Patent examiners aren't just idiots just out of school. For the most part, they have advanced degrees and did well in their academics. They can get a lot more than $60K starting in the private sector, and that's where most of them end up in a few years. Most of them get paid even more after a few years in the patent office so retention is tough.
A patent examiner has a thankless job. You have about thirty hours TOTAL to review a patent, from beginning to end. Your metric is how fast it takes you to issue a patent or toss it out. If you toss it out, you have to risk an appeal by the patentee and go before the Patent Board, where attorneys will explain how dumb you are. Bosses will criticize you as being a "hard-ass" for not issuing patents. Everyone will tell you to "loosen up" a bit and that you're too "uptight." When the patent system is a mess, you take the fall and not the system.
We could give the job to unemployed assembly line workers if you will, but unless you change the bosses and their paradigms, don't expect anything to change at all.
The system is skewed towards large entities that can afford to appeal the non-issuance of a patent to the Patent Board. And I don't mean flooding the Examiner with nonsensical junk, but stuff that's kind of a stretch but not a flat-out fabrication or waste of time.
The patent office paradigm has shifted in the manner you described. The PTO is now run on fees and actually provides money for the rest of the government. Everything you do at the patent office incurs a fee, and they think of the applicant as a customer and not an adverse party. So it used to be "if in doubt, deny" but now it's "if in doubt, grant." That's been horrible for our patent system.
The problem is that applicants will always overreach. Even the inventor of a legitimate breakthrough will try to get more than he should be granted. So the focus has to be on changing the mindset back to issuing good patents, and also giving examiners the incentive and means to do so.
It's not a simple problem. There are many factors that have to be solved, and the nation needs to have this discussion (when more pressing issues such as abortions, gun rings, evolution, stem cell research, and gay marriage are settled).
Haha! The average patent examiner would have voluntarily quit by the time you finished the paperwork necessary to fire him. The problem is that we underpay and overwork our examiners. Their supervisors yell at them for taking so long to grant patents. Examiners have a set number of hours to consider each patent application, and when that time is up, they get more applications dumped onto their plates regardless of how the original applications are doing. All the applicants know this, so their attorneys flood the examiner repeatedly until the examiner runs out of time. The incentive is to issue patents and get the applicant and his attorneys out of your hair.
You get what you pay for, and we don't pay a lot to our Patent Office and their examiners. We don't treat them well, either. We ought to pay our examiners more so we get professional career patent examiners, and also hire more examiners so there isn't such a huge rush on them to finish.
It's like my idea about paying more money to the IRS to increase enforcement of current tax laws: you get a lot of bang for the buck on investing on relatively unsexy things.
That's step one on this patent troll's list to profit! The second step would be to get these small companies to settle and take out a license or lose at trial. With a track record of licensing the patent, you can take on the big guys and point to your record of licensing your patents to make a profit, or the fact that other courts have found the patents valid and enforceable (if you're lucky).
As a resident of New York City, I'm pretty surprised the Metrocard public transportation card system has not been massively compromised in its fifteen years of operation. There have been hacks here and there but for the most part the system has been secure. Good job, guys!
The American legal system has always emphasized intent over action, and character dovetails into intent. Pretend I hit a pedestrian with my car. If I intended to hit and kill him because I hated him, I would be charged with murder. If my vehicle malfunctioned due to no fault of my own, I will not be charged with a crime. If I intentionally swerved into the pedestrian to avoid three kids who ran into the street, I would not be convicted of murder. In all three cases, the pedestrian is dead but my punishment differs based on my intent.
When determining intent, character is often used as a proxy because you cannot measure intent directly. So if I hit someone with a car, and then go to a party wearing a jailbird shirt and laughs about it, one can infer that the defendant just didn't care so much. His intent was probably one of indifference to human life if he gets into a drunk driving accident and laughs about it at a party where alcohol was concerned.
Additionally, character (remorsefulness) is considered a metric for recidivism. If the defendant is sincerely remorseful he may be less likely to re-offend, whereas a guy who is callous enough to party while his victim's family was mourning would be considered "cold-hearted" and likely to do it again.
