Slashdot Mirror

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/PC-Schrauber-zur-Kasse-284482.html&prev=search

How is carrying a laptop in luggage any "safer" than carrying it in the passenger cabin?

I seem to remember that luggage/cargo within the plane is placed inside specially designed containers that absorb the forces of bombs?

If so, it would be safer but by how much I do not know. Which airlines use these, not sure.

...performed a quick google search:
US patent from 1994, Containers for use on aircraft for the protection of aircraft structures: http://www.freepatentsonline.c...

from 1999, Aircraft luggage bomb protection system: http://www.freepatentsonline.c...

from 2009, Explosion resistant cargo container: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/49...

How is carrying a laptop in luggage any "safer" than carrying it in the passenger cabin?

I seem to remember that luggage/cargo within the plane is placed inside specially designed containers that absorb the forces of bombs?

If so, it would be safer but by how much I do not know. Which airlines use these, not sure.

...performed a quick google search:
US patent from 1994, Containers for use on aircraft for the protection of aircraft structures: http://www.freepatentsonline.c...

from 1999, Aircraft luggage bomb protection system: http://www.freepatentsonline.c...

from 2009, Explosion resistant cargo container: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/49...

This is still a speculation. The drug does seem to be called BIA 10-2474, according to recruitment materials from the drug testing company. There is only circumstantial evidence that this is a fatty acid amide hydroxylase (FAAH) inhibitor. The speculations are based on patent filings by the pharmaceutical company which ordered the trial (Bial) and the general description that the drugs was "meant to act on the body’s endocannabinoid system". FAAH is an enzyme that among other things degrades endocanabinoids. The rational is that if you slow the degradation of endocanabinoids you will experience less pain (works on mice). So far nobody who is in position to know it has made a statement as to the specific mode of action of the drug or its chemical structure.

According to fairly vague statements it seems that they were doing a dose escalation study, where different groups of people are given increasing doses of the compound in order to determine the point where the side effects start to show up. The people who got injured were in the group that received the highest dose. Usually this is done very carefully so you can stop before the side effects become severe. However, the response to drugs is not always in linear relationship with the dose and a small increase over a certain threshold may produce very severe adverse effects. This is always worked out in advance on lab animals (mice, rats, rabbits, etc). In the patent application they only cite testing in mice. Subtle differences in the biology of lab animals and humans have caused at least one other clinical trial to turn into a disaster. Of course there is always the possibility that somebody screwed up the dosing and gave them more than they should have received.

Fuck scribd, I can't even really read in their interface. A third of my screen is covered by their various bars etc. And on android (where I've originally read it) they only let me "read further" if I install their app. So, I've tried to download it as pdf, but what happened? They asked me to create an account. With facebook. Man, it seems like every bad thing about the startup age accumulated.

So, for anybody who wants a link to an actually readable pdf: http://www.freepatentsonline.c...

A lot of beekeepers have expressed their opinions about this, though some are more simple speculations than suitable arguments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://www.honeybeesuite.com/s...

The patent for this device can be found here http://www.freepatentsonline.c...

The biggest issue I have is the issues for pest mitigation. Small Hive Beetles could conceivably thrive in this device with some of the crevices created. However, it may be possible to incorporate an oil trap or some other measure.
What people seem to identify as being the biggest issue is the marketing towards ease of honey retrieval, don't need to really deal with the bees at all. That's certainly the biggest misnomer when talking to people about starting a beehive: It's all about the honey! It certainly isn't, and takes a lot more effort than a newcomer might expect. As one person identified: I'll take a look at this when people start selling their used Flow hives 6 months from now (due to too much work, no quick turnaround of honey profit, etc.)

TL;DR: If you care about open source hardware development, share early and share frequently so that we can establish a public record of prior art, should this come up again. I"m the owner of OpenBeamUSA and the author of the blog post. Yes, you are correct, a provisional patent was filed a year prior to the Oct 29th, 2013 filing date that is on file with the USPTO. However, (and please correct me if I am wrong on this - I am not a patent lawyer) it is my understanding that for the claims to be valid to the Oct 2012 date, they have to be present in the 2012 patent. Companies patenting things normally file a "junk" patent to hold their place in line, where they make one or two very basic claim about their products. Then in the course of the year, they pile in the rest of the claims and flesh it out. Only the claims that are supported by the 2012 provisional patent filing dates can be backdated to the 2012 priority date. In other words, if I claimed that I invented a computer controlled hot glue gun (my newbie friendly explanation of what a 3D Printer is) on Oct 2012 but added in Oct 2013 that my claim involves putting a switch on the glue gun head, the 2013 date is what the patent examiner would go by when examining prior art. Without being able to see what was filed in Oct 2012, it is not 100% clear whether Mr. Graber's video constitutes as prior art. My guess though, is that Makerbot did not actually have everything fleshed out in October of 2012. Given that in March of 2013, they are still relying on their community for improvement ideas: http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2... - which is now subjected to scrutiny due to another one of their patents: http://www.freepatentsonline.c... (The alternative explanation is that they actually did have their stuff together to file patents on the new extruder design, but intentionally shipped a substandard product leaving the community to fix it. Neither scenario paints them in a good light.) This one is going to be interesting to watch. While the US moved from first to invent to first to file during the time this patent was in provisional patent status, prior art invalidates both first to invent and first to file. The real question is can they find a way around all this prior art claim, when one of Makerbot's founder (Zack) was an active contributor to the reprap project. My guess is that the IP is sufficiently tainted that it would be very hard to find a path forward that has no prior art. While the legitimacy of the prior art I've sited is being questioned, my real objectives are: A) To encourage other Open Source Hardware developers to keep sharing, early and often to establish prior art in a public way, and B) Raise awareness that Makerbot is trying to patent ideas that originated from within the Reprap community, and to show how we can work within the USPTO's system to challenge said patents. This way people who are more knowledgeable than I can step forward and fight this. And given that there's a bunch of people now posting various examples of automated bed levelling dating back to 2008, I've seemed to have done my job to get the ball rolling. -=- Terence

