But now, according to this judge, Apple is not infringing, so there's nothing for the Apple to license, and thus nothing for Nokia to demand as payment!
And here we were thinking it was obvious Apple was using technology covered by Nokia's patents, it was just a question of fair licensing fees...
That's pretty close to the best explanation I've read so far (and that was about ten years ago!). The very basic explanation for Islamism (and the terrorism it generates) was that the terrorists (at the time) were almost always first generation middle class. Newborn political citizens living in countries where the only allowed political forum was (and is) religious fundamentalism. Also living in countries where society is, should we say, in dire need of rebuilding to get rid of poverty, stupidity, exploitation, illiteracy, you name it.
Because they do not understand it, and people are scared by things they do not understand.
Or perhaps because they do understand it? Compared to wind energy, the initial cost are twice as much, operating costs thrice as much and fuel costs infinitely more. And that was 6 years ago, wind has come down since, while nuclear remains the energy of the future...
Oh, and besides high costs and 8-12 years of construction time, nuclear energy has to deal with safety, waste and proliferation. Somehow it's just not what investors are looking for right now.
It has nothing to do with motive, it has to do with effect. If it benefits mankind it qualifies. Who cares if the person profits from it at the same time? Would you begrudge someone recognition just because it profits them in some way?
That's a sure way to cut back on advancement several tens of years or more.
Seriously, though, patent has a good change of cutting back the advancement in form of limiting further use, study and development. And profit is a symptom of resources not being used optimally.
In other words, you advocate both artificial limits to and wastage of resources as beneficial to mankind?
Perhaps I should have added that to me it looks like they're doing the right way. I sorta figured that claiming it as 'mere' "government job" and then providing their good plan would be enough for people with a sense of irony. In any case it didn't see that anti-libertarian knee jerk aggression coming -- I really don't think libertarianism is worth any attention at all. It's a prime example of dead-on-arrival ideology.
In short, people are generally classified in one of these 2 groups (good or evil):
1) The ones who believe that man is responsible from global warming. They are the "good" people.
2) The ones who believe that other factors might be involved. They are the "evil people", which must all have interests in oil companies.
[...]
Wrong.
There is a group of people who conclude that of the many factors only anthropogenic emission explain the current warming. These are called climatologists.
There is another group of people who while knowing better, spread FUD about the above. These are called "evil people", and they usually get paid by corporations. Many of them were spreading FUD about second hand tobacco smoke, CFCs, DDT, you name it.
Then there are people who believe they have proved 150 years of science wrong, or theory of relativity wrong, or heliocentric solar system wrong. These are ignorants, or fools. They forgot/ignored/haven't slightest clue that human CO2 warming atmosphere is based on very simple physics and very simple statistics, and any alternative explanation must also explain why the CO2 isn't warming atmosphere.
And finally we have people who either believe doctors, lawyers and other experts on issues they feel they can't understand properly, and people who come up with a bundle of excuses not to listen to experts if the experts tell things they don't like.
After all, no science, including climatology, is done on blogs or bulletin boards, or in op eds. If look at those, there is a flood of divergent opinions. For example in early 90s USA joined the Rio agreement to cut emissions (among other things) and majority of American were conserned about AGW. 15 years later majority believes it's a hoax, and USA hasn't done a thing. You want us to believe that's because divergent opinions are not allowed?
If nuclear power was economically viable, there would be such an enormous PR-campaign that people would be demanding reactors on their back yards. That's how the world works.
For now, there's just not enough profit in it to spend extra to 'educate' population.
It's not correct, the location was known a year or two before Myriad was even founded ("Linkage of early onset familial breast cancer to chromosome 17q21. Science 1990"). And I think it was sequenced two years before Myriad filed the patent, and published in Science ("A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science 1994") by University of Utah (a co-patenter), National Institute of Health (6 grants) and McGill University, adding "Sequences of PCR primers used to amplify each exon of BRCA1 are available upon request" as academia researchers often do.
In Europe the patent was revoked, because Myriad's screening test was found to be inaccurate and the patent prevented making improved tests.
So, no. Myriad did not add any knowledge, and the patent did prevent others adding too...
Because water has it's highest density at ~ 4 ÂC (40 ÂF), meaning that any at any other temperature it becomes lighter and raises up making room for colder water and so on and on and on...
2. Competition among private services gives private companies an incentive to provide the best possible service at the lowest price. Because there is only one provider for a public service (and no competing providers are permitted to exist), there is no incentive for public services to provide the best service or the cheapest service. That's what we've been told over and over again, nevertheless the purpose of the private company is not to provide the best with the lowest, but to make profit (which is again against the principle of efficiency of free markets -- the existence of profit means that the service is not achieved economically efficiently for the society). In practice that means the worst service with the highest price that the company can get away with.
A public service has no incentive to provide worst service possible, nor the cheapest. But at least the society can say how much it can cost (budget), and what they have to provide (law).
