What they are testing is the stuff made in Scotland called "whisky".
The brown spirit made in other countries (including Ireland, Japan, Canada and the country to the South of Canada) is called "whiskey". This is quite different.
Only whisky attracts idiots to put silly values on bottles of the stuff they are never going to drink.
The only proper thing to do to a bottle of whisky is drink it (not all at once;-). The same applies to a bottle of whiskey, and after a few, you will no longer mind you don't actually have a bottle of whisky to drink.
My house has stone walls 1.5m thick. These will absorb almost all of a wireless signal, and getting a cable through them is no easy task!
I use Belkin AV powerline devices to connect my MythTV/Squeezebox server to three 11g wireless access points needed to give good coverage. We can watch two simultaneous TV programmes and listen to music using various wireless access points, but not using the same access point. This suggests that in my installation the powerline is much more capable than wireless.
I have never experienced any interference problems.
They also worked well in my in-laws long Cotswold stone house that was very wireless-unfriendly.
Maybe they are more suited to the 230V single-phase ring-main based wiring systems used in the UK than the US system
I suppose that the risk is that those using this school system will assume that the crippled KDE installation represents Linux. When they then use their mate's knocked-off copy of WinXP, and find out how much more it can do, they might be very impressed.
In other words, Linux=KDE-- therefore Linux = school headmaster's restriction. Windows=Computing++ therefore Windows is what we want out of school!
Maybe, the answer is to give them all a CD with KUbuntu to take away and put int any computer they find AND give them the root password. That might get them properly interested in Linux, but then heaven (or, much more preferably, a non-mythological think) help the rest of us since who knows what they might do!
Tomasz Chmielewski is wrong. Microsoft applied for a patent and their application was rejected by the examiner, as was their appeal in the USPTO.
Check out the file history of application US 2004-0107416.
Just to clarify, the position is not the same throughout the UK...
In Scotland, if you are arrested and subsequently not charged or acquitted, your DNA will be deleted from the database, which seems right and proper. It is in England and Wales that your DNA will be kept by default.
The main claim (the bit that really matters) reads:
1. A method for transferring a satellite from an initial orbit about the earth, the initial orbit having a first inclination, to a final geosynchronous orbit about the earth, the final geosynchronous orbit having a second inclination significantly less than the first inclination, by using multiple lunar gravity-assist flyby maneuvers, the method comprising the steps of:
placing the satellite into the initial orbit about the earth, the initial orbit having an apogee significantly lower than lunar radius;
placing the satellite into a first translunar orbit, the first translunar orbit having an apogee near lunar radius;
placing the satellite into a first leading edge lunar flyby maneuver near apogee of the first translunar orbit, whereby the inclination of the orbit of the satellite with respect to the earth is initially significantly reduced;
placing the satellite into an earth-return orbit, the earth-return orbit having a perigee near geostationary radius;
placing the satellite into at least a second translunar orbit;
placing the satellite into at least a second lunar flyby maneuver, whereby the inclination of the orbit of the satellite with respect to the earth is additionally significantly reduced; and
placing the satellite into the final geosynchronous orbit about the earth.
This is not a proposal published by government! It is contained a leaked draft consultation document. That means:
a. it may never happen and b. you still have plenty of time to tell your MP/AM/MSP how silly an idea it is (and explain why).
In theory the USPTO should examine all patent applications, find all prior art, and interpret it correctly vis-a-vis all patent applications. In practice, it is just not possible to a thorough job for the money raised from the application and renewal fees.
That is way many patent offices, notable, the European Patent Office, have a system of oppositions, where others within the field can challenge a granted patent using their own specialist knowledge. The procedure is strictly controlled by the EPO, so a win in opposition proceedings cannot be "bought" by spending lots on lawyers. You don't even need a patent attorney because the EPO will actively consider any opposition for its merits. It is not bound only to consider points raised by the opponent (or the patent holder, for that matter) as is a judge in a court case, and this significantly reduces the importance of the level of professional representation.