And here they are, attempting to patent said extruder drive design: http://www.freepatentsonline.c...

They're taking things from the open source RepRap community and attempting to patent them. Do not support MakerBot. Do not buy their machines. And advise everyone you know not to purchase their machines should they be considering it.

D-Wave's publication list is here.

Patents can be found just as easily.

After reviewing the documents please let me know what you feel is missing and should be disclosed.

It concerns patent EP0618540. Looks like FAT-32 to me, at first sight.

Calm down before you all jump on the "Enable" wagon. It's actually a decently details filing with less ambiguous wording than assumed.

Abstract: "Embodiments herein relate to a method for forming a bulk solidifying amorphous alloy sheets have different surface finish including a “fire” polish surface like that of a float glass. In one embodiment, a first molten metal alloy is poured on a second molten metal of higher density in a float chamber to form a sheet of the first molten that floats on the second molten metal and cooled to form a bulk solidifying amorphous alloy sheet. In another embodiment, a molten metal is poured on a conveyor conveying the sheet of the first molten metal on a conveyor and cooled to form a bulk solidifying amorphous alloy sheet. The cooling rate such that a time-temperature profile during the cooling does not traverse through a region bounding a crystalline region of the metal alloy in a time-temperature-transformation (TTT) diagram. "
This is it -> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8485245.html
PDF -> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8485245.pdf

Calm down before you all jump on the "Enable" wagon. It's actually a decently details filing with less ambiguous wording than assumed.

Abstract: "Embodiments herein relate to a method for forming a bulk solidifying amorphous alloy sheets have different surface finish including a “fire” polish surface like that of a float glass. In one embodiment, a first molten metal alloy is poured on a second molten metal of higher density in a float chamber to form a sheet of the first molten that floats on the second molten metal and cooled to form a bulk solidifying amorphous alloy sheet. In another embodiment, a molten metal is poured on a conveyor conveying the sheet of the first molten metal on a conveyor and cooled to form a bulk solidifying amorphous alloy sheet. The cooling rate such that a time-temperature profile during the cooling does not traverse through a region bounding a crystalline region of the metal alloy in a time-temperature-transformation (TTT) diagram. "
This is it -> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8485245.html
PDF -> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8485245.pdf

No that's just how airplane fuselage is constructed.

These are the list of frivolous, prior art ridden patents Microsoft used to try and extort money from Barnes and Noble. When the trial was about to go to court a magical partnership was established between Microsoft and Barnes & Noble and the lawsuit was dropped. It's a pity more companies don't stand up to these patent trolls.

Microsoft vs.Barnes and Noble

5778372
6339780
5889522
6891551
6957233

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5778372.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6339780.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5889522.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6891551.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6957233.html

U.S. Patent No. 5778372 Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images. A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic document. Further, the browser dynamically creates additional connections for retrieving resources incorporated into the electronic document from the remote computer network.

U.S. Patent No. 6339780 Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area. Described herein is a portable computer having a limited display area. An Internet or other hypermedia browser executes on the portable computer to load and display content in a content viewing area. During times when the browser is loading content, the browser displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content.

U.S. Patent No. 5889522 System Provided Child Window Controls. New varieties of child window controls are provided as system resources that application programs may exploit. The preferred embodiment of the present invention provides a dynamic link library (DLL) for implementing the new child window controls as part of an operating system. The new child window controls include a header bar control for providing header bars in application programs. The new controls also include a hot key control that allows a user to view and edit hot key combinations. The new controls further include a tab control for establishing tabs that differentiate amongst pages in user interfaces provided by application programs. An image list data type is defined and functions are provided for manipulating the image list data type. Image lists include multiple like-sized images that are stored efficiently in a single bitmap.

U.S. Patent No. 6891551 Selection Handles in Editing Electronic Documents. A computer system and method for highlighting and selecting elements of electronic documents is disclosed. In one embodiment, a selection area identifies an initial selection of data, and one or more selection handles appear on the selection area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area to select a larger or smaller portion of data or number of items.

