Got this response from someone at IDBI. email address and disclaimer removed before forwarding.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Vishal Kapoor Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:54 PM
Dear Sir
We got a google alert for the discussion you were having on gnowledge.org.
I have read through the whole thing. I wanted to reply to this there itself but could not find a way of doing it. And your mail ID was decipherable.
It would be great if you could tell the people on the discussion that we are fully aware of the issue and are working to rectify it. The fact is that the development of the site started quite a while back. At that time Firefox was not so widely used. We are currently testing the site and it will soon be available on Firefox too.
Regret the inconvenience.
Thanking in anticipation.
Warm regards
Vishal Kapoor Manager-Marketing IDBI Capital Market Services Limited www.idbipaisabuilder.in
On Thursday 29 June 2006 12:48 pm, Philip Tellis wrote:
Got this response from someone at IDBI. email address and disclaimer removed before forwarding.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Vishal Kapoor Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:54 PM
Dear Sir
We got a google alert for the discussion you were having on gnowledge.org.
I have read through the whole thing. I wanted to reply to this there itself but could not find a way of doing it. And your mail ID was decipherable.
It would be great if you could tell the people on the discussion that we are fully aware of the issue and are working to rectify it. The fact is that the development of the site started quite a while back. At that time Firefox was not so widely used. We are currently testing the site and it will soon be available on Firefox too.
Regret the inconvenience.
Thanking in anticipation.
Warm regards
Vishal Kapoor Manager-Marketing IDBI Capital Market Services Limited www.idbipaisabuilder.in
Great. Perhaps he should be reminded about being standards compliant rather than being compatible with some browsers. However the W3C standards are patent encumbered afaik.
Sometime Today, j cobbled together some glyphs to say:
rather than being compatible with some browsers. However the W3C standards are patent encumbered afaik.
patents in themselves are not bad. when utilised for evil, that's when they become bad.
Bad uses of patents: - Stifle innovation - Prevent competition
Good uses of patents: - Protect small time inventors - Protect a standard from being embraced and extended
jtd, you need to learn not to create stereotypes for everything. A little knowledge is dangerous if you believe in it as fact. I'm sure you'll agree with me, that given the last point, and how we've suffered from it in the past, that this is a Good Thing.
Read the policy here: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/
You'll understand that the primary reason for this policy is so that the W3C standards are completely unencumbered with non-free clauses that make it unusable by the general public. It's sort of a GPL for standards and specifications.
Philip
On Thursday 29 June 2006 03:29 pm, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, j cobbled together some glyphs to say:
rather than being compatible with some browsers. However the W3C standards are patent encumbered afaik.
patents in themselves are not bad. when utilised for evil, that's when they become bad.
Agreed. Save the major problem of software and "fake" patents. I was referring strictly to software patents.
Bad uses of patents:
- Stifle innovation
- Prevent competition
Good uses of patents:
- Protect small time inventors
- Protect a standard from being embraced and extended
With the current patent system doing exactly the opposite of the above.
jtd, you need to learn not to create stereotypes for everything. A little knowledge is dangerous if you believe in it as fact. I'm sure you'll agree with me, that given the last point, and how we've suffered from it in the past, that this is a Good Thing.
Not quite. The W3C's acceptance of patent encumbered standards is fraught with danger, by exposing developers to legal action. U would be wasting time and money applying for permission to the patent holder then whetting the permissions thru a legal channels.
Read the policy here: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/
You'll understand that the primary reason for this policy is so that the W3C standards are completely unencumbered with non-free clauses that make it unusable by the general public. It's sort of a GPL for standards and specifications.
Patenting software is a very bad idea. W3C cloaks this stupiity with fancy words RAND and RF. Although W3C states that the standards are Royalty free and available on RAND terms, it effectively adds a thick legal layer precluding individuals / organisations from creating standards compliant systems without going thru a legal and technical whetting of the patent. This is imo completely unneccessary for any standard and in particular relating to software.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 05:50:19PM +0530, jtd wrote:
Patenting software is a very bad idea. W3C cloaks this stupiity with fancy words RAND and RF. Although W3C states that the standards are Royalty free and available on RAND terms, it effectively adds a thick legal layer precluding individuals / organisations from creating standards compliant systems without going thru a legal and technical whetting of the patent.
Can you explain it in simple terms? Does it mean that anyone who creates a website needs to seek legal permission from the royalty owners?
