It's in the contract. Parties license patents to avoid litigation. They know the patent may be invalid, but it's easier to settle sometimes rather than die trying. They waive their right to recoup the licensing costs if the patents are later invalidated. Exceptions exist if there was inequitable conduct (basically fraud) before the PTO while obtaining the patents. then all bets are off.
If you applied for your patent first, then you would get priority in an interference. Other guy and prove he actually invented first but filed later. You would end up with the patent. PTO doesn't care, in these instances, who gets issued the patent first but rather who invented first and there is a presumption for the guy who filed first. (Makes sense.)
You are wrong. A court may hold the patents invalid despite what the patent office may think. Odd, huh? A court may rule that the patents were obtained by fraud upon the patent office during prosecution. Or a court may find prior art renders a patent obvious. The patent office is granted deference, however. Obviousness arguments usually win if you come up with prior art that was NOT before the patent office. However, there is nothing preventing the court from invalidating the patents on prior art that was before the PTO and this has happened.
RIM hired a whole bunch of lobbyists who argued that Blackberries were necessary for national security. Congressmen backed them up, saying that in the aftermath of 9/11, cellphones did not work but Blackberries kept going. The subtext is that if Blackberries were eliminated, there would be no way for Congressmen and other civilian organizations to communicate. The patents here have already been scrutinized by a district court and upheld as valid and infringed. Suddenly, the PTO gets through these reviews in record time and finds all the patents in suit are invalid. Hrm.
I'd like to clarify that when I said "if there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them," I was not making a general statement. FC does not endorse reckless lawbreaking; nor do I.
Well, how the heck was your law firm supposed to know that? You wrote, "if there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them" in an IP context while working for an IP firm working for large corporations. What if you worked for a firm that represented Planned Parenthood and wrote that "abortion is ungodly and laws against harassing abortionists are wrong and I will break them"? Just like anyone else, your firm has no obligation to hire someone who says something that annoys them. In the real world, you cannot have your outspoken views and have everyone accept them without consequence to you. Martin Luther King, Jr. was jailed for his beliefs and he did so without whining. (Well, his "Letter from Birmingham" doesn't count as whining to me.)
Good luck proving AT&T knew it was asked to do something illegal. The lawful way of doing this was a secret FISA court warrant that could be procured after the wiretap was in place. The plaintiff has to proof knowledge or recklessness. So instead of saying, "I was following an order which I knew to be illegal" (which doesn't fly too well), the defense is "I was following an order that I had a reasonable basis for believing and actually did believe to be more probable than not to be lawful." Plaintiffs would be hard-pressed to show this to be false by a preponderance of the evidence. AT&T probably didn't keep too many memos saying they knew the orders were unlawful. Employees probably wouldn't be too keen on admitting that either.
Civil rights unions file suits like this only to get attention. These suits do not get anywhere. Remember, courts want to encourage compliance with court orders or government agency orders instead of everyone pulling a Google. What normally happens is that the United States government comes in and files an amicus brief or intervenes in the action and says, "National Security. Nothing to see here." Completely apolitically, look at the gays in the military issue. The military files an amicus brief to the effect that gays in the military in any capacity--even as a lawyer or translator--would be detrimental to national security. Or rather, gays who admit to being gay in contravention of "don't ask, don't tell" would be dangerous. Think about that logically. The Supreme Court took that argument hook, line, and sinker. I wouldn't get too happy about the EFF's suit just yet.
While this would make the patent office's job easier (prior art is restricted to everything filed with them), it means that prior art that is not filed is no longer a defense.
No it does not mean that. It only means that we will be moving to first to file along with the rest of the world. Patentees can look around and have more certainty about prior art because if it is not filed, it cannot defeat them for priority on the same invention. Prior art (in the form of published articles, for example) still render patents obvious. The new rule would means less litigation regarding when and what is "invention". Can a guy who created an entire FPGA design in his head and was able to draw the blueprint from memory deemed to have invented it or only when he reduced it to practice? No more psychobabble. The question is simply whether there was a filing.
