Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #429851 > unrolled thread

Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP blocher@columbus.rr.com - 2016-09-29 16:59 -0700
    Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP "John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 17:51 -0700
      Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2016-09-30 05:50 -0700
        Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2016-09-30 05:55 -0700
          Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-30 07:45 -0700
            Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-10-01 23:19 -0400
        Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> - 2016-10-01 00:15 +1000
          Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP jack4747@gmail.com - 2016-09-30 07:20 -0700
            Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-09-30 08:31 -0700
              Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-30 08:46 -0700
                Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2016-09-30 12:37 -0700
                  Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-30 14:23 -0700
                  Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Neon John <no@never.com> - 2016-10-01 10:47 -0400
                  Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2016-10-01 11:52 -0700
                    Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-10-01 15:06 -0400
                      Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2016-10-01 12:28 -0700
                      Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-10-01 23:21 -0400
                  Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2016-10-02 14:21 -0700
          Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-09-30 15:09 +0000
        Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-10-01 13:42 -0400
          Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-10-01 11:16 -0700
            Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-10-01 14:29 -0400
              Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-10-01 14:15 -0700
                Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2016-10-01 14:52 -0700
                  Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2016-10-01 15:12 -0700
                    Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2016-10-01 16:09 -0700
                      Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2016-10-01 16:11 -0700
                        Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2016-10-02 09:00 -0700
                          Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2016-10-02 09:11 -0700
                            Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-10-02 11:13 -0700
                  Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-10-01 15:23 -0700
                    Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-10-01 15:36 -0700
                      Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-10-01 15:48 -0700
                      Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2016-10-01 16:08 -0700
                        Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-10-01 20:01 -0400
                        Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-10-02 10:10 -0400
        Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-10-01 23:17 -0400
      Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-30 08:44 -0700
        Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP "John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 17:38 -0700
          Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-30 17:48 -0700
          Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2016-09-30 18:45 -0700
            Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2016-09-30 22:31 -0400
            Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP "John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 20:15 -0700
            Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2016-10-03 15:12 +0000
        Re: Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 14:56 +1100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#429851 — Qualcomm in talks to acquire NXP

This is getting downright confusing.  Freescale sold their stuff to NXP.  NXP sold its old RF power transistors to Ampleon.  Analog Devices buys Linear Tech.

The article said that the consolidation is due to a slow down in organic growth for the big chip makers and they are bundling together to start try to gain cost cutting across the two merged companies 


http://www.wsj.com/articles/qualcomm-in-talks-to-acquire-nxp-semiconductors-1475170033

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#429856

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:00:09 PM UTC-7, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/qualcomm-in-talks-to-acquire-nxp-semiconductors-1475170033

Bummer.  Qualcomm is nothing but an overstaffed law firm that occasionally sells semiconductors when they have nothing better to do.  

This is what happens if you post an online copy of a 15-year old, publicly available data sheet for a widely used part: http://www.ke5fx.com/usrc/q3236.pdf

Oops, it looks like they missed one: http://f1chf.free.fr/boite%20blanche/QUALCOMM/q3236.pdf

Bunch of asshats.

-- john, KE5FX

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429891

John Miles, KE5FX wrote...
>
> Bummer.  Qualcomm is nothing but an overstaffed law firm
> that occasionally sells semiconductors when they have
> nothing better to do.  
>
> This is what happens if you post an online copy of a
> 15-year old, publicly available data sheet for a
> widely used part: http://www.ke5fx.com/usrc/q3236.pdf
>
> Oops, it looks like they missed one:
> http://f1chf.free.fr/boite%20blanche/QUALCOMM/q3236.pdf
>
> Bunch of asshats.

 I've long been unhappy about public projects that
 chose to use a Qualcomm chip, because even basic
 information is kept unavailable.

 Lately NXP has been getting asshat inclinations, and
 locking datasheet pdf files, including many that have
 previously been released unlocked.  These files are
 locked with almost no permissions, so that you can't
 add a 'sticky-note' comment, extract a page for a
 report, or to help document a design, or do anything
 useful.  It's a snub in the face of the customer,
 and especially a slap to the face of an engineer
 who's trying to become a customer, dammit-all!

 Why in the world does NXP want to punch me in
 the face as I'm looking at a datasheet for a
 stupid little Schottky diode, for Pete's sake?

 If NXP becomes a Qualcomm company, I fear things
 will rapidly go further downhill.