U.S. Patent No. 6957233 Method and Apparatus for Capturing and Rendering Annotations for Non-Modifiable Electronic Content. A system and method for capturing annotations for a non-modifiable document is disclosed. Once it is determined that an annotation is to be created, the system determines the file position of the selected object. The file position of the selected object is stored along with the created annotation in another file or a non-read only po

These are the list of frivolous, prior art ridden patents Microsoft used to try and extort money from Barnes and Noble. When the trial was about to go to court a magical partnership was established between Microsoft and Barnes & Noble and the lawsuit was dropped. It's a pity more companies don't stand up to these patent trolls.

Microsoft vs.Barnes and Noble

5778372
6339780
5889522
6891551
6957233

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5778372.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6339780.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5889522.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6891551.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6957233.html

U.S. Patent No. 5778372 Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images. A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic document. Further, the browser dynamically creates additional connections for retrieving resources incorporated into the electronic document from the remote computer network.

U.S. Patent No. 6339780 Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area. Described herein is a portable computer having a limited display area. An Internet or other hypermedia browser executes on the portable computer to load and display content in a content viewing area. During times when the browser is loading content, the browser displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content.

U.S. Patent No. 5889522 System Provided Child Window Controls. New varieties of child window controls are provided as system resources that application programs may exploit. The preferred embodiment of the present invention provides a dynamic link library (DLL) for implementing the new child window controls as part of an operating system. The new child window controls include a header bar control for providing header bars in application programs. The new controls also include a hot key control that allows a user to view and edit hot key combinations. The new controls further include a tab control for establishing tabs that differentiate amongst pages in user interfaces provided by application programs. An image list data type is defined and functions are provided for manipulating the image list data type. Image lists include multiple like-sized images that are stored efficiently in a single bitmap.

U.S. Patent No. 6891551 Selection Handles in Editing Electronic Documents. A computer system and method for highlighting and selecting elements of electronic documents is disclosed. In one embodiment, a selection area identifies an initial selection of data, and one or more selection handles appear on the selection area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area to select a larger or smaller portion of data or number of items.

U.S. Patent No. 6957233 Method and Apparatus for Capturing and Rendering Annotations for Non-Modifiable Electronic Content. A system and method for capturing annotations for a non-modifiable document is disclosed. Once it is determined that an annotation is to be created, the system determines the file position of the selected object. The file position of the selected object is stored along with the created annotation in another file or a non-read only po

These are the list of frivolous, prior art ridden patents Microsoft used to try and extort money from Barnes and Noble. When the trial was about to go to court a magical partnership was established between Microsoft and Barnes & Noble and the lawsuit was dropped. It's a pity more companies don't stand up to these patent trolls.

Microsoft vs.Barnes and Noble

5778372
6339780
5889522
6891551
6957233

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5778372.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6339780.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5889522.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6891551.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6957233.html

U.S. Patent No. 5778372 Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images. A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic document. Further, the browser dynamically creates additional connections for retrieving resources incorporated into the electronic document from the remote computer network.

U.S. Patent No. 6339780 Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area. Described herein is a portable computer having a limited display area. An Internet or other hypermedia browser executes on the portable computer to load and display content in a content viewing area. During times when the browser is loading content, the browser displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content.

U.S. Patent No. 5889522 System Provided Child Window Controls. New varieties of child window controls are provided as system resources that application programs may exploit. The preferred embodiment of the present invention provides a dynamic link library (DLL) for implementing the new child window controls as part of an operating system. The new child window controls include a header bar control for providing header bars in application programs. The new controls also include a hot key control that allows a user to view and edit hot key combinations. The new controls further include a tab control for establishing tabs that differentiate amongst pages in user interfaces provided by application programs. An image list data type is defined and functions are provided for manipulating the image list data type. Image lists include multiple like-sized images that are stored efficiently in a single bitmap.

U.S. Patent No. 6891551 Selection Handles in Editing Electronic Documents. A computer system and method for highlighting and selecting elements of electronic documents is disclosed. In one embodiment, a selection area identifies an initial selection of data, and one or more selection handles appear on the selection area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area to select a larger or smaller portion of data or number of items.

U.S. Patent No. 6957233 Method and Apparatus for Capturing and Rendering Annotations for Non-Modifiable Electronic Content. A system and method for capturing annotations for a non-modifiable document is disclosed. Once it is determined that an annotation is to be created, the system determines the file position of the selected object. The file position of the selected object is stored along with the created annotation in another file or a non-read only po

These are the list of frivolous, prior art ridden patents Microsoft used to try and extort money from Barnes and Noble. When the trial was about to go to court a magical partnership was established between Microsoft and Barnes & Noble and the lawsuit was dropped. It's a pity more companies don't stand up to these patent trolls.

Microsoft vs.Barnes and Noble

5778372
6339780
5889522
6891551
6957233

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5778372.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6339780.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5889522.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6891551.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6957233.html

U.S. Patent No. 5778372 Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images. A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic document. Further, the browser dynamically creates additional connections for retrieving resources incorporated into the electronic document from the remote computer network.

U.S. Patent No. 6339780 Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area. Described herein is a portable computer having a limited display area. An Internet or other hypermedia browser executes on the portable computer to load and display content in a content viewing area. During times when the browser is loading content, the browser displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content.