Mandatory cross-licensing between the upstream and downstream patent users. Basically, you get to use mine if I get to use yours. Innovating products will be made, and assuming companies already charge what the market will bear, consumers will not (cannot?) be overcharged (any more than usual). The patentees will share the profits. "Fair, non-discriminating royalties" will become a popular term in a few years, it would seem.
Incidentally, the entire debate on whether we will have a mandatory licensing regime in the United States will be decided by the Supreme Court in the eBay v. MercExchange case, to be argued on March 29 of this year.
I meant to say that a launch escape system was feasible with Apollo because of its vertical stack design, not that the escape system was the reason for the vertical stack.
Traditional polygraphs measure the physical manifestations of stress. The tester takes a baseline to control for the stress of being polygraphed and then asks questions of interest. Strategies for cheating include taking psychoactive medication (such as lithium) to calm down, or willing oneself to overreact on control questions to set a high baseline and doing the opposite for real questions. Lastly, if one is truly psychotic enough, one can forget that he is lying and actually believe he is telling the truth. The latter is rare. But with enough practice, one can defeat polygraphs reliably.
The fMRI measures the brain directly. It sees which section of the brain is "coming up" with the story: the part that recalls historical events or the part that makes things up. The physiology of the brain cannot be altered (yet). Each part has a distinct function in all persons. For instance, a section of the brain, if tampered, will lead to its owner's inability to describe things using words. Thus, the only way to defeat a fMRI is to actually believe that you are telling the truth. The baseline is not unique to yourself, as in a standard polygraph, but the population in general--which shares the brain physiology. Well, at least that's the theory. Let's see if it practically pans out.
The point of the law is to prevent the spread of child pornography. Otherwise, you could only punish the person who originally took the pictures. The statute in question hinders the spread of child porn by criminalizing the production of contraband materials that may be used to for swapping or exchange. The defense claimed that he was merely storing data onto the CD-R, which was already covered by the crime of possession. The prosecution claimed that the CD-R was transferable. Furthermore, unlike the automatic cache of a browser, there was intent to produce a copy of the porn. The statute did not make an exception for personal use. It was not a conviction but whether he would have to stand trial for that charge. The Court said that he must.
The entire problem with the Shuttle was that it abandoned the vertical stack design of previous spacecraft in favor of a "paralllel" stack. The Apollo program had the escape tower because the humans were on top. Ice and debris from the stack could not hit the heat shield and cause injury. The Shuttle is right next to the rocket and cryogenic fuel tank. No escape systems, no protection of the heat shield against debris strikes. The next generation of planned manned craft will revert to the entire vertical stack concept.
The External Tank/Solid Rocket Booster stack exploded. However, by this time, the Orbiter had already separated from that assembly. The Orbiter itself did not explode. Rather, it disintegrated because of the aerodynamic stresses and not because of the explosion of the ET/SRB combination. The Orbiter was going really fast and its attitute was changed to one it wasn't designed to support.
Re:Ok, can we just put more empty space in now?
on
Intel Makes 45nm Chip
·
· Score: 1
Build a Pentium M desktop. Then stick a huge 120 mm heatsink/fan combination on it at a low-rpm. A few large 120 mm and/or 90 mm case fans at low rpm and you have no problems.
AMD licensed magic technology recently where SOI processes would be used to reduce the density of on-die SRAM and DRAM. The company spokesperson said that tech was usually integrated in about two years. Hey, that's 2008! So again, Intel has higher fab tech but AMD may win on architecture yet again.
Slashdot Mirror
It's in the contract. Parties license patents to avoid litigation. They know the patent may be invalid, but it's easier to settle sometimes rather than die trying. They waive their right to recoup the licensing costs if the patents are later invalidated. Exceptions exist if there was inequitable conduct (basically fraud) before the PTO while obtaining the patents. then all bets are off.