Oppositions allow those who will be adversely troubled by bad patents to challenge them, and, IMO, are an absolutely essential part of a good patent system.
Actually, nobody likes it. Companies of all sizes in all countries can loose by it (directly through lost business or indirectly through a damaged reputation), and almost all Internet users are annoyed by it quite a lot. Some (e.g. MSIE users) can get particularly annoyed if the squatted name leads them to a page that messes with their computers.
Registering another's trade mark (or one confusingly similar to it) is unlawful and can be challenged through pre-registration examination and a system of oppositions. This has been the case since trade mark registration was new (in the 19th Century in the UK) and is still the case today. It is also unlawful to register a trade mark that one does not have the bona fide intention to use as a trade mark for proper trade mark purposes. This is to stop the system being clogged up by people registering marks speculatively and frivolously. The trade mark system prevents itself being used as a way to make money by simply registering marks, so keeps its real intention (protection of actual trade marks) from being diluted.
Years of working the law have established clear principles for determining whether a trade mark is being used or abused, and whether two marks are so similar as to be confusing.
It is very unfortunate that there is not such a strong self-protective system in place for domain names. Speculative registrations have completely clogged the system and have, effectively, broken it. People who want to get a useful name for use in their legitimate businesses cannot.
The scope of a patent is quite precisely defined by its independent claims. Most the words in a patent outside of the claims are not concerned with what it covers. This is especially so of the long, detailed description, which serves primarily as a source of technical information for others.
If the alleged infringing thing/method has all of the features of an independent claim, then it infringes. If features in the claim are not present, the alleged infringement does not, in fact, infringe. In the USA, in some now very limited circumstances, an "equivalent" feature in the alleged infringement is sufficient.
The person that drafted this patent helpfully labeled the features of their claims (a), (b), (A1)... or split the claims up into paragraphs.
The independent claims are those that do not refer back to an earlier claim (claims 1, 20, 43, etc. in this case). All of the other claims introduce additional features, so are narrower in scope. This makes them harder to infringe, but more likely to be valid over prior art.
A claim is invalid for lack of novelty if all of its features can be identified in one think that was publicly known before (roughly, but not exactly) the priority or application date. It can also be invalid if it differs only in obvious ways from earlier proposals.
Some facts about oppositions in the European Patent Office:
1. They must be lodged within 9 months of grant.
2. Anyone can file an opposition, including a "straw man", who is doing it for someone else. So opposing is not admitting infringement see http://www.strawman.info/
3. You do not need to appoint a professional representative; you can do it all yourself.
4. The opposition is decided on the facts as understood by the opposition division of the EPO. Unlike a court case, what is said in the hearing or in the opponents arguments is not decisive. If you file an opposition, present clear prior art, and completely botch the arguments and formalities, you may still win! If there is something that the Opposition Division does not understand, they will ask for clarification.
5. There is no award of costs (save in the event of flagrant abuse of procedure, which is almost unheard-of). So the patent proprietor can turn up with loads of lawyers, and you, the opponent, do not have to pay.
6. There is no come-back against an unsuccessful opponent.
7. An unsuccessfully opposed European patent has no greater legal strength than an unopposed one.
8. If you are only partially successful (you get the patent limited but not revoked) you still cost the patent proprietor money.
9. If you are entirely unsuccessful (but have at lease made a case) you still cost the patent proprietor money.
10. Look at http://www.epo.org/ and you will get good guidance.
Anyone who sees a bad European application being published should watch it, and if is granted and still bad, then oppose the damned thing! The European patent system was designed for this to happen. If the industry ignores bad patents, then the system will not work.
After the nine-month opposition period, the granted patent can still be challenged, but it is much harder and very much more expensive.
I am a patent attorney who tries to get his clients good, valid patents for any technology, including those that are implemented in software.
I really hate to see patents like this being granted, because they are so obviously stupid, and bring the whole system into disrepute.
