Slashdot Mirror

Oh? Then cite 5 comprehensive studies saying so.

Here you go:
1. Lowering recidivism through family communication
2. The family and recidivism
3. Family ties during imprisonment
4. The effect of family visits on inmates
5. Rethinking recidivism: A communication approach

Do Patent Laws Really Protect Small Inventors?

No. Nor have I ever heard anyway claim that as being their primary function. Let's adjust that to say that patent laws are designed to promote innovation and invention by disproportionately reward the production of ideas compared to the actual work and creation being done. This, in theory, helps any size of inventor put in R&D monies to chase a high reward.

Common misconception, but not true - patents aren't a reward for anything. You want a reward, go chase a Nobel. Rather, patents are a limited monopoly grudgingly given in exchange for public disclosure of the invention. That's why there are all sorts of written description and enablement requirements on patent applications, rather than just a voting committee deciding whether your invention was sufficiently awesome to deserve a reward.
It's always been this way, too. Almost 600 years ago, Brunelleschi invented an improved ship loading/unloading system. He would have kept it secret, loading his ships only under cover of night with armed guards watching for spies, but the lords of Florence felt that this idea was something so important that the public needed access to it. So, because he "refuse[d] to make such machine available to the public" unless "he enjoyed some prerogative concerning this" they gave him a three year limited monopoly, in exchange for disclosing it.

Patents really aren't a reward, but an exchange that destroys trade secrets.

They've also been applied to things that probably shouldn't be patentable like genes and software.

Why should something be patentable if hardwired but not patentable if emulated?

Man, I wish PJ would deconstruct this so I knew what was going on. So what that tells me is that the novel part of his invention was the spring that generated power directly to the radio? And when the company found a different way to do that, they cut him out?

Not even cut him out - his patent covered a specific mechanical implementation of storing power in a tightly wound spring. They stopped using springs and started using cheap batteries, which his patent didn't cover. He also sold his shares in the company. If he was screwed by anything, it was that latter decision.

Patent reform is badly needed. To tailor it to this poor unfortunate soul's anecdotal evidence might just make the situation worse. I am suspicious of this piece because it relies on soft journalism describing how human Mr. Baylis is in his grandfatherly estate and stays away from the hard numbers or specific details of precisely just how he was wronged by the patent system.

Agreed... Also note that his suggested reform includes criminal penalties for infringing a patent. Oh, sorry, Apple has that patent on a slide to unlock mechanism, so because you used it, you're going to jail.

Speaking of lobotomy, in the fifties there was a "lobotomy fever" in the USA, thousands of men, women and children had their frontal lobes severed in an outpatient operation. Until the fifties it was still normal to sterilize undesirables - again in the good old USA. And it really hasn't been that long since mainstream physicians prescribed Camels and mercury pills. Even today you're likely to have a dentist try to lodge mercury amalgam in your mouth if you go in for a filling. Some of them still think fluoride is good for you too. Mine gave out fluoride pills when I was a kid, we didn't know better back then but soon learned about dental fluorosis.

Given the spotty history of American medicine I guess you can expect a bit of reticence from people who have been bombed back into the stone age by American bombs and munitions - either in American hands or by American-sponsored terrorists. Maybe it's understandable they'd have a few reservations about being jabbed for a vanishing disease.

Gov't has been tracking cell phone locations without a warrant for years. There are quite a few cases on the books, and they represent only a tiny portion of those that are requested and denied. Check out this law review 'recent development' article from 2006, back when they were first doing this.

Even sane people misremember (a lot), and eyewitness stories, especially over time, can change. What people forget or can't remember but have some importance in remembering, they often confabulate - but still believe they are actually memories. People with Alzheimers do this a lot, and can create the appearance to outsiders that they don't have Alzheimers at all.

When I was studying I had an acquaintance who when you told him a story would later retell the story as if it had happened to him. Once he did this using an anecdote I had told him not 30 minutes before and as far as I could tell he was 100% serious and unaware of what he was doing. I hope in his case it was the weed but even sober he was a bit "off".

When I was young I thought there might be something to stories like these, then I grew up and realized that many people are doped up, drunk, compulsive liars or completely bat-shit insane. And some are all of those, all the time.

Even sane people misremember (a lot), and eyewitness stories, especially over time, can change. What people forget or can't remember but have some importance in remembering, they often confabulate - but still believe they are actually memories. People with Alzheimers do this a lot, and can create the appearance to outsiders that they don't have Alzheimers at all.

but if you sue a laywer the entire legal profession closes ranks and roots for the home team.

Patently untrue. Case in point: legal malpractice suits, which are common and involve a lot of money: $4 billion per year back in 1995. I assure you it's more today.

To the extent this guy got screwed it was because he tried to handle his case pro se. Just one little example of his mistakes: "The fact that I prevailed on all seven counts while representing myself in court pro-se further suggests they lacked probable cause." Whether someone is representing themselves or are represented by counsel is generally immaterial in Minnesota, as in most jurisdictions. "Pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys." Heinsch v. Lot 27, Block 1 For's Beach, 399 N.W.2d 107, 109 (Minn. App. 1987).

Anyway, this is kind of a silly post for Slashdot. The plaintiff's appeals are not exhausted. He can make a motion for a rehearing, a rehearing en banc, and appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.