I don't see anything in the patent act that says that patents are only granted to inventions that are "deserving". Do you have a citation?
Non-obviousness, you know one of the patent criteria.
Citation needed]. How do you know that the second inventor didn't spend months and months working hard to come up with the idea? The mere fact that it's possible that two people can both eventually, through hard work, come up with the same solution doesn't mean the solution is obvious - it means we have two smart people.
That one didn't apply for a patent might be some indication. That it's a simple tweak to an existing algorithm might be another.
Additionally, your interpretation is directly counter to the statute. Look up 35 USC 102(g), which explicitly describes what happens when two people independently invent the same thing and both apply for a patent - hint: the answer is not that the invention is obvious and both applications are rejected.
Given the problems the patent system has I don't think the statute matters that much when discussing "human civilization fail". Whether something is working the way the law says it should is irrelevant to discussions of whether the system is good for society.
Not at all... In fact, as noted, the second inventor may have spent months and months to come up with the solution. If the first inventor published early, then the second inventor wouldn't have to have wasted his time. Society has lost due to the wasted time and money that could have been better spent on the next invention.
Who cares? It's a sunk cost. That the patent system didn't prevent that cost from happening is just further indication that the system isn't doing the job of promoting progress.
That doesn't mean you would want to maximize short term profits. In fact it would mean the exact opposite. If money is worth less and less everyday then you want to spend now.
Spending more now means smaller short term profits in expectation of higher future returns when the prices of all the things you spent the money on now are higher. Either you'll be able to offload those things at the now higher prices or have a competitive edge against those companies who have to buy that stuff as the higher prices.
Because something that is inependently invented within a year of the filing date and before the patent is granted doesn't deserve patent protection.
Conceptually, it is clearly something obvious enough to those skilled in the field and thus not patent worthy. Practically, society has the invention there's no need to grant a temporary monopoly on it to someone in exchange for them publishing it.
Claiming A requires B does not say that B implies A. It also does not say that "more" of B makes for "more" of A.
Baking a cake requires a source of heat. That does not mean that because I have a source of heat I am baking a cake. It also does not mean that a blast furnace will make more or better cake than a conventional kitchen oven.
The fundamental paradox there was rescued by quantum mechanics. the Pauli Exclusion Principle applies to the electrons, so even at 0 temperature they can't all occupy the ground state. And the uncertainty principle says that since there's such a large numbers of electrons all in a small space they are quite localized and hence must have high momentum.
The greatest feature of science is that the person doesn't matter. It makes no difference if Darwin was a god hating rascist trying to justify his hate. It makes no difference if Newton liked to try to turn lead into gold. It makes no difference if Lemaitre was attempting to reconcile his faith and science. It makes no difference if scientist X was a pedophile and serial killer.
As long as the ideas match observation and make some testable prediction science as a whole can take them and benefit from them. Even if major shifts will be met with resistance because scientists are egotistical humans, over time the theories which best match observation will win out.
Whereas in religion it makes a difference. An unrepetentant rascist serial killer's explanations of the sacrifice of Jesus can be dismissed just because of the person making them. Following his moral guidelines would be a bad idea. Testing his scientific theories and keeping those that provide a better explanation that better matches reality is perfectly fine.
Sure but it's perfectly feasible (and if you changed OS to reduce the temptation pretty likely) that you might play games to the detriment of more important entertaining things.
For example:
You need to do X hours of work on your computer to earn a living. Instead you do X/2 of work and X/2 of game playing. Now the working day ends and instead of being able to go play with the kids outside or go see a movie with your partner or go out with friends you have to do X/2 hours of work in order to keep your job.
Sure, but "consoles" was also there making "high end" PCs the correct subset to use. Mind you my PC plays games just fine and isn't what I would call high end...
It's irrelevant to the point, which is if that level of graphics is considered "high end".
Obviously you use the lowest power you can get away with (since heat is painful to deal with - especially for a console that you don't want to sound like a jet taking off). What you can get away with and still be called "high end" is the only question.
