On last.fm: Coldplay - Listen now!
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 18 of 34:
Next »
« Previous
When a device must be accurate...
... the government has a strong interest in testing that accuracy as well as possible.

If that meant opening up the software, I would be in favor of opening up the software.
(I remember Microsoft arguing to the Appeals Court that IP rights are more important than other principles more valued by the Court. The tossing out of the IP argument was barely polite.)

However, the best way to determine whether a device works is to test it directly.

I don't see how anyone could disagree with that. Certainly the State in question didn't. It set procedures for qualifying devices for bids and for testing individual examples of those devices when received. (I assume.)

If a device works, if it does what it's supposed to do by published definitions, why should testing the software used by the device make a difference?

If the testing is insufficient, identify a new test.

A Judge has to take IP rights into consideration, knowing there are more important principles. But I can't see how those principles are involved here.
Ultimately the only question is, did the device work properly. And there's little reason to think that looking at the software will be in any way more useful than the alternatives.


There's no reason at all to think it reasonable to set a requirement that all software supplied to a State must be open source.
Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 11/04/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Go straight to the blood test  John Zern | 11/03/05
Depending on the test..  Patrick Jones | 11/04/05
How do you think they test the blood?  Sir_Chancealot | 11/04/05
You can't force a blood test  bidemytime | 11/04/05
Yes  Real World | 11/04/05
This varies by state  archerjoe | 11/04/05
Actually, you can (but you shouldn't)  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
Cautionary tale from my state  bidemytime | 11/04/05
Good choice!  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
More like a fairtale  DarthRidiculous | 11/06/05
Before you go and begin believing in your rights  rhavyn | 11/04/05
Blood Test required???  BernieLyons | 11/04/05
Yes you do in NJ  DarthRidiculous | 11/06/05
I don't feel like doing that...that would hurt...  Grayson Peddie | 11/04/05
Technical information on devices used to convict someone must be public!  Root User | 11/04/05
Does the device work as intended?  Anton Philidor | 11/04/05
Sorry, I disagree.  Root User | 11/04/05
When a device must be accurate...  Anton Philidor | 11/04/05
States are interested in convictions, not accuracy  rhavyn | 11/04/05
The Courts worked...  Anton Philidor | 11/04/05
Just don't rely on the courts every time  rhavyn | 11/04/05
Faux naif argument  Anton Philidor | 11/04/05
I disagree  Real World | 11/04/05
What happened to testing?  salmon | 11/04/05
Yes and no.  Dr_Zinj | 11/04/05
finally somebody thinking "lowtech"  bongo_z | 11/04/05
Ivory tower thinking  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
Accurate?  HiRezL | 11/07/05
Forgot to mention...  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
Voting Machine are as Important  jtmort | 11/04/05
Not true, properly designed voting procedures will  Update victim | 11/04/05
But what if ...  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
They can and do force blood test  rhavyn | 11/04/05
Driving NOT a privilege  WCarlS | 11/04/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here