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429892

Winfield Hill wrote...
>
> If NXP becomes a Qualcomm company, I fear things
> will rapidly go further downhill.

 They already make new or unfamiliar parts hard
 to find by hiding them behind arbitrarily-chosen
 market groupings, like automotive, lighting,
 wireless charging, etc., rather than by function,
 such as diode, MOSFET, etc.


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429905

On 30 Sep 2016 05:55:22 -0700, Winfield Hill
<hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

>Winfield Hill wrote...
>>
>> If NXP becomes a Qualcomm company, I fear things
>> will rapidly go further downhill.
>
> They already make new or unfamiliar parts hard
> to find by hiding them behind arbitrarily-chosen
> market groupings, like automotive, lighting,
> wireless charging, etc., rather than by function,
> such as diode, MOSFET, etc.

Yeah, I hate parts clustered by "application."

And why do I have to choose between "high speed dacs" and "precision
dacs" ?



-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430129

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:45:25 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On 30 Sep 2016 05:55:22 -0700, Winfield Hill
><hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>

>>Winfield Hill wrote...
>>>
>>> If NXP becomes a Qualcomm company, I fear things
>>> will rapidly go further downhill.
>>
>> They already make new or unfamiliar parts hard
>> to find by hiding them behind arbitrarily-chosen
>> market groupings, like automotive, lighting,
>> wireless charging, etc., rather than by function,
>> such as diode, MOSFET, etc.
>
>Yeah, I hate parts clustered by "application."
>
>And why do I have to choose between "high speed dacs" and "precision
>dacs" ?

Good, fast, available; pick two?  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429898

On 30/09/2016 22:50, Winfield Hill wrote:
...

>  Lately NXP has been getting asshat inclinations, and
>  locking datasheet pdf files, including many that have
>  previously been released unlocked.  These files are
>  locked with almost no permissions, so that you can't
>  add a 'sticky-note' comment, extract a page for a
>  report, or to help document a design, or do anything
>  useful.  It's a snub in the face of the customer,
>  and especially a slap to the face of an engineer
>  who's trying to become a customer, dammit-all!

NXP are completely stupid in doing that, but as a pragmatic work-around, 
have you tried a different PDF viewer? A lot of the restrictions that 
can be placed on the use of pdf files are as far as I can see not 
technically enforceable, it is just that when the wishes of the pdf 
creator (as expressed in the permission settings) are in comflict with 
the wishes of the person running the pdf viewer program, Adobe chooses 
to side with the person who created the pdf. If open source programs do 
anything sufficiently infuriating on purpose, then someone will usually 
fork it and make a better one. It is likely that things still won't 
work, but it will just as a result of of poor programming rather than 
malice, which I find a lot easier to live with.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429901

Il giorno venerdì 30 settembre 2016 16:16:01 UTC+2, Chris Jones ha scritto:
> On 30/09/2016 22:50, Winfield Hill wrote:
> ...
> 
> >  Lately NXP has been getting asshat inclinations, and
> >  locking datasheet pdf files, including many that have
> >  previously been released unlocked.  These files are
> >  locked with almost no permissions, so that you can't
> >  add a 'sticky-note' comment, extract a page for a
> >  report, or to help document a design, or do anything
> >  useful.  It's a snub in the face of the customer,
> >  and especially a slap to the face of an engineer
> >  who's trying to become a customer, dammit-all!
> 
> NXP are completely stupid in doing that, but as a pragmatic work-around, 
> have you tried a different PDF viewer? A lot of the restrictions that 
> can be placed on the use of pdf files are as far as I can see not 
> technically enforceable, it is just that when the wishes of the pdf 
> creator (as expressed in the permission settings) are in comflict with 
> the wishes of the person running the pdf viewer program, Adobe chooses 
> to side with the person who created the pdf. If open source programs do 
> anything sufficiently infuriating on purpose, then someone will usually 
> fork it and make a better one. It is likely that things still won't 
> work, but it will just as a result of of poor programming rather than 
> malice, which I find a lot easier to live with.

there also programs that completely remove those blocks so you can continue to use Adobe Reader to make notes, print, save, etc.
Just google: unprotect pdf