U.S. Patent No. 5889522 System Provided Child Window Controls. New varieties of child window controls are provided as system resources that application programs may exploit. The preferred embodiment of the present invention provides a dynamic link library (DLL) for implementing the new child window controls as part of an operating system. The new child window controls include a header bar control for providing header bars in application programs. The new controls also include a hot key control that allows a user to view and edit hot key combinations. The new controls further include a tab control for establishing tabs that differentiate amongst pages in user interfaces provided by application programs. An image list data type is defined and functions are provided for manipulating the image list data type. Image lists include multiple like-sized images that are stored efficiently in a single bitmap.

U.S. Patent No. 6891551 Selection Handles in Editing Electronic Documents. A computer system and method for highlighting and selecting elements of electronic documents is disclosed. In one embodiment, a selection area identifies an initial selection of data, and one or more selection handles appear on the selection area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area to select a larger or smaller portion of data or number of items.

U.S. Patent No. 6957233 Method and Apparatus for Capturing and Rendering Annotations for Non-Modifiable Electronic Content. A system and method for capturing annotations for a non-modifiable document is disclosed. Once it is determined that an annotation is to be created, the system determines the file position of the selected object. The file position of the selected object is stored along with the created annotation in another file or a non-read only po

These are the list of frivolous, prior art ridden patents Microsoft used to try and extort money from Barnes and Noble. When the trial was about to go to court a magical partnership was established between Microsoft and Barnes & Noble and the lawsuit was dropped. It's a pity more companies don't stand up to these patent trolls.

Microsoft vs.Barnes and Noble

5778372
6339780
5889522
6891551
6957233

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5778372.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6339780.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5889522.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6891551.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6957233.html

U.S. Patent No. 5778372 Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images. A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic document. Further, the browser dynamically creates additional connections for retrieving resources incorporated into the electronic document from the remote computer network.

U.S. Patent No. 6339780 Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area. Described herein is a portable computer having a limited display area. An Internet or other hypermedia browser executes on the portable computer to load and display content in a content viewing area. During times when the browser is loading content, the browser displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content.

U.S. Patent No. 5889522 System Provided Child Window Controls. New varieties of child window controls are provided as system resources that application programs may exploit. The preferred embodiment of the present invention provides a dynamic link library (DLL) for implementing the new child window controls as part of an operating system. The new child window controls include a header bar control for providing header bars in application programs. The new controls also include a hot key control that allows a user to view and edit hot key combinations. The new controls further include a tab control for establishing tabs that differentiate amongst pages in user interfaces provided by application programs. An image list data type is defined and functions are provided for manipulating the image list data type. Image lists include multiple like-sized images that are stored efficiently in a single bitmap.

U.S. Patent No. 6891551 Selection Handles in Editing Electronic Documents. A computer system and method for highlighting and selecting elements of electronic documents is disclosed. In one embodiment, a selection area identifies an initial selection of data, and one or more selection handles appear on the selection area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area to select a larger or smaller portion of data or number of items.

U.S. Patent No. 6957233 Method and Apparatus for Capturing and Rendering Annotations for Non-Modifiable Electronic Content. A system and method for capturing annotations for a non-modifiable document is disclosed. Once it is determined that an annotation is to be created, the system determines the file position of the selected object. The file position of the selected object is stored along with the created annotation in another file or a non-read only po

I do agree you should not have been modded down. Contrary to what some might think (you included, apparently) since I defended Apple here, I actually prefer it when people correct errors that I make in my statements, or offer some well-considered dissension.

That said, I do disagree with you. You seem to be under the incorrect belief that the design patent you've cited is the relevant one when it comes to the rounded corners meme. It isn't. That one's for the iPad mini and was issued late last year. The iPhone design patents are what started the rounded corners meme and are what was being referenced. Regardless, the reason you're not correct about that patent is because the details of those diagrams constitute claims that are legally binding. As such, for a competing product to be infringing, it would need to be infringing on the circular corners, flat face and back, the shape of the tapered edge that leads to the rear case, etc., etc., etc.. So, yes, that design patent does contain quite a bit more than just rounded corners. I do consider myself an Apple fanboy, but I do my best to be fair.

Regarding Coca-Cola. your ad hominem paragraph doesn't seem to contain any specific, factual claims that contradict anything I said. In fact, I have no idea what precisely you're disagreeing with, since you resorted to attacking me instead of citing something in particular that you disagreed with. The fact is, I chose it specifically because it's the most famous example and I wanted to make sure everyone knew what I was talking about. I'm glad you're aware that it's famous as well, but I'm disappointed that you missed my point.

The Coca-Cola bottle design patent includes a diagram of the specific curves that are claimed, so while "curves" were indeed claimed in the design patent, it wasn't just "curves": it was THOSE curves, and as such, other bottlers were fully capable of making bottles with curved sides, so long as they were distinct from Coca-Cola's bottles. That was my point, since the same is true with Apple's design patents (though I'll readily agree that some of them are rather vague/broad, including the one you've cited). Other companies would not only need to be infringing on the curves that Apple chose, but also on the other features (e.g. in the iPad mini design patent you cited, they'd also have to have the flat front and back and the curved sides that taper into the back, among other traits). Microsoft made a big deal about their 22-degree chamfered edges on the Surface line, which elegantly gets around all of Apple's design patents, even if the other traits are the same. Other companies only need to change one trait significantly in order to circumvent those design patents.

