Recent Comments:
French government bans BlackBerrys: fears US and UK spying {Engadget Mobile}
Jun 20th 2007 10:22AM @elfguy:
Firstly, emails should not be exchanged between 2 parties without strong encryption if security is critical (especially if they're being sent between servers). Messages are usually exchanged between servers in plain text or unecrypted form and many people have an opportunity to intercept them in transit (not just the ISPs in question).
Secondly, RIM's servers do not see messages in their unencrypted form. If you use a blackberry with BES (which is what virtually every government and businesses uses if they use blackberry), the message is encrypted between the blackberry and your mail server, i.e., RIM never sees the plaintext version of the email. They can't simply hand it over to the government. They don't even know who it is being sent to.
Now I suppose you might theorize that blackberry put a backdoor in their encryption software. However, this is pretty absurd for two reasons. One: blackberry's whole business depends on people being able to trust the encryption. They would lose lots of business if it ever leaked out. Two: If backdoors are what you fear, then you really need to examine _all_ devices, software, services, etc -- not just blackberries (and I'm certain RIMM has recieved far more scrutiny being the prefer provided for numerous security concious entities). By this same rationale, the French shouldn't use Exchange Server, Lotus Notes, Cisco routers, etc because they can't be absolutely certain no one has put in backdoors.
Buffalo's new HS-DHGL LinkStation NAS serves up some iTunes {Engadget}
Nov 29th 2006 2:49PM "with limited 'streaming' hiccups
is that possible? or is wirless technology the limiting factor? "
Umm, even 802.11b has _plenty_ of bandwidth to support even the highest bit rate music encoded with a lossy algorithm. For instance, a 320 kilobit/second mp3 only represents about 5% of the total bandwidth you can realistically expect using 802.11b (let's say 4megabit/s). You may experiencing temporary outages because of interference or because you're too far from the AP, but this isn't typical if you have a decent setup.
TiVo raises rates, limits WPA to own WiFi adaptor {Engadget}
Nov 6th 2006 6:11PM Puuuuhlease guys,
1) Most home users don't even know what WPA is -- never mind actually go through the trouble to use it (and, yes, I include myself in this -- a certified techie -- not enough risk in my area & I don't want to bother helping out friends and family everytime). I'd bet that >=95% of their users are either running WEP or no security whatsoever (including MAC filtering). Even if they do, they wouldn't hestitate to switch back to WEP or other such measures.
2) Most users don't have wireless USB devices, nevermind certified compatible devices, laying around their houses and the ~$50 dollars or whatever it costs to buy Tivo's device these days truly isn't that much more expensive to buy.
3) Supporting other devices in WPA mode may well have proved too costly for Tivo to support. In fact, I'm sure this is the case. It's not like they're going to drive a significant number of people to buy their adapter by doing this given how few people this really applies to.
VeriChip patents glucose-sensing RFID chip {Engadget}
Nov 1st 2006 4:06PM Jamie,
I respectfully disagree. Although some people over-trivialize the engineering and regulatory aspects involved with creating a closed-loop system, I suspect we'll see one within 5-10 years (and actual cure, one which does not depend on the use of anti-rejection drugs and things of that ilk, is likely much further away than that). The most critical aspect is getting an accurate continuous monitor on the market first with a universal algorithm that does not require re-calibration (without actually hooking it up to a delivery mechanism). No one has one yet out on the market, but technologies capable of this do exist and are in development. It is possible to develop an adaptive algorithm which can adjust for insulin sensitivity and other factors--it will just take some time and fairly long clinical studies to prove it is safe. Although insulin pumps can fail, they don't have to be 100% reliable to be used safely in a closed loop system (a backup plan would be necessary though). Furthermore, advancements such as MEMS technology promise to vastly improve the reliability and accuracy of insulin delivery (no moving parts, instant detection of occlusions, etc). Do not forget that once devices get cheap enough, one can build in redundacy that can go a great deal to improve the effective reliability too. The medical benefits of a closed loop system could well outway the potential risks for a significant part of the population in its earliest stages.
Furthermore, mass produced items are typically more reliable than those that are not. It depends on the standards to which they're engineered, manufactured, and tested.