Bye Jack

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429917

Den fredag den 30. september 2016 kl. 16.20.31 UTC+2 skrev jack...@gmail.com:
> Il giorno venerdì 30 settembre 2016 16:16:01 UTC+2, Chris Jones ha scritto:
> > On 30/09/2016 22:50, Winfield Hill wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> > >  Lately NXP has been getting asshat inclinations, and
> > >  locking datasheet pdf files, including many that have
> > >  previously been released unlocked.  These files are
> > >  locked with almost no permissions, so that you can't
> > >  add a 'sticky-note' comment, extract a page for a
> > >  report, or to help document a design, or do anything
> > >  useful.  It's a snub in the face of the customer,
> > >  and especially a slap to the face of an engineer
> > >  who's trying to become a customer, dammit-all!
> > 
> > NXP are completely stupid in doing that, but as a pragmatic work-around, 
> > have you tried a different PDF viewer? A lot of the restrictions that 
> > can be placed on the use of pdf files are as far as I can see not 
> > technically enforceable, it is just that when the wishes of the pdf 
> > creator (as expressed in the permission settings) are in comflict with 
> > the wishes of the person running the pdf viewer program, Adobe chooses 
> > to side with the person who created the pdf. If open source programs do 
> > anything sufficiently infuriating on purpose, then someone will usually 
> > fork it and make a better one. It is likely that things still won't 
> > work, but it will just as a result of of poor programming rather than 
> > malice, which I find a lot easier to live with.
> 
> there also programs that completely remove those blocks so you can continue to use Adobe Reader to make notes, print, save, etc.
> Just google: unprotect pdf
> 

which is of course a violation of DMCA no matter how silly it is

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429923

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:31:13 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

>Den fredag den 30. september 2016 kl. 16.20.31 UTC+2 skrev jack...@gmail.com:
>> Il giorno venerdì 30 settembre 2016 16:16:01 UTC+2, Chris Jones ha scritto:
>> > On 30/09/2016 22:50, Winfield Hill wrote:
>> > ...
>> > 
>> > >  Lately NXP has been getting asshat inclinations, and
>> > >  locking datasheet pdf files, including many that have
>> > >  previously been released unlocked.  These files are
>> > >  locked with almost no permissions, so that you can't
>> > >  add a 'sticky-note' comment, extract a page for a
>> > >  report, or to help document a design, or do anything
>> > >  useful.  It's a snub in the face of the customer,
>> > >  and especially a slap to the face of an engineer
>> > >  who's trying to become a customer, dammit-all!
>> > 
>> > NXP are completely stupid in doing that, but as a pragmatic work-around, 
>> > have you tried a different PDF viewer? A lot of the restrictions that 
>> > can be placed on the use of pdf files are as far as I can see not 
>> > technically enforceable, it is just that when the wishes of the pdf 
>> > creator (as expressed in the permission settings) are in comflict with 
>> > the wishes of the person running the pdf viewer program, Adobe chooses 
>> > to side with the person who created the pdf. If open source programs do 
>> > anything sufficiently infuriating on purpose, then someone will usually 
>> > fork it and make a better one. It is likely that things still won't 
>> > work, but it will just as a result of of poor programming rather than 
>> > malice, which I find a lot easier to live with.
>> 
>> there also programs that completely remove those blocks so you can continue to use Adobe Reader to make notes, print, save, etc.
>> Just google: unprotect pdf
>> 
>
>which is of course a violation of DMCA no matter how silly it is

We are all criminals now. Get used to it.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429973

John Larkin wrote...
>
>On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:31:13 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
><langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
>>Den fredag den 30. september 2016 kl. 16.20.31 UTC+2 skrev jack...@gmail.com:
>>> Il giorno venerdė 30 settembre 2016 16:16:01 UTC+2, Chris Jones ha scritto:
>>> > On 30/09/2016 22:50, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>> > ...
>>> > 
>>> > >  Lately NXP has been getting asshat inclinations, and
>>> > >  locking datasheet pdf files, including many that have
>>> > >  previously been released unlocked.  These files are
>>> > >  locked with almost no permissions, so that you can't
>>> > >  add a 'sticky-note' comment, extract a page for a
>>> > >  report, or to help document a design, or do anything
>>> > >  useful.  It's a snub in the face of the customer,
>>> > >  and especially a slap to the face of an engineer
>>> > >  who's trying to become a customer, dammit-all!
>>> > 
>>> > NXP are completely stupid in doing that, but as a pragmatic work-around, 
>>> > have you tried a different PDF viewer? A lot of the restrictions that 
>>> > can be placed on the use of pdf files are as far as I can see not 
>>> > technically enforceable, it is just that when the wishes of the pdf 
>>> > creator (as expressed in the permission settings) are in comflict with 
>>> > the wishes of the person running the pdf viewer program, Adobe chooses 
>>> > to side with the person who created the pdf. If open source programs do 
>>> > anything sufficiently infuriating on purpose, then someone will usually 
>>> > fork it and make a better one. It is likely that things still won't 
>>> > work, but it will just as a result of of poor programming rather than 
>>> > malice, which I find a lot easier to live with.
>>> 
>>>there also programs that completely remove those blocks so you can continue to
>>>use Adobe Reader to make notes, print, save, etc.
>>> Just google: unprotect pdf
>>> 
>>
>>which is of course a violation of DMCA no matter how silly it is
>
>We are all criminals now. Get used to it.