As for the claim that Apple's patent didn't contain anything else, I've already addressed that point, and if you look through some of the various iPhone design patents, you can see that the same arguments I've made already would apply to them as well. Here are some of them:
http://www.google.com/patents/USD593087
http://www.google.com/patents/USD618677
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/D672769.pdf

Long story short, you seem to have accused me of derping on one point and automatically being wrong, then dismissed everything after that as being wrong as well, even though you never said why I was wrong in the first place. I'd actually be very eager to hear why you thought I was wrong about Coke.

They only asked him about Samsung

That's not correct. Samsung brought this up in their appeal.

Jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose truthfully during voir dire that he had sued and been sued by his former employer, Seagate, despite the Court’s express question asking him whether he had ever been a party to any litigation.

In the jury selection Hogan failed to mention the seagate lawsuit, but rather deflected by citing a smaller lawsuit that wasn't actually brought to court. link to pdf of questioning

Maybe I misunderstood your original statement... You said "From what I could tell, the jury foreman lied by omission when he was being questioned about his previous relationships with Samsung/Seagate." He was questioned about whether he had any relationships to the parties in the case, Samsung and Apple, which is what I thought you were referring to. He was never questioned about his relationship with Seagate. From the opinion denying juror misconduct:

Despite [the Seagate/Samsung] relationship, counsel for Samsung did not ask Mr. Hogan about this relationship with Seagate, and did not seek to elicit any information about whether that relationship might influence Mr. Hogan’s view in any way.

He was also asked if he had been in any litigation, and as you note, he failed to mention the prior trial... However, during voir dire, Samsung looked into Hogan's file and saw the bankruptcy proceeding, and then ignored it:

Samsung has waived its claim for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial based on Mr. Hogan’s alleged dishonesty during voir dire. Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan’s litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate.

As I said earlier, it's likely that Samsung did know of Hogan's relationship to Seagate and kept that information secret so that they could bring it up, as they did, in the event of an adverse jury decision. I'm sure they would have kept it silent if he had been biased the other way, filled with loyal feelings for Seagate/Samsung, and the jury came back with a decision of non-infringement. That's not allowed in real court, though, even if it's standard fare for Boston Legal.

Notice I used the word "dubious". I was referring specifically to Hogan's seemingly weak patent on a tivo-like technology, and how that could be seen to bias him towards defending flimsy or overly broad patents. As you say, Samsung should have taken this into consideration.

(i) What makes that "seemingly weak"? I mean, check out that independent claim - it's huge, and really narrow. It's a weak patent from an enforcement perspective, but less so from a validity perspective. Plus, it's not even a software patent - it's only claiming a hardware machine.

(ii) In my experience, many inventors think that their patents are strong and valid, while others are flimsy or overly broad. Nothing leads to the conclusion that an inventor must think their own patent is flimsy and therefore want to defend other flimsy patents, as opposed to the conclusion that the inventor thinks their own patent is strong and wants to get rid of flimsy patents to clear the chaff from the wheat.

Honestly, jury selection is complicated, with factors on both sides. Samsung may have kept Hogan on the jury because, being an engineer, they thought he was like many Slashdotters and would be anti-software patents (particularly wit

They only asked him about Samsung

That's not correct. Samsung brought this up in their appeal.

Jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose truthfully during voir dire that he had sued and been sued by his former employer, Seagate, despite the Court’s express question asking him whether he had ever been a party to any litigation.

In the jury selection Hogan failed to mention the seagate lawsuit, but rather deflected by citing a smaller lawsuit that wasn't actually brought to court. link to pdf of questioning

So should no one who's an inventor on a patent be involved in a patent trial?

You're right that we shouldn't bar experts and those knowledgeable in the field, and that holding a patent isn't, by default, indicative of bias. Notice I used the word "dubious". I was referring specifically to Hogan's seemingly weak patent on a tivo-like technology, and how that could be seen to bias him towards defending flimsy or overly broad patents. As you say, Samsung should have taken this into consideration.

Just because the paperwork is long does not mean the patented idea has any real innovation.

For example, Halliburton patenting the patenting process: Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party

Or exercising a cat with a laser pointer

Just because the paperwork is long does not mean the patented idea has any real innovation.

For example, Halliburton patenting the patenting process: Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party

Or exercising a cat with a laser pointer

TLDR: Mark of the Beast contender (RFID) makes way to CDROMS as method to communicate with hardware.
--
Examining Sony's Internet-free method for blocking used game sales

New patent filing describes using RFID chips to tie games to a single user.

by Kyle Orland - Jan 3, 2013 5:55 pm UTC

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/examining-sonys-internet-free-method-for-blocking-used-game-sales/

"A newly published patent application filed by Sony outlines a content protection system that would use small RFID chips embedded on game discs to prevent used games from being played on its systems, all without requiring an online connection. Filed in September and still awaiting approval from the US Patent Office, the patent application[1] for an "electronic content processing system, electronic content processing method, package of electronic content, and use permission apparatus" describes a system "that reliably restricts the use of electronic content dealt in the second-hand markets."