The web site you linked to underscores the problem cited by the OP: "The amounts shown below are based on the highest fee/surcharge rates assessed in your state; your actual fees/surcharges may be less. In addition to the AT&T charges described below, you will be billed for mandatory taxes and fees imposed by federal, state, and local governments on wireless subscribers."
Besides, even if that web site were perfectly accurate (which it is not), then why aren't the customer service drones pulling that site up and giving the customer a straight answer rather than being all sketchy about it?
Well, if the world reverts back to the Stone Ages it'll probably be via a nuclear holocaust, in which case concerns about nuclear waste buried in a desert would be singularly misplaced.
It depends on how you measure the value of stock. Apple's stock has risen more as a percentage basis but the basic stats suggest that Microsoft might be the better buy. Microsoft's P/E is about 15 while Apple's P/E is 35.
John McCain has had his share of flip flops, as document in this Keith Olbermann clip. It's pretty hilarious because the clip ends by reading a statement from McCain that his viewpoints are evolving, and then noting that McCain was for evolution, and now against evolution. It is pretty well done.
The NASA plan has fewer parts but it does not necessarily follow that it is safer, as it will use relatively untested technologies. The rocket in the NASA design would be the largest solid-fuel rocket engine ever used. It will be statically-unstable because it is top-heavy, which is also a first. There were problems having the solid rocket fuel burn properly all the way through. The rebel plan may have more parts but it is based on well-known technology.
Moreover, Challenger was doomed regardless of the center fuel tank. The Challenger disaster was caused by a malfunctioning solid rocket booster, which are used by both the NASA and the rebel plans. The center fuel tank did not explode; the stack was turned sideways to the direction of travel by the booster failure, and the rapid change in aerodynamic pressures caused the stack to come apart. The big white cloud was caused by the cryogenic fuels being released into the air. Liquid oxygen and hydrogen actually burn without color in the air, so if it exploded, it would have been less spectacular. The Challenger crew survived the disintegration because manual emergency valves on their flight suits were activated. They died on impact. There were no abort modes that would have saved their lives in that instance. The vehicle was going too quickly for them to bail out.
I was underwhelmed by Hellboy II but Pan's Labyrinth was an amazing movie. I don't want to give any of it away, but it has the great acting, visual imagery, and detail of Hellboy II but with a heartbreaking plot. It's in Spanish with English captions but Pan's Labyrinth was spell-binding.
Anyone who believes in God should try and get Dr. DeBakey sainted. He performed many miracles, and dedicated his life to saving others. Aside from the grudge he shared with Dr. Denton Cooley, he lived his life in a morally upstanding way (he was only married twice, never getting divorced). I was going to say that they just don't make men like him anymore but I'm sure there is another DeBakey in a hospital basement somewhere chugging along researching new things.
Blackberries come with a ringer setting called "Phone Only." That's how mine is set, work hours or not. I glance at my Blackberry every twenty minutes or so when I have a natural pause in my work. Much better than my colleagues, who are interrupted at every buzz of the Blackberry.
The Louisiana politicians behind this bill are not idiots. They understand fully that the bill will get struck down without having any effect on education. However, it will polarize their base and allow the politicians to sell the message: Anti-Christian sentiment is strong, and liberal, activist judges are attacking our way of life!
You see, you just have to be cynical enough and then things will all make sense.
No. It was willful negligence more than anything else. Read "State Of War." The reports of Iraqi attempts to buy yellowcake uranium were based on a forged document. Moreover, the President relied on a source known as "Curveball" to make assertions regarding Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program in the State of the Union Address even though the German intelligence organization (and the US State Department) said Curveball was unreliable. Turns out that Curveball was an alcoholic Iraqi ex-pat living in Germany working at a McDonald's, and the guy had delusions of grandeur. Oops.
Punishing people for bringing a lawsuit that is eventually withdrawn will only benefit huge corporations with deep pockets. Pretend you sue Exxon Mobil for poisoning a well in a neighborhood. You spend lots of time and money on discovery and experts. Then you find out that there is no clear-cut evidence that the oil and poisons they dumped into a well caused the cancers in the neighborhood. There is a correlation but you cannot scientifically prove causation. Thus, your case is in a rut, and Exxon is outspending you at every turn. You're out of money. You have to drop the case.