 I was just telling Jim that I use PDF Password Remover 3.5,
 $35, as suggested to me by, ahem, a lawbreaker here on s.e.d.


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429975

On 30 Sep 2016 12:37:45 -0700, Winfield Hill
<hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

>John Larkin wrote...
>>
>>On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:31:13 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
>><langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:
>>
>>>Den fredag den 30. september 2016 kl. 16.20.31 UTC+2 skrev jack...@gmail.com:
>>>> Il giorno venerdì 30 settembre 2016 16:16:01 UTC+2, Chris Jones ha scritto:
>>>> > On 30/09/2016 22:50, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>> > ...
>>>> > 
>>>> > >  Lately NXP has been getting asshat inclinations, and
>>>> > >  locking datasheet pdf files, including many that have
>>>> > >  previously been released unlocked.  These files are
>>>> > >  locked with almost no permissions, so that you can't
>>>> > >  add a 'sticky-note' comment, extract a page for a
>>>> > >  report, or to help document a design, or do anything
>>>> > >  useful.  It's a snub in the face of the customer,
>>>> > >  and especially a slap to the face of an engineer
>>>> > >  who's trying to become a customer, dammit-all!
>>>> > 
>>>> > NXP are completely stupid in doing that, but as a pragmatic work-around, 
>>>> > have you tried a different PDF viewer? A lot of the restrictions that 
>>>> > can be placed on the use of pdf files are as far as I can see not 
>>>> > technically enforceable, it is just that when the wishes of the pdf 
>>>> > creator (as expressed in the permission settings) are in comflict with 
>>>> > the wishes of the person running the pdf viewer program, Adobe chooses 
>>>> > to side with the person who created the pdf. If open source programs do 
>>>> > anything sufficiently infuriating on purpose, then someone will usually 
>>>> > fork it and make a better one. It is likely that things still won't 
>>>> > work, but it will just as a result of of poor programming rather than 
>>>> > malice, which I find a lot easier to live with.
>>>> 
>>>>there also programs that completely remove those blocks so you can continue to
>>>>use Adobe Reader to make notes, print, save, etc.
>>>> Just google: unprotect pdf
>>>> 
>>>
>>>which is of course a violation of DMCA no matter how silly it is
>>
>>We are all criminals now. Get used to it.
>
> I was just telling Jim that I use PDF Password Remover 3.5,
> $35, as suggested to me by, ahem, a lawbreaker here on s.e.d.


It's probably illegal to email a PDF data sheet to someone else. Or to
yourself. 

I just installed the Lympha addon to Firefox. It deletes all cookies
of the current web site. So some paid content becomes free. So shoot
me.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430038

On 30 Sep 2016 12:37:45 -0700, Winfield Hill
<hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

> I was just telling Jim that I use PDF Password Remover 3.5,
> $35, as suggested to me by, ahem, a lawbreaker here on s.e.d.

In the Linux world, all this stuff is free.  The Ubuntu document
reader simply ignores the protection bits.  And pdftk is a utility
that allows one to do all sorts of things with pdf files.

John

John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.tnduction.com 
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430074

Could someone E-mail me a locked PDF?

I want to try an old method that's worked for me in the past.
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430075

On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 11:52:11 -0700, the renowned Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>Could someone E-mail me a locked PDF?
>
>I want to try an old method that's worked for me in the past.
>		
>                                        ...Jim Thompson

I sent you a small (72 page) one. 

