The problem is that the understaffed USPTO (gee, I wonder why...couldn't be patent lawyers filing a shitstorm of patents) can't do much but rubber stamp things and let the courts sort it out.
The court however considers that the USPTO's judgement commands deference.
It's already on the books and it's called antitrust regulation.
A lot of the "there ought to be a law" type situations only come about because the powers that be don't give a shit about enforcing laws already on the books unless it suits them.
Stop blaming the people when the corporations have gotten both political parties to corner the election market.
They own the media and aren't afraid to lie, cheat, and steal to get their way.
They are also not above rigging the votes to make sure they win no matter how much the voters hate them. See the ohio article for proof. If they can't smear and spin their way to winning the election they're more than happy to just steal it by force with a few well timed security glitches. There's a reason we slashdotters HATE electronic voting, especially with machines made by Diebold.
We the people have no fucking power in the first place because Big Brother took it away from us.
This whole "blame the victim/voter" mentality on slashdot is seriously pissing me off.
We need an incentive for lazy ass parents not to take a mile when the government gives them an inch.
The only place this slippery slope is going to end is with parents doing fuck-all to teach their kids about safety and ya know actually supervise them and letting Big Nanny decide everything.
What part of "the nat decides what inbound connections to forward to which hosts" do you not understand?
Port forwarding has to be triggered by the *downstream* host.
Until that host makes an *outbound* connection the NAT doesn't know or care about who to send inbound stuff to. And UDP forwarding has to be triggered by an outbound UDP packet just the same as with TCP forwarding, by an outbound connection, which means that unsolicited inbound connections or UDP packets not associated with a preexisting outbound connection have no way of finding the host they are meant for.
Stop being a moron and learn how NAT actually works in the real world, especially for typical broadband consumers where the NAT device is under the control of an ISP that has every incentive to not cooperate with consumers who want to run a personal server of sorts.
Treating it as a stateful firewall only works when the NAT is under the same administrative control as the host behind it.
Especially when politicians not only get the carrot of campaign funds dangled in front of them, but also the brandishing of the stick of that money going to their opponents.
I'm saying it's bad for people behind the NAT because it prevents them from receiving inbound connections...unless they want to beg the ISP for a business grade connection.
They are not mere passive shufflers of ports and addresses.
They are active gatekeepers that have omnipotent power to decide which inbound ports get forwarded to which hosts, and which will flat out reject an inbound connection without even ASKING which of the downstream hosts wants to handle it.
It not only does not know who the connection is meant for, it actively refuses to care.
Slashdot Mirror
If you jump the gun you get disqualified.
The problem is that the understaffed USPTO (gee, I wonder why...couldn't be patent lawyers filing a shitstorm of patents) can't do much but rubber stamp things and let the courts sort it out.
The court however considers that the USPTO's judgement commands deference.
We already have a thing called "trade dress" to protect distinctiveness.
It's already on the books and it's called antitrust regulation.
A lot of the "there ought to be a law" type situations only come about because the powers that be don't give a shit about enforcing laws already on the books unless it suits them.
In theory, there is, if you have a monopoly on that market.
Hell if you have a gun they'll just take that away from you too.
You mean the same DOJ that Obama packed with RIAA attorneys?
Then in theory, if the government sues your property, you can intervene in the lawsuit.
Stop blaming the people when the corporations have gotten both political parties to corner the election market.
They own the media and aren't afraid to lie, cheat, and steal to get their way.
They are also not above rigging the votes to make sure they win no matter how much the voters hate them. See the ohio article for proof. If they can't smear and spin their way to winning the election they're more than happy to just steal it by force with a few well timed security glitches. There's a reason we slashdotters HATE electronic voting, especially with machines made by Diebold.
We the people have no fucking power in the first place because Big Brother took it away from us.
This whole "blame the victim/voter" mentality on slashdot is seriously pissing me off.
Two words:
Retroactive immunity.
Parents are still paramountly responsible for their children no matter WHO is doing the babysitting.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
And especially don't blame me when the system deliberately keeps the voters misinformed and uneducated.
Parents would scream bloody murder if the government tried to interfere with what kinds of babies they had.
Indeed
We need an incentive for lazy ass parents not to take a mile when the government gives them an inch.
The only place this slippery slope is going to end is with parents doing fuck-all to teach their kids about safety and ya know actually supervise them and letting Big Nanny decide everything.
Lobbyists have bigger briefcases than voters do, you know that.
Because if you attempt to invalidate a patent and fail, you become a sitting duck in federal court.
Apparently you lose the right to raise certain defenses such as invalidity and prior art if you strike out with a reexam at the USPTO.
Apple probably helped WRITE the rules.
Maybe we politicians don't want to stop some kinds of criminals.
Especially white collar criminals giving us part of their take in the form of bribe money.
That's not brave unless you yourself live in those areas.
What part of "the nat decides what inbound connections to forward to which hosts" do you not understand?
Port forwarding has to be triggered by the *downstream* host.
Until that host makes an *outbound* connection the NAT doesn't know or care about who to send inbound stuff to. And UDP forwarding has to be triggered by an outbound UDP packet just the same as with TCP forwarding, by an outbound connection, which means that unsolicited inbound connections or UDP packets not associated with a preexisting outbound connection have no way of finding the host they are meant for.
Stop being a moron and learn how NAT actually works in the real world, especially for typical broadband consumers where the NAT device is under the control of an ISP that has every incentive to not cooperate with consumers who want to run a personal server of sorts.
Treating it as a stateful firewall only works when the NAT is under the same administrative control as the host behind it.
Sadly you are probably right.
Especially when politicians not only get the carrot of campaign funds dangled in front of them, but also the brandishing of the stick of that money going to their opponents.
I'm saying it's bad for people behind the NAT because it prevents them from receiving inbound connections...unless they want to beg the ISP for a business grade connection.
This is why we have concepts known as probable cause.
NAT doesn't just make things unpredictable.
They are not mere passive shufflers of ports and addresses.
They are active gatekeepers that have omnipotent power to decide which inbound ports get forwarded to which hosts, and which will flat out reject an inbound connection without even ASKING which of the downstream hosts wants to handle it.
It not only does not know who the connection is meant for, it actively refuses to care.
Those count as costs, btw.