding of tech is much worse.
Re: "So, now the questions is if the White House will actually listen to the cybersecurity experts at NIST "
Uh, you remember how NIST is the group that has been compromised by the NSA on a multitude of levels?
FWIW, NIST appears to have undergone something of a radical shift in response to the NSA stuff. It has come out strongly against the NSA's activities on that one and since then has been pretty regularly standing up for good encryption practices. I think it got religion in a good way.
I do know -- and explained that in the first paragraph. But it doesn't change the fact that there are things that are *typically* views associated with Anonymous -- and this move doesn't seem to fit well with what Anonymous has done historically.