Theoretically, in a democracy the politicians do have an incentive to look after efficiency of public services, even if the said services do not (and I'm not sure why the services wouldn't want to be efficient).
Slashdot Mirror
But now, according to this judge, Apple is not infringing, so there's nothing for the Apple to license, and thus nothing for Nokia to demand as payment!
And here we were thinking it was obvious Apple was using technology covered by Nokia's patents, it was just a question of fair licensing fees...
That's pretty close to the best explanation I've read so far (and that was about ten years ago!). The very basic explanation for Islamism (and the terrorism it generates) was that the terrorists (at the time) were almost always first generation middle class. Newborn political citizens living in countries where the only allowed political forum was (and is) religious fundamentalism. Also living in countries where society is, should we say, in dire need of rebuilding to get rid of poverty, stupidity, exploitation, illiteracy, you name it.
Or something like that. It was long time ago.
Because they do not understand it, and people are scared by things they do not understand.
Or perhaps because they do understand it? Compared to wind energy, the initial cost are twice as much, operating costs thrice as much and fuel costs infinitely more. And that was 6 years ago, wind has come down since, while nuclear remains the energy of the future...
Oh, and besides high costs and 8-12 years of construction time, nuclear energy has to deal with safety, waste and proliferation. Somehow it's just not what investors are looking for right now.
It has nothing to do with motive, it has to do with effect. If it benefits mankind it qualifies. Who cares if the person profits from it at the same time? Would you begrudge someone recognition just because it profits them in some way?
That's a sure way to cut back on advancement several tens of years or more.
Seriously, though, patent has a good change of cutting back the advancement in form of limiting further use, study and development. And profit is a symptom of resources not being used optimally.
In other words, you advocate both artificial limits to and wastage of resources as beneficial to mankind?
"Bad thing" was not my intention.
Perhaps I should have added that to me it looks like they're doing the right way. I sorta figured that claiming it as 'mere' "government job" and then providing their good plan would be enough for people with a sense of irony. In any case it didn't see that anti-libertarian knee jerk aggression coming -- I really don't think libertarianism is worth any attention at all. It's a prime example of dead-on-arrival ideology.
Looks like government job to me:
[..]
In short, people are generally classified in one of these 2 groups (good or evil):
1) The ones who believe that man is responsible from global warming. They are the "good" people.
2) The ones who believe that other factors might be involved. They are the "evil people", which must all have interests in oil companies.
[...]
Wrong.
There is a group of people who conclude that of the many factors only anthropogenic emission explain the current warming. These are called climatologists.
There is another group of people who while knowing better, spread FUD about the above. These are called "evil people", and they usually get paid by corporations. Many of them were spreading FUD about second hand tobacco smoke, CFCs, DDT, you name it.
Then there are people who believe they have proved 150 years of science wrong, or theory of relativity wrong, or heliocentric solar system wrong. These are ignorants, or fools. They forgot/ignored/haven't slightest clue that human CO2 warming atmosphere is based on very simple physics and very simple statistics, and any alternative explanation must also explain why the CO2 isn't warming atmosphere.
And finally we have people who either believe doctors, lawyers and other experts on issues they feel they can't understand properly, and people who come up with a bundle of excuses not to listen to experts if the experts tell things they don't like.
After all, no science, including climatology, is done on blogs or bulletin boards, or in op eds. If look at those, there is a flood of divergent opinions. For example in early 90s USA joined the Rio agreement to cut emissions (among other things) and majority of American were conserned about AGW. 15 years later majority believes it's a hoax, and USA hasn't done a thing. You want us to believe that's because divergent opinions are not allowed?
If nuclear power was economically viable, there would be such an enormous PR-campaign that people would be demanding reactors on their back yards. That's how the world works. For now, there's just not enough profit in it to spend extra to 'educate' population.
Absolutely! That's why we have climate only during the day, but none when the sun sets... no, wait! Never mind...
It's not correct, the location was known a year or two before Myriad was even founded ("Linkage of early onset familial breast cancer to chromosome 17q21. Science 1990"). And I think it was sequenced two years before Myriad filed the patent, and published in Science ("A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science 1994") by University of Utah (a co-patenter), National Institute of Health (6 grants) and McGill University, adding "Sequences of PCR primers used to amplify each exon of BRCA1 are available upon request" as academia researchers often do.
In Europe the patent was revoked, because Myriad's screening test was found to be inaccurate and the patent prevented making improved tests.
So, no. Myriad did not add any knowledge, and the patent did prevent others adding too...
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not sure - some of them may be available)
Since you asked:
:)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/tools/
and some documentation with output (for reverse engineers
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/ipcc_model_documentation.php
I believe some grants/universities do forbid open sourcing code, or even making it available, at least fro some time.
Because water has it's highest density at ~ 4 ÂC (40 ÂF), meaning that any at any other temperature it becomes lighter and raises up making room for colder water and so on and on and on...