Except you can't because then you would have to pay automatic damages. What to do, what to do?!
Stop having agitators on online forums create your legal system, that's what.
Granting a defendant automatic damages if a plaintiff withdraws a lawsuit will lead to many meritless suits prosecuted to the end. For instance, if the RIAA had to pay legal fees, lost of income, compensation for harassment, and libel in this case, they would not be withdrawing the lawsuit. They would rather fight this to the end and wait for the defendant to go bankrupt or cave in. I think the defendant should be given the chance to get damages by filing a countersuit but should not be granted automatic damages lest we create perverse incentives to flog a dead horse.
Americans now know how it's like to be ruled by a ten-year old. "Nuh uh, I'm not going to open the e-mail." "Sir? Mr. President, that's the EPA's conclusions. It's important." "I disagree." "Respectfully, Mr. President, you should read it first." "Not gonna do it."
I generally share cynical views but everything here is above board (so far). State rights prevent a federal court judge from disbarring or professionally sanctioning an attorney as that is a matter for the state bar that accredited the attorney. The federal judge had his clerk file a complaint against the lawyer to the state bar. I'm sure that if we keep an eye on this case, the attorney in question will get sanctioned on a painful level by the state bar association.
We can hate Microsoft but as a libertarian, I find this development scary. Getting the federal government involved in the design and manufacture of a product is unwarranted and is akin to precrime. The US Government should leave Microsoft's development of Windows 7 alone. If it turns out to have anti-competitive effects, then the government can punish Microsoft for it. Everyone may say that would be too little, too late, but preemptive strikes are un-American. (And besides, we can always break MS up if it keeps pushing out monopolistic products.)
Slashdot Mirror
Patent examiners aren't just idiots just out of school. For the most part, they have advanced degrees and did well in their academics. They can get a lot more than $60K starting in the private sector, and that's where most of them end up in a few years. Most of them get paid even more after a few years in the patent office so retention is tough.
A patent examiner has a thankless job. You have about thirty hours TOTAL to review a patent, from beginning to end. Your metric is how fast it takes you to issue a patent or toss it out. If you toss it out, you have to risk an appeal by the patentee and go before the Patent Board, where attorneys will explain how dumb you are. Bosses will criticize you as being a "hard-ass" for not issuing patents. Everyone will tell you to "loosen up" a bit and that you're too "uptight." When the patent system is a mess, you take the fall and not the system.
We could give the job to unemployed assembly line workers if you will, but unless you change the bosses and their paradigms, don't expect anything to change at all.
The system is skewed towards large entities that can afford to appeal the non-issuance of a patent to the Patent Board. And I don't mean flooding the Examiner with nonsensical junk, but stuff that's kind of a stretch but not a flat-out fabrication or waste of time.
The patent office paradigm has shifted in the manner you described. The PTO is now run on fees and actually provides money for the rest of the government. Everything you do at the patent office incurs a fee, and they think of the applicant as a customer and not an adverse party. So it used to be "if in doubt, deny" but now it's "if in doubt, grant." That's been horrible for our patent system.
The problem is that applicants will always overreach. Even the inventor of a legitimate breakthrough will try to get more than he should be granted. So the focus has to be on changing the mindset back to issuing good patents, and also giving examiners the incentive and means to do so.
It's not a simple problem. There are many factors that have to be solved, and the nation needs to have this discussion (when more pressing issues such as abortions, gun rings, evolution, stem cell research, and gay marriage are settled).
Haha! The average patent examiner would have voluntarily quit by the time you finished the paperwork necessary to fire him. The problem is that we underpay and overwork our examiners. Their supervisors yell at them for taking so long to grant patents. Examiners have a set number of hours to consider each patent application, and when that time is up, they get more applications dumped onto their plates regardless of how the original applications are doing. All the applicants know this, so their attorneys flood the examiner repeatedly until the examiner runs out of time. The incentive is to issue patents and get the applicant and his attorneys out of your hair.