If you applied for your patent first, then you would get priority in an interference. Other guy and prove he actually invented first but filed later. You would end up with the patent. PTO doesn't care, in these instances, who gets issued the patent first but rather who invented first and there is a presumption for the guy who filed first. (Makes sense.)
Correct me if I'm wrong...
You are wrong. A court may hold the patents invalid despite what the patent office may think. Odd, huh? A court may rule that the patents were obtained by fraud upon the patent office during prosecution. Or a court may find prior art renders a patent obvious. The patent office is granted deference, however. Obviousness arguments usually win if you come up with prior art that was NOT before the patent office. However, there is nothing preventing the court from invalidating the patents on prior art that was before the PTO and this has happened.
Well, yeah, but Microsoft being honest about being bastards? That's new.
RIM hired a whole bunch of lobbyists who argued that Blackberries were necessary for national security. Congressmen backed them up, saying that in the aftermath of 9/11, cellphones did not work but Blackberries kept going. The subtext is that if Blackberries were eliminated, there would be no way for Congressmen and other civilian organizations to communicate. The patents here have already been scrutinized by a district court and upheld as valid and infringed. Suddenly, the PTO gets through these reviews in record time and finds all the patents in suit are invalid. Hrm.
Netcraft confirmed early this morning that Duke Nukem Forever jokes are now dead.
From TFA:
I'd like to clarify that when I said "if there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them," I was not making a general statement. FC does not endorse reckless lawbreaking; nor do I.
Well, how the heck was your law firm supposed to know that? You wrote, "if there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them" in an IP context while working for an IP firm working for large corporations. What if you worked for a firm that represented Planned Parenthood and wrote that "abortion is ungodly and laws against harassing abortionists are wrong and I will break them"? Just like anyone else, your firm has no obligation to hire someone who says something that annoys them. In the real world, you cannot have your outspoken views and have everyone accept them without consequence to you. Martin Luther King, Jr. was jailed for his beliefs and he did so without whining. (Well, his "Letter from Birmingham" doesn't count as whining to me.)
Dr. B.: "I hold the idea that the AIDS is not a viral disease, but is a metabolic disorder precipitated by an exaggerated way of life."
Me: "I have a needle with HIV in blood sera. So you would not mind if I..."
Dr. B: "Uh, wait..."
>> Jab.
Me: "Oops."
Dr. B: "Croak."
They know the law. That is their defense. The law itself is vague.
Good luck proving AT&T knew it was asked to do something illegal. The lawful way of doing this was a secret FISA court warrant that could be procured after the wiretap was in place. The plaintiff has to proof knowledge or recklessness. So instead of saying, "I was following an order which I knew to be illegal" (which doesn't fly too well), the defense is "I was following an order that I had a reasonable basis for believing and actually did believe to be more probable than not to be lawful." Plaintiffs would be hard-pressed to show this to be false by a preponderance of the evidence. AT&T probably didn't keep too many memos saying they knew the orders were unlawful. Employees probably wouldn't be too keen on admitting that either.
Civil rights unions file suits like this only to get attention. These suits do not get anywhere. Remember, courts want to encourage compliance with court orders or government agency orders instead of everyone pulling a Google. What normally happens is that the United States government comes in and files an amicus brief or intervenes in the action and says, "National Security. Nothing to see here." Completely apolitically, look at the gays in the military issue. The military files an amicus brief to the effect that gays in the military in any capacity--even as a lawyer or translator--would be detrimental to national security. Or rather, gays who admit to being gay in contravention of "don't ask, don't tell" would be dangerous. Think about that logically. The Supreme Court took that argument hook, line, and sinker. I wouldn't get too happy about the EFF's suit just yet.
Google has really good suggested search terms for typos. Hint, hint. Skeet, skeet.
While this would make the patent office's job easier (prior art is restricted to everything filed with them), it means that prior art that is not filed is no longer a defense.