[1] http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2013/0007892.html

Used game sales continue to be a major concern for many big-name publishers and developers, who see the practice as a drain on the revenue they earn from selling new software. Sony's patent explicitly points out that suppressing the used game market will "[support] the redistribution of part of proceeds from sales of the electronic content to the developers."

The used-game blocking method described in the patent involves a "radiofrequency tag" and a type of programmable ROM chip that are paired with each game disc and can communicate wirelessly with the game system. The tag and chip can be used to store "unique information" about each console the game has been played on. Thus, when the game is used on a second system, the unique information stored on the disc can be compared to the information stored inside the new hardware, and in turn checked against "use permission" data stored on the EEPROM chip itself. As described in the patent, this "unique information" could be a system identifier or some sort of unique user ID that is somewhat portable between systems.

The patent describes users being asked to "pass the use permission tag over the RF reader/writer," suggesting some sort of near-field communication (NFC) area on the system itself that is used to launch this confirmation process. The patent also describes the RFID tag being used to decrypt content on the disc, which could provide a method for locking certain on-disc content to certain users who have unlocked or paid for the privilege. The system would theoretically also make game discs much harder to pirate, since illicit copiers would have to include correctly configured security chips in their copies, rather than using off the shelf media.

Of course, the fact that Sony has applied to patent this idea is a far cry from confirmation that this kind of protection system is in the works for the PlayStation 4. Even if it is, Sony could easily leave it to individual publishers to decide whether or not to implement it. In May, industry analyst Michael Pachter recounted a conversation[2] with SCEA president Jack Tretton where the Sony executive said he was "totally opposed to blocking used games."

[2] http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-05-14-pachter-claims-sonys-jack-tretton-supports-used-games

It was about this time last year that rumors started to swirl that Microsoft was planning to block used games from being playable on the next Xbox. In March, similar rumors popped up surrounding the PlayStation 4[3], codenamed "Orbis" in leaked documents.

[3]

Hey I don't know how many of you are attempting to review the patent in question, but it's very difficult for non-MSIE users to load the figures included in the patent. It would be cool if posters would instead link to freepatentsonline.com rather than (or in addition to) the uspto.gov website. Here's a PDF of the patent in question: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8296373.pdf

Does anyone know why two American companies are suing each other in Germany? Are these German patents?

Two reasons that I can think of...

1. The patent in question is european (although it appears to be also filed as a US patent as well).
2. The law firm they are using, Bardehle Pagenberg, has apparently won more injunctions against Android than any other law firm in the world.

AFAIK, the patent in question actually came into Microsoft's possession after it purchased Multimap.com (a UK based company) back in 2007, which jives with the european flavor of this dispute.

Does anyone know why two American companies are suing each other in Germany? Are these German patents?

Two reasons that I can think of...

1. The patent in question is european (although it appears to be also filed as a US patent as well).
2. The law firm they are using, Bardehle Pagenberg, has apparently won more injunctions against Android than any other law firm in the world.

AFAIK, the patent in question actually came into Microsoft's possession after it purchased Multimap.com (a UK based company) back in 2007, which jives with the european flavor of this dispute.

> "The state's conservative attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, had, among other things, demanded access to the climatologist's emails, arguing that Mann might have manipulated data and thus defrauded the government in applying for scientific grants."

Ken Cuccinelli *might* beat his wife. I demand access to his wife's medical records.

Really, it doesn't matter if the emails are released or not. If they are not released, then there will be a whole "What are they trying to hide?!?!" campaign. If they are released, then no matter what is in the emails, the conservative pundits will find some sentence fragment to post on their blogs, which will then get posted to facebook and tweeted and retweeted, and it will be played on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and on Beck and on Hannity, and all of their followers will say "See? We told you something fishy was going on, and this is ABSOLUTE proof!!", even though the actual context of the email would reveal that it proves nothing of the sort.

Here's my go to example of this kind of thing. Here, Glenn Beck (with the help of Utah Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz) describes a patent held by Fannie Mae that covers a tamper proof outlet cover. The idea is that companies can use these to keep employees from plugging high-power devices into outlets that are on the same circuits as PCs, so that breakers won't trip and unsaved work won't be lost. But what Beck explains is that this will make it so that the government can lock the outlets in your house so that you won't use too much electricity. Beck's explanation doesn't even make sense for so many practical and logistical reasons, but apparently his fans didn't think to question that.

Beck and Chaffetz both claim that the patent itself says that it's for home use, not for commercial or office use, which is exactly opposite of what the text of the patent describes. Not only is the patent text freely available online -- like all patents -- Beck clearly had access to it because he has the diagram from the patent printed out on a large paper, for use as a visual aid. The description in the patent text repeatedly describes the use of the invention in an office environment. The only mention of home use is a comparison to the baby-proofing outlet covers, but the text is clear that the invention is for office use, not in homes. Beck points at the diagram and shows how "they" come into your home and lock the outlet cover in place, so you can't remove it. Completely ignoring that A) it's not for homes, it's for offices; B) "They" is not government agencies, it's the facilities managers who work for the companies that would use this, and C) "You", are the employee that's not supposed to plug stuff in, not the homeowner who just wants to use his own electricity at home.

