Subject:
|
Re: Writing A Proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Sep 2000 18:19:54 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm.%AntiSpam%org
|
Viewed:
|
502 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote:
> I got two of these, one from Wired, and one from Forbes. (1) Have people been
> putting these to any use at all? I could see using them to scan UPC codes
> maybe...
I intend to set up something so that scanning a Lego UPC automatically
enters it in LUGnet as part of my collection.
I'd highly recommend against using the software that comes with the :CueCat.
Each device has a unique ID, and every time you scan something, that gets
sent to Digital Convergence. And of course they've got your subscription
info from Forbes and Wired. If they were upfront about tracking you so
closely, I might feel a bit different, but they don't exactly make it a big
warning when they give the things out. Plus, Digital Convergence was
recently hacked into and had all of their database stolen, so even if they
have the best intentions, they certainly aren't doing much to protect your
personal data.
Luckily, some people have figured out the very simple protocol the things
use, and written alternate software. (Some of which is in nicely
platform-independent Perl.) Digital Convergence has claimed that this
violates their intellectual property rights, but they haven't been able to
explain exactly how. It's not a trade secret, since it was legitimately
reverse engineered (trivally, I might add). There's no copyrighted data
involved (especially if you're not accessing their database). They've got no
related patents (and really, nothing to patent -- they didn't invent
barcodes, and the 'protocol' consists of XORing, which they certainly didn't
invent either). And all of the alternate software has stopped using the name
":CueCat", so it can't be a trademark issue (and even then, it's arguably
completely fair descriptive use). See anything I'm missing?
> I would rather they built this function into a giveaway mouse instead of
> YAGTCUMW (2).
I think that'd be less likely to get used, since a lot of people like their
higher-quality mice. Interesting idea, though. Especially with the new
optical mice -- it wouldn't be hard at all to add this functionality.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Writing A Proposal
|
| (...) I got two of these, one from Wired, and one from Forbes. (1) Have people been putting these to any use at all? I could see using them to scan UPC codes maybe... I would rather they built this function into a giveaway mouse instead of YAGTCUMW (...) (24 years ago, 24-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