VeriChip patents glucose-sensing RFID chip {Engadget}
Nov 1st 2006 12:50PM blair,
Though I do not have diabetes, I do know do know much about the science and the industry that supports it. I can appreciate that pumps and the current sensors on the market are not perfect solutions. I know that they're not cures and that even with the latest equipment, diabetes is still is significant pain, hassle, and even presents very real medical complications. Nonetheless, insulin pumps and modern finger stick tests represent real advancement and have been proven to improve lifespan and quality of life with people with diabetes. Like most things in life, advancement comes incrementally usually. Having worked side-by-side with some of the engineers and business people that have brought these improvements into reaility, I can tell you that most of them are sincere, honest, knowledgable, intelligent, and hard working. A number of them even are type I's themselves.
These improvements do not usually come easily even if they're not cures (you'd be surprised how complicated modern insulin pumps are to engineer and bring to market). There is a not an insignificant amount of money being spent on developing cures, permanent treatments, and better solutions (e.g., closed loop insulin/sensor systems). Though I recognize that there are some dishonest characters out there selling false hope and poorly thought out devices and treatments, it is also a mistake to blindly label everyone out there as being ignorant or simple profiteers.
On another note, I do _not_ agree with you that nationalized healthcare would necessarily help you or other people with diabetes. The fact is that many countries with nationalized healthcare simply do not cover things like insulin infusion pumps at all or as widely as healthcare companies in the US do today (or, if they do, they're late to the game), treatments, training, and more. The fact is that state of the art healthcare is a naturally expensive task (despite wastefulness and abuses in some areas) and all nationalized health care systems, contrary to popular belief, have to take measures to reduce their costs to varying degrees (e.g., denying access to the latest procedures, medical treatments, devices, people of certain age, etc). Much of the treatments and medicine available to you (specifically as someone with health care coverage in the US in all probability) are almost certainly not available to individuals in many in socialized medicine programs throughout the world (including parts of western europe).
I might support a limited national healthcare system to provide certain critical coverage or perhaps a system which employers and individuals could pay into (which, btw, would require copays and other such cost controls). However, the idea that many people banter about, about having an everything-for-free healthcare system is not feasible and threatens what we have now (flawed though it may be). There is significant room for improvement in the US healthcare coverage, however many of the proposed solutions are both trivial and dangerous.
VeriChip patents glucose-sensing RFID chip {Engadget}
Nov 1st 2006 11:53AM Mike,
Though the editors did indicate that Verichip's "product" hadn't completed testing, Verichip does not even have a proposed solution for an actual working product. As far as I'm concerned, Verichip's claims are equivalent to someone announcing that they've invented the cure to HIV, when, in reality, all they have is a new syringe (which is not the hurdle), oh, and the cure part, they're "going to work on that". In short, I don't see this as even a potential step towards the problem of continuous BG monitoring. Furthermore, I question the quality of this patent. It may serve as a hinderance to other companies with real products.
Having just read their patent ( http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7125382.html ) -- it seems that the essense their patent claims is implanting an RFID tag inside the body and attaching it to a BG sensor (which, to me, sounds like it is broad enough to apply to any electro-chemical sensor). They claim that the ability to use external radio power is a novel invention because it avoids the reliance on batteries (which usually have to be replaced periodically). Of course, what they fail to mention is that drawing power from radio waves is the essential component of RFID technology and that they did not invent it. If my quick reading is correct, this does have the potential to interfere with other device makes that wish to utilize RFID for their own sensors. [They do vaguely mention a "3 pin" sensor -- but their IP is much broader than that]
It's also worth mentioning that they filed this patent almost two and a half years ago (it was just approved now). I would at least expect to hear more detail:
1) on how this actually works
2) its measured accuracy
3) its expected lifetime
4) preliminary animal studies
if, infact, this is a sincere effort. The fact that this company is engaged in so many other ventures and appears to have no real experience with medical devices or life sciences in general makes me more than a little skeptical of their intentions.