You get what you pay for, and we don't pay a lot to our Patent Office and their examiners. We don't treat them well, either. We ought to pay our examiners more so we get professional career patent examiners, and also hire more examiners so there isn't such a huge rush on them to finish.
It's like my idea about paying more money to the IRS to increase enforcement of current tax laws: you get a lot of bang for the buck on investing on relatively unsexy things.
That's step one on this patent troll's list to profit! The second step would be to get these small companies to settle and take out a license or lose at trial. With a track record of licensing the patent, you can take on the big guys and point to your record of licensing your patents to make a profit, or the fact that other courts have found the patents valid and enforceable (if you're lucky).
As a resident of New York City, I'm pretty surprised the Metrocard public transportation card system has not been massively compromised in its fifteen years of operation. There have been hacks here and there but for the most part the system has been secure. Good job, guys!
As long as it's not Mr. Freeze, I think we're okay. (Horrible flashback to that movie. Ugh.)
The American legal system has always emphasized intent over action, and character dovetails into intent. Pretend I hit a pedestrian with my car. If I intended to hit and kill him because I hated him, I would be charged with murder. If my vehicle malfunctioned due to no fault of my own, I will not be charged with a crime. If I intentionally swerved into the pedestrian to avoid three kids who ran into the street, I would not be convicted of murder. In all three cases, the pedestrian is dead but my punishment differs based on my intent.
When determining intent, character is often used as a proxy because you cannot measure intent directly. So if I hit someone with a car, and then go to a party wearing a jailbird shirt and laughs about it, one can infer that the defendant just didn't care so much. His intent was probably one of indifference to human life if he gets into a drunk driving accident and laughs about it at a party where alcohol was concerned.
Additionally, character (remorsefulness) is considered a metric for recidivism. If the defendant is sincerely remorseful he may be less likely to re-offend, whereas a guy who is callous enough to party while his victim's family was mourning would be considered "cold-hearted" and likely to do it again.
The web site you linked to underscores the problem cited by the OP: "The amounts shown below are based on the highest fee/surcharge rates assessed in your state; your actual fees/surcharges may be less. In addition to the AT&T charges described below, you will be billed for mandatory taxes and fees imposed by federal, state, and local governments on wireless subscribers."
Besides, even if that web site were perfectly accurate (which it is not), then why aren't the customer service drones pulling that site up and giving the customer a straight answer rather than being all sketchy about it?
Well, if the world reverts back to the Stone Ages it'll probably be via a nuclear holocaust, in which case concerns about nuclear waste buried in a desert would be singularly misplaced.
It depends on how you measure the value of stock. Apple's stock has risen more as a percentage basis but the basic stats suggest that Microsoft might be the better buy. Microsoft's P/E is about 15 while Apple's P/E is 35.
John McCain has had his share of flip flops, as document in this Keith Olbermann clip. It's pretty hilarious because the clip ends by reading a statement from McCain that his viewpoints are evolving, and then noting that McCain was for evolution, and now against evolution. It is pretty well done.
The NASA plan has fewer parts but it does not necessarily follow that it is safer, as it will use relatively untested technologies. The rocket in the NASA design would be the largest solid-fuel rocket engine ever used. It will be statically-unstable because it is top-heavy, which is also a first. There were problems having the solid rocket fuel burn properly all the way through. The rebel plan may have more parts but it is based on well-known technology.
Moreover, Challenger was doomed regardless of the center fuel tank. The Challenger disaster was caused by a malfunctioning solid rocket booster, which are used by both the NASA and the rebel plans. The center fuel tank did not explode; the stack was turned sideways to the direction of travel by the booster failure, and the rapid change in aerodynamic pressures caused the stack to come apart. The big white cloud was caused by the cryogenic fuels being released into the air. Liquid oxygen and hydrogen actually burn without color in the air, so if it exploded, it would have been less spectacular. The Challenger crew survived the disintegration because manual emergency valves on their flight suits were activated. They died on impact. There were no abort modes that would have saved their lives in that instance. The vehicle was going too quickly for them to bail out.