They also quote a letter that Jason Chaffetz received from Fannie Mae's legal counsel regarding the issue. The letter very plainly explains all of the questions that Beck frames in such a sinister way, even though Beck makes it sound like the lawyer who wrote it was being evasive. If someone were to actually read the letter, they would see very plainly that the patented invention was not invented for anything to do with Climate Change, and that it was designed to prevent data loss on company PCs. Beck goes to great lengths to read a couple of selected lines from the letter, while avoiding the parts that explain everything Beck was trying to question. Beck wasn't reading from cue cards or a teleprompter... He had the entire letter in his hand, with sections of it highlighted. When I see how Beck regards the information which is right in front of him, and dismisses it so he can tell a completely different, unrelated story, it makes me sick. What makes it worse is the fact that my own parent

I'm sorry, but you obviously have no idea what is being claimed here. Here is what the patent summary says:

The present invention provides methods and apparatus for treating the peripheral area of a user's field of view in a head mounted display, and thereby creating improved comfort and usability for head mounted displays. The peripheral area adjacent to the displayed image is treated, such that the peripheral area is coordinated with the image on the display. The coordination can be in the form of color projections, achieved, for example, by light emitting diodes (LEDs) or other displays, such that the colors surrounding the display dynamically matches what is shown on the display. As a result, the peripheral area “converges” with the display area, which reduces the “tunnel effect” or “box effect” experienced by the user. Various embodiments of the invention allow users to customize different viewing parameters of the head mounted displays to accommodate for variation in the individual users' eyes.

If you would actually read the patent you'd notice that Apple is well aware of other head mounted display technologies (they list them in the patent). As the title says, this is a "Peripheral treatment for head-mounted displays" to prevent motion sickness and increase the length of time such a device can be used.

You do realize that the patent you're talking about predates the launch of iOS by two and a half years and the launch of Android by four years, right? While Siri is indeed an implementation of the patent, they had it patented long before then. In fact, of the other patents being used in this case, all but one predates the launch of Android, and one of them dates back to 1996. So, at least in that regard, it is valid.

As to software patents in general, well, I despise them as much as everyone else here. I just prefer that we argue against them from a solid foundation, rather than arguing out of ignorance.

You do realize that the patent you're talking about predates the launch of iOS by two and a half years and the launch of Android by four years, right? While Siri is indeed an implementation of the patent, they had it patented long before then. In fact, of the other patents being used in this case, all but one predates the launch of Android, and one of them dates back to 1996. So, at least in that regard, it is valid.

As to software patents in general, well, I despise them as much as everyone else here. I just prefer that we argue against them from a solid foundation, rather than arguing out of ignorance.

You do realize that the patent you're talking about predates the launch of iOS by two and a half years and the launch of Android by four years, right? While Siri is indeed an implementation of the patent, they had it patented long before then. In fact, of the other patents being used in this case, all but one predates the launch of Android, and one of them dates back to 1996. So, at least in that regard, it is valid.

As to software patents in general, well, I despise them as much as everyone else here. I just prefer that we argue against them from a solid foundation, rather than arguing out of ignorance.

20120097086 FLEET PROTECTION ATTACK CRAFT AND UNDERWATER VEHICLES (39 figures) and

20110226173 FLEET PROTECTION ATTACK CRAFT (36 figures)

20120097086 FLEET PROTECTION ATTACK CRAFT AND UNDERWATER VEHICLES (39 figures) and

20110226173 FLEET PROTECTION ATTACK CRAFT (36 figures)

I'll see your Wikipedia reference and raise you two USPTO patents granted to SONY for this:

8,027,090 and 7,633,045.

Note: according to another of SONY's patents, moth-eye can also be used to record info on optical media:

"Today, there are seven primary methods by which information can be recorded on optical media. All methods heat the recording layer to a certain temperature. The methods are known as ablative, alloying, bubble-forming, moth-eye, phase-change, dye/polymer and magneto-optic which cause or could cause some mechanical deformation of the substrate."

P.S.

Unlike TFA these patents include detailed drawings and SEM photographs.

P.S.S.

I remember when the authors of tech articles did this kind of background research. Sigh.

I'll see your Wikipedia reference and raise you two USPTO patents granted to SONY for this:

8,027,090 and 7,633,045.

Note: according to another of SONY's patents, moth-eye can also be used to record info on optical media:

"Today, there are seven primary methods by which information can be recorded on optical media. All methods heat the recording layer to a certain temperature. The methods are known as ablative, alloying, bubble-forming, moth-eye, phase-change, dye/polymer and magneto-optic which cause or could cause some mechanical deformation of the substrate."

P.S.

Unlike TFA these patents include detailed drawings and SEM photographs.

P.S.S.

I remember when the authors of tech articles did this kind of background research. Sigh.

I agree. Banning all method patents is the only way to kill the patent troll beast. My employer was actually bragging about this patent - System and method for the automated discovery of unknown unknowns.
If you can base a patent on the babbling of the worst Secretary of Defense, then the patent system has gotten truly absurd.

Google has had an electronic NFC based wallet in the market for almost a year now.

Google does a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that someone didn't already have a patent or a copyright on that said "thing".