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
On 29/06/06 20:37 +0530, Rony wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 05:50:19PM +0530, jtd wrote:
Patenting software is a very bad idea. W3C cloaks this stupiity with fancy words RAND and RF. Although W3C states that the standards are Royalty free and available on RAND terms, it effectively adds a thick legal layer precluding individuals / organisations from creating standards compliant systems without going thru a legal and technical whetting of the patent.
Can you explain it in simple terms? Does it mean that anyone who creates a website needs to seek legal permission from the royalty owners?
Anyone who implements the patented technology. This would typically be browser makers, not website makers.
However, if a patent on dynamic generation of websites was able to get through, then every dynamic website hosted/developed/owned by a citizen of the country where that patent was granted would be liable.
Devdas Bhagat
On Thursday 29 June 2006 08:37 pm, Rony wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 05:50:19PM +0530, jtd wrote:
Patenting software is a very bad idea. W3C cloaks this stupiity with fancy words RAND and RF. Although W3C states that the standards are Royalty free and available on RAND terms, it effectively adds a thick legal layer precluding individuals / organisations from creating standards compliant systems without going thru a legal and technical whetting of the patent.
Can you explain it in simple terms? Does it mean that anyone who creates a website needs to seek legal permission from the royalty owners?
For use of the patented portion. How do u know whats patented?. Get the patent from the patent office. DONT READ IT or else u will be contaminated. Give it to a 2nd team who will read everything and read the standards and draft a spec that will not violate the patent. U can then read that spec and come up with code that works. the first team that read the patent will ofcourse never use the knowledge that they gained by reading the patent. You have effectively doubled your cost and work because a standard has been written based on technology that is patented (meaning that the standard is cooked to force use of the patent). Note that if a standard was written and somebody designed a compliant widget and patented that it would be no problem. There can be many solutions that differ substantially from the first solution.
RAND = Reasonable And Non Discriminatory. The patent owner decides what is reasonable. Like permission is granted for use subject to this NDA and subject to the recipient of your binary registering with me and No Disclosing Code. This is applicable to anyone who applies therefore ND. And no royalty under these terms so Royalty free clause satisfied. Of course if u need something less cumbersome and dont want to disclose your client list lets talk $$$. So that satisfies the Royalty Free clause. It is RF and ND and reasonable, it requires compliance that is commonplace for closed software. And effectively shuts out competition from libre software developers. RAND licences (for designing hardware) that i have seen require payment of a tiny royalty - 1 cent - subject to a minimum royalty of USD 100000. And the omnipresent NDA.
On 6/29/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Great. Perhaps he should be reminded about being standards compliant rather than being compatible with some browsers. However the W3C
HTML standards compliance is absolutely unheard of in colleges and, I'd hazard to say, even in most organisations. To be honest even I came to know about standards only recently. And I have been doing HTML (independently) since 3 years now.
Also, AFAIR, Firefox is also not ACID2 compliant. Opera and Konqueror are. I think the issue in case of these banking sites is cross-browser scripting. Scripting doesn't really have any standard does it?
Siddhesh
Sometime Today, SP cobbled together some glyphs to say:
On 6/29/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Great. Perhaps he should be reminded about being standards compliant rather than being compatible with some browsers. However the W3C
HTML standards compliance is absolutely unheard of in colleges and, I'd hazard to say, even in most organisations. To be honest even I came to know about standards only recently. And I have been doing HTML (independently) since 3 years now.
See http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/gbs/gbs.html
Also, AFAIR, Firefox is also not ACID2 compliant. Opera and Konqueror are. I think the issue in case of these banking sites is cross-browser scripting. Scripting doesn't really have any standard does it?
There is an ECMAScript specification. Javascript and Actionscript are ECMAScript implementations. Also read http://www.crockford.com/javascript/
Philip
On 6/29/06, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:
Got this response from someone at IDBI. email address and disclaimer removed before forwarding.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
It would be great if you could tell the people on the discussion that we are fully aware of the issue and are working to rectify it. The fact is that the development of the site started quite a while back. At that time Firefox was not so widely used. We are currently testing the site and it will soon be available on Firefox too.
This reminds me of HSBC site. Their e-banking site does not allow firefox. All it took to trick the suckers was a change in user-agent string.
The funny part ? Everything worked perfectly. I guess they added that blocker "just to be sure".
ICICI has a reasonably firefox friendly site. In part due to some people in there who love firefox and insist on keeping the site compatible.
regards, C
-
Chetan S -
Devdas Bhagat -
jtd -
Philip Tellis -
ronbillypopļ¼ yahoo.co.uk -
Siddhesh Poyarekar