The last I checked, Windows XP SP2 did not ship with an effective firewall that shipped auto-on.
I was underwhelmed by Hellboy II but Pan's Labyrinth was an amazing movie. I don't want to give any of it away, but it has the great acting, visual imagery, and detail of Hellboy II but with a heartbreaking plot. It's in Spanish with English captions but Pan's Labyrinth was spell-binding.
Anyone who believes in God should try and get Dr. DeBakey sainted. He performed many miracles, and dedicated his life to saving others. Aside from the grudge he shared with Dr. Denton Cooley, he lived his life in a morally upstanding way (he was only married twice, never getting divorced). I was going to say that they just don't make men like him anymore but I'm sure there is another DeBakey in a hospital basement somewhere chugging along researching new things.
Blackberries come with a ringer setting called "Phone Only." That's how mine is set, work hours or not. I glance at my Blackberry every twenty minutes or so when I have a natural pause in my work. Much better than my colleagues, who are interrupted at every buzz of the Blackberry.
The Louisiana politicians behind this bill are not idiots. They understand fully that the bill will get struck down without having any effect on education. However, it will polarize their base and allow the politicians to sell the message: Anti-Christian sentiment is strong, and liberal, activist judges are attacking our way of life!
You see, you just have to be cynical enough and then things will all make sense.
No. It was willful negligence more than anything else. Read "State Of War." The reports of Iraqi attempts to buy yellowcake uranium were based on a forged document. Moreover, the President relied on a source known as "Curveball" to make assertions regarding Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program in the State of the Union Address even though the German intelligence organization (and the US State Department) said Curveball was unreliable. Turns out that Curveball was an alcoholic Iraqi ex-pat living in Germany working at a McDonald's, and the guy had delusions of grandeur. Oops.
Punishing people for bringing a lawsuit that is eventually withdrawn will only benefit huge corporations with deep pockets. Pretend you sue Exxon Mobil for poisoning a well in a neighborhood. You spend lots of time and money on discovery and experts. Then you find out that there is no clear-cut evidence that the oil and poisons they dumped into a well caused the cancers in the neighborhood. There is a correlation but you cannot scientifically prove causation. Thus, your case is in a rut, and Exxon is outspending you at every turn. You're out of money. You have to drop the case.
Except you can't because then you would have to pay automatic damages. What to do, what to do?!
Stop having agitators on online forums create your legal system, that's what.
Granting a defendant automatic damages if a plaintiff withdraws a lawsuit will lead to many meritless suits prosecuted to the end. For instance, if the RIAA had to pay legal fees, lost of income, compensation for harassment, and libel in this case, they would not be withdrawing the lawsuit. They would rather fight this to the end and wait for the defendant to go bankrupt or cave in. I think the defendant should be given the chance to get damages by filing a countersuit but should not be granted automatic damages lest we create perverse incentives to flog a dead horse.
I believe that CSIRO got an injunction to prevent patent infringement by the Buffalo routers so you can't buy these routers in the US anymore.
Americans now know how it's like to be ruled by a ten-year old. "Nuh uh, I'm not going to open the e-mail." "Sir? Mr. President, that's the EPA's conclusions. It's important." "I disagree." "Respectfully, Mr. President, you should read it first." "Not gonna do it."
I generally share cynical views but everything here is above board (so far). State rights prevent a federal court judge from disbarring or professionally sanctioning an attorney as that is a matter for the state bar that accredited the attorney. The federal judge had his clerk file a complaint against the lawyer to the state bar. I'm sure that if we keep an eye on this case, the attorney in question will get sanctioned on a painful level by the state bar association.
We can hate Microsoft but as a libertarian, I find this development scary. Getting the federal government involved in the design and manufacture of a product is unwarranted and is akin to precrime. The US Government should leave Microsoft's development of Windows 7 alone. If it turns out to have anti-competitive effects, then the government can punish Microsoft for it. Everyone may say that would be too little, too late, but preemptive strikes are un-American. (And besides, we can always break MS up if it keeps pushing out monopolistic products.)