The old method of printing to PDF stopped working a long time ago- you
get an otherwise blank output with something like this: 

ERROR: undefined
OFFENDING COMMAND: get
STACK:
/quit
-dictionary-
-mark

--sp 

-- 
Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
Amazon link for AoE 3rd Edition:            http://tinyurl.com/ntrpwu8

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430078

On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:06:30 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 11:52:11 -0700, the renowned Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>Could someone E-mail me a locked PDF?
>>
>>I want to try an old method that's worked for me in the past.
>>		
>>                                        ...Jim Thompson
>
>I sent you a small (72 page) one. 
>
>The old method of printing to PDF stopped working a long time ago- you
>get an otherwise blank output with something like this: 
>
>ERROR: undefined
>OFFENDING COMMAND: get
>STACK:
>/quit
>-dictionary-
>-mark
>
>--sp 

I sent you back my method.
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430130

On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:06:30 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 11:52:11 -0700, the renowned Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>Could someone E-mail me a locked PDF?
>>
>>I want to try an old method that's worked for me in the past.
>>		
>>                                        ...Jim Thompson
>
>I sent you a small (72 page) one. 
>
>The old method of printing to PDF stopped working a long time ago- you
>get an otherwise blank output with something like this: 

Still works for me, though sometimes the resultant PDF isn't
searchable.


>
>ERROR: undefined
>OFFENDING COMMAND: get
>STACK:
>/quit
>-dictionary-
>-mark
>
>--sp 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430158

On 30 Sep 2016 12:37:45 -0700, Winfield Hill
<hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

[snip]
>>
>>We are all criminals now. Get used to it.
>
> I was just telling Jim that I use PDF Password Remover 3.5,
> $35, as suggested to me by, ahem, a lawbreaker here on s.e.d.

It's now free for "personal use"...

<http://www.pdf-technologies.com/pdf-library-password-recovery.aspx>
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429912

Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 30/09/2016 22:50, Winfield Hill wrote:
> ...
>
>>  Lately NXP has been getting asshat inclinations, and
>>  locking datasheet pdf files, including many that have
>>  previously been released unlocked.  These files are
>>  locked with almost no permissions, so that you can't
>>  add a 'sticky-note' comment, extract a page for a
>>  report, or to help document a design, or do anything
>>  useful.  It's a snub in the face of the customer,
>>  and especially a slap to the face of an engineer
>>  who's trying to become a customer, dammit-all!
>
> NXP are completely stupid in doing that, but as a pragmatic work-around, 
> have you tried a different PDF viewer? A lot of the restrictions that 
> can be placed on the use of pdf files are as far as I can see not 
> technically enforceable, it is just that when the wishes of the pdf 
> creator (as expressed in the permission settings) are in comflict with 
> the wishes of the person running the pdf viewer program, Adobe chooses 
> to side with the person who created the pdf. If open source programs do 
> anything sufficiently infuriating on purpose, then someone will usually 
> fork it and make a better one. It is likely that things still won't 
> work, but it will just as a result of of poor programming rather than 
> malice, which I find a lot easier to live with.

This is true for some subset of PDF files, yes.  Other files are simply
unusable on other readers than Adobe Reader.  The Adobe PDF generation
software even inserts script code into the documents (the fact that PDF
documents can contain scripts already is very worrying...) that makes
the competing PDF viewers display popups that Adobe Reader is required
to view the document.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430063

On 30 Sep 2016 05:50:00 -0700, the renowned Winfield Hill
<hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

>
> Lately NXP has been getting asshat inclinations, and
> locking datasheet pdf files, including many that have
> previously been released unlocked.  These files are
> locked with almost no permissions, so that you can't
> add a 'sticky-note' comment, extract a page for a
> report, or to help document a design, or do anything
> useful.  It's a snub in the face of the customer,
> and especially a slap to the face of an engineer
> who's trying to become a customer, dammit-all!

I just strip the password protection with an Elcom app and save it. 

A couple of my banks have been pulling that stuff too sending CC
statements that are 'secured' so I can't add annotations.

The lack of openly available datasheets (without pleading and giving
them an NDA) is a real issue. A lot of Asian companies seem to think
that way. Something related to only giving a tinker's cuss about a
very few, very large customers, I think. 

--sp 

-- 
Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
Amazon link for AoE 3rd Edition:            http://tinyurl.com/ntrpwu8

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web