Doesn't the article say that Apple just now got the patent? This sounds like prior art unless Apple applied for this patent years ago and it didn't get approved until today.

Is that a rhetoric question, or do you actually believe that patents get granted over night? I'll grant you that the submitter linked to a speculative "business oriented" IBTimes article instead of the original article they link to right at the start. Of course that only covers uninteresting stuff like what is actually patented, the fact that it was was originally filed in Q1 2009, and that the first related patents by Apple appeared in 2010.

What it fails to mention is that the patent is actually simply called Parental controls - yes start to panic, Apple patented controlling children!

There's plenty of technical details here:

Resonant clock and interconnect architecture for digital devices with multiple clock networks (full text only; i.e., no images)

If you want images also, here's the PDF.

See: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html

The question isn't whether it's a valuable or meaningful metric, but rather, can they make money from it (otherwise why would they patent it)? Maybe it'll end up as part of some application lifecycle tool that they hope to foist on the marketplace (profit!).

Patents aside, it definitely seems like an ineffective metric. A large percentage of my work consists of measuring progress and defects in the software development lifecycle. Before I even consider measuring something, I ask myself, "What problem am I trying to solve?" From reading TFA, it seems like IBM found a metric that was easy to collect/calculate, and is trying to reverse-engineer it into a process or in this case, a patent.

This is not a patent, this is an application publication. You can tell because it says "pub no" in the upper right corner instead of "patent no". For reference:

Link to publication from TFA
Link to a real patent (believe it or not)

TFA author can't tell the difference, which is incredibly obvious once you know what you're looking for. And a lot of applications never become a patent.

Now that the application has published, anyone who knows of any prior art might be able to let the patent office know about it if this application isn't examined before the new law kicks in September 16 this year. See the America Invents Act, section 8 (starts bottom of page 32).

The amount of money to apply for a patent is small. The amount it takes to be granted one is a lot more complicated. One of my ideas was patented by the startup employer I had at the time, Wireless burstable communications repeater. Almost all the actual money involved in applying for it went to Hoffmann & Baron, LLP. If you think you're going to get a useful patent granted without an experienced patent attorney firm like that, you're being quite optimistic. I can't even imagine how much time it would have taken to duplicate the patent industry specific parts of the argument with the patent office that they managed, doing it myself instead. The prior art search alone found dramatically more things to reference than I had--while running up a five-figure bill. I am certain the patent would have been rejected as "already covered by #XYZ123" without that input. I had to carefully rewrite our original patent text to distinguish exactly what ways it was different from every one of those, and even after that the patent office spat out another half dozen to address. Responding to the initial rejection letter usefully is another difficult task that I doubt would have been successful without input from the lawyers.

Having done it once successfully, I wouldn't dream of trying to get a tech industry patent again as an individual if I didn't have a bare minimum of $100K to burn along the way. The only thing more expensive than hiring patent attorneys is how expensive it would be to do that yourself instead--presuming that as an inventor your time is actually worth something. Don Lancaster's Patent Avoidance Library is filled with horror stories about small companies trying to do useful things with patents. About the only thing that's changed since he wrote those is the idea that companies don't buy patents. Now they do, but only in bulk. You need to have a large pile of them before you have decent odds of doing anything with them.

We already know the patents they're using. They're the same ones they used to try and shake down Barnes and Noble: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5778372.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6339780.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5889522.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6891551.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6957233.html They also demanded licensing fees that exceeded the cost of licensing WP7. They really are criminals.

We already know the patents they're using. They're the same ones they used to try and shake down Barnes and Noble: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5778372.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6339780.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5889522.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6891551.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6957233.html They also demanded licensing fees that exceeded the cost of licensing WP7. They really are criminals.

We already know the patents they're using. They're the same ones they used to try and shake down Barnes and Noble: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5778372.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6339780.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5889522.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6891551.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6957233.html They also demanded licensing fees that exceeded the cost of licensing WP7. They really are criminals.

We already know the patents they're using. They're the same ones they used to try and shake down Barnes and Noble: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5778372.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6339780.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5889522.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6891551.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6957233.html They also demanded licensing fees that exceeded the cost of licensing WP7. They really are criminals.

We already know the patents they're using. They're the same ones they used to try and shake down Barnes and Noble: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5778372.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6339780.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5889522.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6891551.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6957233.html They also demanded licensing fees that exceeded the cost of licensing WP7. They really are criminals.

I apologize if this was already mentioned, but one way of fixing is is by comparing track offsets. The idea is that you read the data at the edges of the track for the unreadable or corrupted bits.

If your data isn't critical it's probably not worth the effort/expense, but it is usually possible to recover.

I remember hearing about a new capacitor technology that used nanoparticles to allow far more power storage and almost instant recharge rates. Better/worse?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7990679.html

They have patented the idea and are now concentrating on scaling up the device and designing a shoe to contain it

Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land (plus some of his older books as well) helped kill a patent for waterbeds IIRC. Perhaps Frank Herbert's Dune can be used to help kill this patent. Fremen stillsuit boots generated power from walking.

here's a 2000 article about electricity generating shoes. here's a patent from 1992 and another from 1988. Doesn't anyone do an internet search before "inventing" something?