VeriChip patents glucose-sensing RFID chip {Engadget}
Nov 1st 2006 8:59AM I wish you not hype these sorts of press releases up, particularly not when so little information is provided. The hard part is not the telemetry (relaying the information to an external display) -- technologies like this already exist and are proven to work well. The hard part is engineering a sensor that can accurately detect blood glucose over the long term without constant calibration and without having to double check the read against a finger stick test (and particularly with a _universal_ algorithm). The fact that this company is just describing the RFID part of this device, i.e., not the sensor, suggests to me that they have nothing worth getting excited about (never mind that they're not disclosing any sort of studies as to its accuracy). Having worked in the diabetes industry for companies that developed BG sensors of various sorts (especially continuous and implantable devices) I can tell you that the hurdles to this are very real and that many companies have tried and failed over the years. One such major problem which most devices like this usually face is that they quickly get covered in the body's own encapsulation tissue (the body sees the device as a foreign object and thus wants to protect itself). Other devices depend on the measurement of interstitial fluid measures which presents very significant accuracy and timing problems...
I fail to see what this company is bringing to the table especially when all they have right now, apparently, is just an idea (a patent), not even a product, and especially not one that has been approved. Hyping announcement this is just getting people's hope us falsely in all likelyhood (as have been done 1000 times before to diabetes).
Cisco patents the "Triple Play" {Engadget}
Oct 15th 2006 2:28PM Michael,
Firstly, the point is that the _editors_ are constantly passing judgement on patent issues, something which they are not only _not_ expert in, but that they're obviously completely ignorant of. If they don't know what they're talking about, then they should simply not pass judgement publically.
Secondly, they are substantively wrong in this case. Comcast's Triple Play and most other products out on the market _today_ are _not_ under threat because this patent only has the potential to apply to services that converage these 3 services on a single communications protocols (e.g., IP). The fact that Comcast and others deliver these services over several different protocols protects them. Cisco would not have a leg to stand on if they want to go after Comcast et. al right now.
Thirldly, I do in fact have real knowledge of and experience with intellectual property matters. I am the inventor of record with on a patent and I helped with the filing. My wife is a laywer and she also passed the patent bar. Furthermore, I come from a family of engineers/entreprenuers that has created over 100 patents and successfully commercialized them (read: real innovation, strong IP, and building real companies with them). I would not call myself an expert, but I am certainly conversant in the issues (which comes in handy with my own business plans). That said, you do not need to be an expert to read a patent and get a fairly decent sense of what the patent is trying to protect. (Though it does help if you want to know how strong the patent really is).
Fourthly, there are _real_ problems with the patent system (which I won't go into here). However, people on slashdot and forums like this one that ignorantly spout off nonsense only serve to discredit and distract from the real problems and the real abuses of the system.
Lastly, patents and copyrights are wholly different things. Please read up.
Cisco patents the "Triple Play" {Engadget}
Oct 14th 2006 7:43PM Note to the editors:
You are _still_ demonstrating a weak grasp of patent law. Please educate yourself or try not to cast public judgement on all disputed patents and/or patent litigation. Yes, this patent is clearly "obvious". However, if you performed even a cursory (educated) read of this patent's claims (something you have repeatedly failed to do) or carefully read the comments from your source material, you would realize that this patent is only protecting the delivery of the 3 services (voice, video, and data) over a single communications protocol standard (read: IP). This patent would _not_ prevent Comcast and other carriers from doing what they are _already_ doing, namely, providing all these same services over the SAME lines, but using several different communications protocols to provide them. This is a _key_ distinction despite the absurdity and sheer obviousness of the patent.
Transmeta sues Intel for patent infringement {Engadget}
Oct 12th 2006 11:47AM Note to the editors:
Please either refrain from publically passing judgement on intellectual property matters or educate yourself before you do so again. I have been reading your website regularly for well over a year now and I have seen you, the editors, spout of all kinds of crap whenever any hint of patent dispute emerges. I know being against patents or any kind of patent litigation is trendy in the tech community now, but blindly lumping everything together is sheer idiocy. One thing I have seen you do repeatedly is confuse the title of the patents with what is actually being protected (which is described by the CLAIMS). For instance, you said "nebulous IP holdings as 'computer architecture' and 'power efficiency'" These are surely the patent titles. The sole intent of the title is to roughly classify what the patent is about (though, btw, this is not always the case), it does not mean they own the very idea of "computer architecture" or "power efficiency". If you want to get an inkling of what patents are _actually_ protecting, you must read the claims carefully (even here, it requires some background to really understand the importance or the legal worth of it).