If this were a granted European patent, it would have any number of oppositions filed against it. (An opposition is a cheap and effective challenges to a granted patent). IMO, no proper patent system should be without a workable system of opposition!
This is a horrible mess, and I wish that there were a way of extracting it from the US patent system in a way that will save IBM the ignominy of having such an obviously bad patent granted in its name.
The European equivalent is EP-B-1171813, and the main claim requires an infringing system to have a "digital keyboard" and that the system mys display the digital keyboard on the user interface as the user enters text a keystroke at a time. The digital keyboard can be replaced with a display of completion candidates, but it is a requirement of the patent that the digital keyboard re-appear if there are no completion candidates.
This is well short of patenting the predicative interface. I expect that very few systems indeed will infringe this.
Has anyone actually inspected the US file to see the claims that have been allowed in the USPTO, or is everyone just speculating?
It will be a few months before the US patent is granted and the final form of the claim is readily available. Remember that the claims of the published US application
Speculating on what a patent covers without inspecting the claims rarely is helpful, especially if you take the word of the patent's applicant as to what it covers.
There is a world of difference. Anyone can apply for a patent for anything, no matter how old or obvious, and their application will be published - even in the US now that US patent law is like that almost everywhere else. If I filed a patent application for a cheese sandwich, it would be published, but I doubt it would be granted.
Routine publication is a Good Thing. It gives others who know that the alleged invention is not new (there is so-called "prior art") the chance to bring it to the attention of the examiner. It also means that applications in other patent offices can be sought out (easily and for free using esp@cenet) and opposed if need be.
Crying that someone has patented something just because they have an application published is not a Good Thing. It is crying wolf, and has the potential to make people take no notice of the really important bad patent applications.
I agree that the idea stinks, but I do not know whether it is better a free-for-all or something that MS can limit to itself.
The above is why I choose to be an *anonymous* European Patent Attorney - I handle patents for software implemented inventions. I do not like all of them (and sometimes tell my clients so) but it is a legally made living.
Slashdot Mirror
The brown spirit made in other countries (including Ireland, Japan, Canada and the country to the South of Canada) is called "whiskey". This is quite different.
Only whisky attracts idiots to put silly values on bottles of the stuff they are never going to drink.
The only proper thing to do to a bottle of whisky is drink it (not all at once ;-). The same applies to a bottle of whiskey, and after a few, you will no longer mind you don't actually have a bottle of whisky to drink.
A
I use Belkin AV powerline devices to connect my MythTV/Squeezebox server to three 11g wireless access points needed to give good coverage. We can watch two simultaneous TV programmes and listen to music using various wireless access points, but not using the same access point. This suggests that in my installation the powerline is much more capable than wireless.
I have never experienced any interference problems.
They also worked well in my in-laws long Cotswold stone house that was very wireless-unfriendly.
Maybe they are more suited to the 230V single-phase ring-main based wiring systems used in the UK than the US system
A
I suppose that the risk is that those using this school system will assume that the crippled KDE installation represents Linux. When they then use their mate's knocked-off copy of WinXP, and find out how much more it can do, they might be very impressed.
In other words, Linux=KDE-- therefore Linux = school headmaster's restriction. Windows=Computing++ therefore Windows is what we want out of school!
Maybe, the answer is to give them all a CD with KUbuntu to take away and put int any computer they find AND give them the root password. That might get them properly interested in Linux, but then heaven (or, much more preferably, a non-mythological think) help the rest of us since who knows what they might do!
A
Their only resort is to appeal to court.
There are no applications in other countries.
A
In Scotland, if you are arrested and subsequently not charged or acquitted, your DNA will be deleted from the database, which seems right and proper. It is in England and Wales that your DNA will be kept by default.
