Re: Software for your intellectual property protection

"Jacques E. Bouchard" wrote:
> 
> Jack <"invention4u"@[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:bnpp5k$sfv$1
> @atlantis.news.tpi.pl:
> 
> >>         Well by gosh, if you say so then it must be so! By all
> means,
> >> don't let MY experience with OCR software detract you from your
> mantra!
> >
> > stop your stupid and irrelevant comments
> > anyone can download OCR software from net for free and test on his or
> > her own
> > Your bad experience with OCR software is irrelevant to the
> > state-of-the-art in OCR technology of today.
> 
>         If you think that you can get error-free optical character
> recognition from characters VIDEOTAPED on a CRT monitor, then you're
> not only talking out of your ass, you're displaying your ignorance.
stop talking the nonsenses

> 
> > OCR software much simpler than above named technologies
> > and OCR technology development has been almost completed.
> 
>         ICR relies on a dictionary and context to determine the words
> that it cannot read accurately. 
exactly as others do

It's the same wiht translation software
> and voic-recognition software. None of them operate anywhere near
> perfectly yet.
from high quality scans you can get 99% recognition rate
it depends on the original quality, font size and applied OCR software

> 
> > The issue in this thread is a supposed protection of copyrighted
> > materials against making copy.
> >
> > None avaliable or feasible yet.
> 
>         And that's what you can't get through your thick skull: it's a
> MOOT point (look up the word in a dictionary). 

MOOT POINT 
from:
http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-moo1.htm
"
Moot point is one of those phrases that once had a firm and
                        well-understood meaning, but no longer does. It
was just as you
                        say: a matter that was uncertain or undecided,
so open to debate.
                        It comes from the same source as meet and
originally had the
                        same meaning. In England in medieval times it
referred specifically
                        to an assembly of people, in particular one that
had some sort of
                        judicial function, and was often spelled mot or
mote. So you find
                        references to the witenagemot (the assembly of
the witan, the
                        national council of Anglo-Saxon times),
hundred-mote (where a
                        hundred was an Anglo-Saxon administrative area,
part of a county
                        or shire), and many others. So something that
was mooted was put
                        up for discussion and decision at a meeting—by
definition
                        something not yet decided.
                        The confusion over the meaning of moot point is
modern. It is a
                        misunderstanding of another sense of moot for a
discussion forum
                        in which hypothetical cases are argued by law
students for
                        practice. Since there is no practical outcome of
these sessions,
                        and the cases are invented anyway, people seem
to have
                        assumed that a moot point means one of no
importance. So we’ve
                        seen a curious shift in which the sense of “open
to debate” has
                        become “not worth debating”.
                        The mute spelling is a development that has come
about because
                        moot is now a fossil word, usually encountered
only in this phrase;
                        there is an understandable tendency to convert
the unknown into
                        the known, and mute seems to fit the new meaning
rather better.
                        But it’s wrong.
########

Arguing whether OCR
> would or would NOT render a protection scheme useless is beside the
> point because virtually no one would ever bother to try to steal some
> derivative piece of crap sent in by a paranoid newbie who asks that
> producers jump through hoops just to read his piece of drivel.

completely wrong
the idea of making edited text copy-proof is great
and there is a number of already known solutions

but one provided by Adviser N1, called text viewer, showed having
provided no protection against making copy in a process incorporating
the use of OCR software.

POINT

-- 
Jack
Inventor of Tomosonography and Tomoultrasonography
______________________________
Global Inventors Organization
20 inventions for auction sale
starting bid $ 100 a piece