No it does not mean that. It only means that we will be moving to first to file along with the rest of the world. Patentees can look around and have more certainty about prior art because if it is not filed, it cannot defeat them for priority on the same invention. Prior art (in the form of published articles, for example) still render patents obvious. The new rule would means less litigation regarding when and what is "invention". Can a guy who created an entire FPGA design in his head and was able to draw the blueprint from memory deemed to have invented it or only when he reduced it to practice? No more psychobabble. The question is simply whether there was a filing.
Mandatory cross-licensing between the upstream and downstream patent users. Basically, you get to use mine if I get to use yours. Innovating products will be made, and assuming companies already charge what the market will bear, consumers will not (cannot?) be overcharged (any more than usual). The patentees will share the profits. "Fair, non-discriminating royalties" will become a popular term in a few years, it would seem.
Incidentally, the entire debate on whether we will have a mandatory licensing regime in the United States will be decided by the Supreme Court in the eBay v. MercExchange case, to be argued on March 29 of this year.
IE is not a virus, silly. It's a vector.
I meant to say that a launch escape system was feasible with Apollo because of its vertical stack design, not that the escape system was the reason for the vertical stack.
Well, I don't have Asperger's but I still have great trouble with women.
Traditional polygraphs measure the physical manifestations of stress. The tester takes a baseline to control for the stress of being polygraphed and then asks questions of interest. Strategies for cheating include taking psychoactive medication (such as lithium) to calm down, or willing oneself to overreact on control questions to set a high baseline and doing the opposite for real questions. Lastly, if one is truly psychotic enough, one can forget that he is lying and actually believe he is telling the truth. The latter is rare. But with enough practice, one can defeat polygraphs reliably.
The fMRI measures the brain directly. It sees which section of the brain is "coming up" with the story: the part that recalls historical events or the part that makes things up. The physiology of the brain cannot be altered (yet). Each part has a distinct function in all persons. For instance, a section of the brain, if tampered, will lead to its owner's inability to describe things using words. Thus, the only way to defeat a fMRI is to actually believe that you are telling the truth. The baseline is not unique to yourself, as in a standard polygraph, but the population in general--which shares the brain physiology. Well, at least that's the theory. Let's see if it practically pans out.
The point of the law is to prevent the spread of child pornography. Otherwise, you could only punish the person who originally took the pictures. The statute in question hinders the spread of child porn by criminalizing the production of contraband materials that may be used to for swapping or exchange. The defense claimed that he was merely storing data onto the CD-R, which was already covered by the crime of possession. The prosecution claimed that the CD-R was transferable. Furthermore, unlike the automatic cache of a browser, there was intent to produce a copy of the porn. The statute did not make an exception for personal use. It was not a conviction but whether he would have to stand trial for that charge. The Court said that he must.
The entire problem with the Shuttle was that it abandoned the vertical stack design of previous spacecraft in favor of a "paralllel" stack. The Apollo program had the escape tower because the humans were on top. Ice and debris from the stack could not hit the heat shield and cause injury. The Shuttle is right next to the rocket and cryogenic fuel tank. No escape systems, no protection of the heat shield against debris strikes. The next generation of planned manned craft will revert to the entire vertical stack concept.
From the original all the way to Civilization IV. Addictive.
iMacs require the user to hold down a button on the case in order to flash their ROM.
The External Tank/Solid Rocket Booster stack exploded. However, by this time, the Orbiter had already separated from that assembly. The Orbiter itself did not explode. Rather, it disintegrated because of the aerodynamic stresses and not because of the explosion of the ET/SRB combination. The Orbiter was going really fast and its attitute was changed to one it wasn't designed to support.
Build a Pentium M desktop. Then stick a huge 120 mm heatsink/fan combination on it at a low-rpm. A few large 120 mm and/or 90 mm case fans at low rpm and you have no problems.
AMD licensed magic technology recently where SOI processes would be used to reduce the density of on-die SRAM and DRAM. The company spokesperson said that tech was usually integrated in about two years. Hey, that's 2008! So again, Intel has higher fab tech but AMD may win on architecture yet again.