A
The main claim (the bit that really matters) reads:
1. A method for transferring a satellite from an initial orbit about the earth, the initial orbit having a first inclination, to a final geosynchronous orbit about the earth, the final geosynchronous orbit having a second inclination significantly less than the first inclination, by using multiple lunar gravity-assist flyby maneuvers, the method comprising the steps of: placing the satellite into the initial orbit about the earth, the initial orbit having an apogee significantly lower than lunar radius; placing the satellite into a first translunar orbit, the first translunar orbit having an apogee near lunar radius; placing the satellite into a first leading edge lunar flyby maneuver near apogee of the first translunar orbit, whereby the inclination of the orbit of the satellite with respect to the earth is initially significantly reduced; placing the satellite into an earth-return orbit, the earth-return orbit having a perigee near geostationary radius; placing the satellite into at least a second translunar orbit; placing the satellite into at least a second lunar flyby maneuver, whereby the inclination of the orbit of the satellite with respect to the earth is additionally significantly reduced; and placing the satellite into the final geosynchronous orbit about the earth.
HTH, A
This is not a proposal published by government! It is contained a leaked draft consultation document. That means: a. it may never happen and b. you still have plenty of time to tell your MP/AM/MSP how silly an idea it is (and explain why).
There is more info at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm
Anon
In theory the USPTO should examine all patent applications, find all prior art, and interpret it correctly vis-a-vis all patent applications. In practice, it is just not possible to a thorough job for the money raised from the application and renewal fees.
That is way many patent offices, notable, the European Patent Office, have a system of oppositions, where others within the field can challenge a granted patent using their own specialist knowledge. The procedure is strictly controlled by the EPO, so a win in opposition proceedings cannot be "bought" by spending lots on lawyers. You don't even need a patent attorney because the EPO will actively consider any opposition for its merits. It is not bound only to consider points raised by the opponent (or the patent holder, for that matter) as is a judge in a court case, and this significantly reduces the importance of the level of professional representation.
Oppositions allow those who will be adversely troubled by bad patents to challenge them, and, IMO, are an absolutely essential part of a good patent system.
Anonymous European Patent Attorney
Actually, nobody likes it. Companies of all sizes in all countries can loose by it (directly through lost business or indirectly through a damaged reputation), and almost all Internet users are annoyed by it quite a lot. Some (e.g. MSIE users) can get particularly annoyed if the squatted name leads them to a page that messes with their computers.
Registering another's trade mark (or one confusingly similar to it) is unlawful and can be challenged through pre-registration examination and a system of oppositions. This has been the case since trade mark registration was new (in the 19th Century in the UK) and is still the case today. It is also unlawful to register a trade mark that one does not have the bona fide intention to use as a trade mark for proper trade mark purposes. This is to stop the system being clogged up by people registering marks speculatively and frivolously. The trade mark system prevents itself being used as a way to make money by simply registering marks, so keeps its real intention (protection of actual trade marks) from being diluted.
Years of working the law have established clear principles for determining whether a trade mark is being used or abused, and whether two marks are so similar as to be confusing.
It is very unfortunate that there is not such a strong self-protective system in place for domain names. Speculative registrations have completely clogged the system and have, effectively, broken it. People who want to get a useful name for use in their legitimate businesses cannot.
AEPA
The scope of a patent is quite precisely defined by its independent claims. Most the words in a patent outside of the claims are not concerned with what it covers. This is especially so of the long, detailed description, which serves primarily as a source of technical information for others.
If the alleged infringing thing/method has all of the features of an independent claim, then it infringes. If features in the claim are not present, the alleged infringement does not, in fact, infringe. In the USA, in some now very limited circumstances, an "equivalent" feature in the alleged infringement is sufficient.
The person that drafted this patent helpfully labeled the features of their claims (a), (b), (A1)... or split the claims up into paragraphs.
The independent claims are those that do not refer back to an earlier claim (claims 1, 20, 43, etc. in this case). All of the other claims introduce additional features, so are narrower in scope. This makes them harder to infringe, but more likely to be valid over prior art.