The same is true for crossbows, but I don't see anyone rushing to equip armies with them. And before you say it's not the same thing, you need to go and examine the history of the crossbow, because it absolutely was the atomic bomb of its era. So basically I think this is a terrible argument.
The rifle does everything a crossbow can. Their both easy to use weapons that can punch through armor (personal armor, not armor armor). And the rifle does it better - a higher fire rate, less bulk, etc, etc.
What do you think has replaced the nuclear bomb/missile? What other weapon do we have that can essentially wipe an entire continent off the map in a matter of hours? What is the "yes you could overrun us with your conventional military, but you are going to be dead too" replacement?
it's a commodity. it makes no difference where it comes from.
Canada stops selling oil to the US and the US just buys it from country X instead. And those who were buying from country X buy theirs from Canada. And nothing has changed.
You are in a car speeding towards a cliff, there are three impotant points.
1. The point at which even if you apply the brake you will still go over the edge. 2. The edge. 3. The ground below.
That methane release would be the edge.
The resulting climate changes the ground below.
The point of no return though is the last possible braking point - since even though you aren't off the cliff yet there is now nothing you can do to stop it happening.
Lying, using the best case end of everything that has a range. Potato, potato (which doesn't work so well in writing and I can't convince slashdot to display the phonetic characters I copy-n-pasted).
Wouldn't upping living standards worsen the problem?
As living standards rise you would expect pollution controls to increase and hence less aerosols blocking sunlight. Which I seem to recall is what kicked off the problem - the developed world stopped pouring aerosols into the atmosphere but kept pouring the CO2.
Plus of course the increased energy demands of a higher standard of living itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Non-obviousness, you know one of the patent criteria.
That one didn't apply for a patent might be some indication. That it's a simple tweak to an existing algorithm might be another.
Given the problems the patent system has I don't think the statute matters that much when discussing "human civilization fail". Whether something is working the way the law says it should is irrelevant to discussions of whether the system is good for society.
Who cares? It's a sunk cost. That the patent system didn't prevent that cost from happening is just further indication that the system isn't doing the job of promoting progress.
That doesn't mean you would want to maximize short term profits. In fact it would mean the exact opposite. If money is worth less and less everyday then you want to spend now.
Spending more now means smaller short term profits in expectation of higher future returns when the prices of all the things you spent the money on now are higher. Either you'll be able to offload those things at the now higher prices or have a competitive edge against those companies who have to buy that stuff as the higher prices.
Because something that is inependently invented within a year of the filing date and before the patent is granted doesn't deserve patent protection.
Conceptually, it is clearly something obvious enough to those skilled in the field and thus not patent worthy. Practically, society has the invention there's no need to grant a temporary monopoly on it to someone in exchange for them publishing it.
Why is it surprising that they would want to make a claim?
Of course insurance companies have more experience with getting out of paying claims than record labels do stiffing copyright holders.
Because it's impossible for someone to think that a stock while not as good as it could be is still a good investment?
And it's all or nothing right? Sell all your stock because you disagree with some things the company does and ignore the things you like.
http://www.trinity.edu/jdunn/spiderdrugs.htm
it seems pretty open and shut that it's the company's.
Of course I only read the summary.
Claiming A requires B does not say that B implies A. It also does not say that "more" of B makes for "more" of A.
Baking a cake requires a source of heat. That does not mean that because I have a source of heat I am baking a cake. It also does not mean that a blast furnace will make more or better cake than a conventional kitchen oven.
At least say "I recently published an app for the iOS platform that" instead of "A recently published app for the iOS platform".
Pretending it's something interesting you just stumbled across is being deceptive.
The fundamental paradox there was rescued by quantum mechanics. the Pauli Exclusion Principle applies to the electrons, so even at 0 temperature they can't all occupy the ground state. And the uncertainty principle says that since there's such a large numbers of electrons all in a small space they are quite localized and hence must have high momentum.
