| 9:38 pm on Sep 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
That's a lot easier to handle than the images they have over at altavista ;)
My guess is somebody wrote an auto submitter...tsk, tsk. People should know that's nothing but a bad idea in this day & age.
| 9:54 pm on Sep 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
looks like the unix "banner" output.
also probably is in violation of a variety of published patents.
| 10:13 pm on Sep 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|also probably is in violation of a variety of published patents. |
Sounds like a man who's either done a lot of research or who's been sued.
How many patent violations do you figure he's violated?
| 10:16 pm on Sep 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Also, spidering is instant, almost like FDSE. Pages submited apear within an hour or so, at least when I tried it.
| 10:20 pm on Sep 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
That one is particularly easy to break.
Anyone who does it is asking for trouble, though.
| 10:24 pm on Sep 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|also probably is in violation of a variety of published patents. |
Before accusing someone of wrongdoing like you just did I suggest you either retract your statement or go find at least one patent he violated. Otherwise you just libeled him and could be sued for it.
BTW, writing a script to output a security code in that format is extremely easy to do.
| 10:37 pm on Sep 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Isn't that "ascii art" being used making the letters for code like that? I wasn't aware that that was a patent issue, it's done all over the place.
I don't see a patent issue at all with using a password key to submit; that's just something automatically generated. Network Solutions uses entering a code now before you can access whois data, for each domain name looked up, and they're not the only ones who have started imposing restrictions that way to access areas.
As I understand patents they have to be taken on a specific process. So would just using the concept of restricting access to an area using passwords even be covered under patent law? Sheesh, wholesale sites out there require an entry code after getting a resale number, membership areas require entering info to gain access - and web hosts have been auto-generating user passwords for ages for new accounts.
Quoted from the TOS [webmasterworld.com]:
|Messages posted at this site are the sole opinion and responsibility of the poster. |
Sounds to me like nit-picking and looking for a problem that isn't even there to even suggest a patent issue on concepts that can't be patented. I think the consensus is that it's a non-issue altogether on commonly used concepts that are older than dirt.
| 4:08 am on Sep 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
well, clearly this thread took a very different direction that i wasn't planning on. And, again I am not saying it does, just that i felt it probably does. Look at the .gif encoding mechanism -- everyone used it but did that matter to unisys? of course not (btw this patent recently expired)
For a real search, I would recommend a review of patents related to companies like intertrust, digimarc, and even verisign as you suggested. Additionally, words like 'watermark' and/or 'steganography' come to mind and there is (was perhaps) a lot of IP issued around the time that cryptography was really taking off in th eearly 90's for commerce purposes.
I just spent a few minutes and when you look at very recently issued ones, and this is virtually inverted: patent 6343138, while 6408331 could be broadly interpreted to be inclusive of the scope of these types of login mechanisms.
Regardless of any of the aforementioned, it is still up the a patent owner to enforce their patents, so none of it matters and it's generally in the public's best interst not to look and see if they're infringing because this can result in triple damages (willful infringement). And of course in any case, I'm no lawyer.
| 4:35 am on Sep 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Watermarks on gifs are for copyright identification not patents, last I heard. And it did take an unexpected turn, but we have to try to clarify when such issues are raised to avoid confusion.
It's clear that concepts can't be patented, and as far as generating ascii art on the fly, there are no doubt thousands of script kiddies out there that could hack out a simple routine to do that in no time flat.
| 4:47 am on Sep 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It's clear that concepts can't be patented
except if implemented as business method patents.
A good related read:
| 5:16 am on Sep 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Very pretty. And friendly for text browsers :) Not as easy to defeat as it looks, though; a simple comparison can be foiled by random font changes. Outlining + OCR will work just fine - but it does too in the GIFs anyway.
<edited a bit above for precision>
|...concepts that are older than dirt... |
I remember my father bringing home listings with that pretty ascii art letters when I was not even on elementary school.
|looks like the unix "banner" output. |
As our fellow up here promptly admits...
|And of course in any case, I'm no lawyer. |
That of course doesn't stops him to come here, to a thread turned offtopic, to spread FUD.
|...and as far as generating ascii art on the fly... |
That's the finality of the old trusty aalib. A really useful library, let me say. Its coolest application is to view video on a 80x24 tty.
| 6:00 am on Sep 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>pretty ascii art letters when I was not even on elementary school.
Back in 1979 at the computer lab in school with my little 3 year old daughter on my lap. ;) Output pretty stuff on the front of the printouts from dot matrix printer that was hooked up to the whopping 64k Xerox 530 powerhouse we worked with before we got to the IBM 370.
Thanks Duckula, brings back sweet memories of Hollerith cards and throwing dot matrix printers into endless loops with RPG2. :)
Moving back on topic, I just tried to submit and got a message that there have already been 100 submissions from my IP today, and I haven't been near there. It's from my ISP and dynamic, so they're exluding a lot of people who use the same ISP. 'Twasn't me, I haven't been near Gigablast in ages. They'll need to address that.
| 6:49 am on Sep 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>My guess is somebody wrote an auto submitter...tsk, tsk.
>People should know that's nothing but a bad idea in this day & age.
Um, no need to write another auto submitter. It's enough to put Gigablast onto the se list of one of the existing auto submit tools. Even my very specialized search engine(s) one day started to get flooded by submission spam in its worst meaning. After a lot of investigation i found out that a well known submission software has included them into their list. A phone call with the developer ended in the removal of my sites and in this funny answer: "Um, we never thought that our software would get abused ... why would somebody submit a pron site to a widgets search engine? We'll investigate who abused our software ..." - LOL.
Today, i use a verification code too. Auto submissions are far less know but some butt heads allready started to work around the verfication procedure again ...