A claim is invalid for lack of novelty if all of its features can be identified in one think that was publicly known before (roughly, but not exactly) the priority or application date. It can also be invalid if it differs only in obvious ways from earlier proposals.
HTH
Anonymous European Patent Attorney
Some facts about oppositions in the European Patent Office: 1. They must be lodged within 9 months of grant.
2. Anyone can file an opposition, including a "straw man", who is doing it for someone else. So opposing is not admitting infringement see http://www.strawman.info/
3. You do not need to appoint a professional representative; you can do it all yourself.
4. The opposition is decided on the facts as understood by the opposition division of the EPO. Unlike a court case, what is said in the hearing or in the opponents arguments is not decisive. If you file an opposition, present clear prior art, and completely botch the arguments and formalities, you may still win! If there is something that the Opposition Division does not understand, they will ask for clarification.
5. There is no award of costs (save in the event of flagrant abuse of procedure, which is almost unheard-of). So the patent proprietor can turn up with loads of lawyers, and you, the opponent, do not have to pay.
6. There is no come-back against an unsuccessful opponent.
7. An unsuccessfully opposed European patent has no greater legal strength than an unopposed one.
8. If you are only partially successful (you get the patent limited but not revoked) you still cost the patent proprietor money.
9. If you are entirely unsuccessful (but have at lease made a case) you still cost the patent proprietor money.
10. Look at http://www.epo.org/ and you will get good guidance.
Anyone who sees a bad European application being published should watch it, and if is granted and still bad, then oppose the damned thing! The European patent system was designed for this to happen. If the industry ignores bad patents, then the system will not work.
After the nine-month opposition period, the granted patent can still be challenged, but it is much harder and very much more expensive.
HTH
Anonymous European Patent Attorney
I am a patent attorney who tries to get his clients good, valid patents for any technology, including those that are implemented in software.
I really hate to see patents like this being granted, because they are so obviously stupid, and bring the whole system into disrepute.
If this were a granted European patent, it would have any number of oppositions filed against it. (An opposition is a cheap and effective challenges to a granted patent). IMO, no proper patent system should be without a workable system of opposition!
This is a horrible mess, and I wish that there were a way of extracting it from the US patent system in a way that will save IBM the ignominy of having such an obviously bad patent granted in its name.
A
The European equivalent is EP-B-1171813, and the main claim requires an infringing system to have a "digital keyboard" and that the system mys display the digital keyboard on the user interface as the user enters text a keystroke at a time. The digital keyboard can be replaced with a display of completion candidates, but it is a requirement of the patent that the digital keyboard re-appear if there are no completion candidates.
This is well short of patenting the predicative interface. I expect that very few systems indeed will infringe this.
Has anyone actually inspected the US file to see the claims that have been allowed in the USPTO, or is everyone just speculating?
It will be a few months before the US patent is granted and the final form of the claim is readily available. Remember that the claims of the published US application
Speculating on what a patent covers without inspecting the claims rarely is helpful, especially if you take the word of the patent's applicant as to what it covers.
A See, on Esp@cenet: http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO0There is a world of difference. Anyone can apply for a patent for anything, no matter how old or obvious, and their application will be published - even in the US now that US patent law is like that almost everywhere else. If I filed a patent application for a cheese sandwich, it would be published, but I doubt it would be granted.
Routine publication is a Good Thing. It gives others who know that the alleged invention is not new (there is so-called "prior art") the chance to bring it to the attention of the examiner. It also means that applications in other patent offices can be sought out (easily and for free using esp@cenet) and opposed if need be.
Crying that someone has patented something just because they have an application published is not a Good Thing. It is crying wolf, and has the potential to make people take no notice of the really important bad patent applications.
I agree that the idea stinks, but I do not know whether it is better a free-for-all or something that MS can limit to itself.
The above is why I choose to be an *anonymous* European Patent Attorney - I handle patents for software implemented inventions. I do not like all of them (and sometimes tell my clients so) but it is a legally made living.