It's a state of matter known as electron degeneracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter
No it would be nothing like either. There are no chemical bonds, just a plasma of electrons and nuclei.
I thought Christianity had a concept of a bad tree being unable to bear good fruit. Though it wouldn't be the first time I've misunderstood something.
dpkg --listfiles package
dpkg --search file
So what?
The greatest feature of science is that the person doesn't matter. It makes no difference if Darwin was a god hating rascist trying to justify his hate. It makes no difference if Newton liked to try to turn lead into gold. It makes no difference if Lemaitre was attempting to reconcile his faith and science. It makes no difference if scientist X was a pedophile and serial killer.
As long as the ideas match observation and make some testable prediction science as a whole can take them and benefit from them. Even if major shifts will be met with resistance because scientists are egotistical humans, over time the theories which best match observation will win out.
Whereas in religion it makes a difference. An unrepetentant rascist serial killer's explanations of the sacrifice of Jesus can be dismissed just because of the person making them. Following his moral guidelines would be a bad idea. Testing his scientific theories and keeping those that provide a better explanation that better matches reality is perfectly fine.
Sure but it's perfectly feasible (and if you changed OS to reduce the temptation pretty likely) that you might play games to the detriment of more important entertaining things.
For example:
You need to do X hours of work on your computer to earn a living. Instead you do X/2 of work and X/2 of game playing. Now the working day ends and instead of being able to go play with the kids outside or go see a movie with your partner or go out with friends you have to do X/2 hours of work in order to keep your job.
Sure, but "consoles" was also there making "high end" PCs the correct subset to use. Mind you my PC plays games just fine and isn't what I would call high end...
The only thing in that list that is Federal is some roads and bridges.
Most of the other things are funded by my local government through property taxes. And said government isn't spending more than it collects.
Many are state or have state input as well - and their budget is pretty screwed but not at the Federal level yet.
It's irrelevant to the point, which is if that level of graphics is considered "high end".
Obviously you use the lowest power you can get away with (since heat is painful to deal with - especially for a console that you don't want to sound like a jet taking off). What you can get away with and still be called "high end" is the only question.
The rifle does everything a crossbow can. Their both easy to use weapons that can punch through armor (personal armor, not armor armor). And the rifle does it better - a higher fire rate, less bulk, etc, etc.
What do you think has replaced the nuclear bomb/missile? What other weapon do we have that can essentially wipe an entire continent off the map in a matter of hours? What is the "yes you could overrun us with your conventional military, but you are going to be dead too" replacement?
it's a commodity. it makes no difference where it comes from.
Canada stops selling oil to the US and the US just buys it from country X instead. And those who were buying from country X buy theirs from Canada. And nothing has changed.
Aside from the tit-for-tat trade war of course.
In 2 years time the PS3 will be 7 years old.
The PS2 was 7 years old in 2007. Were PS2 level graphics acceptable for "high end PCs and consoles" in 2007?
No? Then why would PS3 level be acceptable in 2013?
That's not the point of no return.
Hey I can use a car analogy!
You are in a car speeding towards a cliff, there are three impotant points.
1. The point at which even if you apply the brake you will still go over the edge.
2. The edge.
3. The ground below.
That methane release would be the edge.
The resulting climate changes the ground below.
The point of no return though is the last possible braking point - since even though you aren't off the cliff yet there is now nothing you can do to stop it happening.
Lying, using the best case end of everything that has a range. Potato, potato (which doesn't work so well in writing and I can't convince slashdot to display the phonetic characters I copy-n-pasted).
Wouldn't upping living standards worsen the problem?
As living standards rise you would expect pollution controls to increase and hence less aerosols blocking sunlight. Which I seem to recall is what kicked off the problem - the developed world stopped pouring aerosols into the atmosphere but kept pouring the CO2.
Plus of course the increased energy demands of a higher standard of living itself.
I would think we are beyond the point of no return and global warming is irreversible.
But saying so would be counter productive so claiming it is X years away where X is small is the ticket.