The probability of you making a significant discovery at home is close to zero. That is not meant to disencourage you. I spent enough time in professional labs myself to know that you can work for years on end on a scientific topic professionally without making any significant discoveries. However, home science is fun, so, by all means, go ahead with it! Just don't choose your field on the vague possibility of discovering something of greater meaning, just pick something that is actually FUN to you.
Americans will never "eat the rich" because they've bought completely into the myth that they have a reasonable chance of being one of them.
And that is exactly the core of the problem. The "American Dream". Slaves begging for the whip in the faint hope they might wield it themselves one day. George Carlin said it best: "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." One can only hope for people to wake up one of these days. Lots of people.
Ahh, the good old TINA principle - There Is No Alternative. Preferred way out for the profiteers and their apologists. The problem is indeed really so much bigger - and you are part of it.
The only proven method for wells at this depth is a relief drill and killing it with drilling mud when the relief well is done. This has been done at comparable depth before, it just takes a long-ass time. There is no proven method to cap a blowout at this depth of water that works fast. The relief well strategy is not really influenced by water depth, we can drill down there as well as in a shallow well, and the pressure differentials are not that different. The usual quick strategies, however, rely on accessibility of the wellhead. That is not given in that case, as you can only reach it with a couple of ROVs and are not free to operate on it as you would like. They never tried to keep the well usable - I am the last one to find excuses for BP, but the fault does not lie there. From day one it was clear that this well it toast and will never be salvaged - and no one tried to. The fuckups happened earlier. Blame them for what they or their contractors really did wrong.
Oh God... My eyes!!! Unfortunately, the Black Helicopter is down for maintenance at the moment, so expect the grab team not before Monday. I shall have to think about an appropriate punishment for this atrocity.... Bii... God, My brain! It hurts!!!
Usually electric vehicles use a combination of both - conventional brakes and some flavor of regenerative braking. Just using the engines is not sufficient in most cases, conventional disk brakes have a braking power that is roughly double that of the engine.
The court did not decide on novelty and obviousness, only on general patentability of the subject. The decision on novelty/obviousness is still to be made. The case has been send back to the next lower court, the Federal Patent Court, for that decision.
Yes, under these conditions it would be patentable. Not as a broad general claim, though, but as claim restricted to the useful technical application, or as a specific implementation that, for example, optimized computing time. I agree with you here, and I am not overly happy with the current state of software patents. However, I still fail to see how this ruling changes things substantially. It would have already been patentable under "Seitenpuffer", if it optimized computing time or other workings of the computer, and it would have been patentable under "Tauchcomputer" and all the following rulings with the same tenor, if it would lead to an external technical effect. As you say, there already are lots of crypto patents - so it obviously has been possible before. I don't want to defend software patents here - I just fail to see how this decision is a major change to the status quo. I guess we will have to see how the examiners and the BPatG reacts to it.
Where did the decision waive the requirement of a technical nature of the inventive step? Paragraph 27 states that technical means for solving a technical problem are existent, if the workings of a program are "determined by technical conditions outside of the data processing system" or if "the program considers technical conditions within the data processing system" - the latter being the reason for the decision. This is in line with "Seitenpuffer", for example.
As for a claim of a program "as such" - I would offer a process claim dealing with a plain, abstract algorithm. Just imagine a "Process for performing the Sieve of Erathosthenes algorithm." - you can derive a full claim from that yourself, the steps of the algorithm are known. The claim contains no technical attribute, and therefore is not patentable under 1 - compare paragraph 19 of the decision. It is a "program as such".
Now let's extend that to "Process for performing the Sieve of Erathosthenes algorithm on a digital data processing system". Now, the claim contains a technical attribute, of course - the data processing system. This would indeed not be a program as such under the current ruling. However, following the standing decisions, as cited and emphasized in paragraph 22 of the current decision, not only has a technical element to be present, there have to be technical means for solving a technical problem. The workings of this program are neither determined by external nor internal technical factors of the computer, therefore, there are no technical means for solving a technical problem. Therefore this is still not patentable under the standing decisions of the BGH and BPatG.
Harmonized, yes - this does not mean that they are absolutely identical. There still are considerable differences between the systems, especially with regard to software patents. Especially the mode of analysis of the technical nature of an invention used by the patent examiners is substantially different between the European and the German office.
As I said, for now I just skimmed over it. From that I get that the "controllable forces of nature"-standard is still alive - either by the software overcoming a technical limitation of the computer (which, admittedly, is WIDE open to interpretation), or by the software dealing with a technical problem outside of the computer as such. These standards appear to be upheld in the reasoning of the court. The word "technical" alone implies the "forces of nature"-standard by standing ruling of the BGH in my opinion. Again - I have to spend more time reading it - that's why underlined that I only skimmed over it. One thing is clear, however - this decision does NOT open the door for software patents "as such", as the headline seems to imply to me.
I definitely will have a look at your wiki. I generally no friend of software patents myself, but I try to encourage a somewhat more rational discussion of patent matters than often found on/.. I am certainly open to contribute something to further these goals - when I find time. Regarding the last BGH decision: As I said, this was a quick analysis from skimming over it, but I definitely will have a more detailed look into it and discuss it with some people. If it turns out to be a larger change of the status quo than I am thinking at the moment, I'll drop you a line on the wiki. The court references a lot of earlier decisions, which, in my current opinion, are just being clarified by the current ruling. After spending a day with legal matters, however, I am not overly inclined to get those decisions right now and do a more proper review right now;)
The European Patent Convention does not apply here. This is a matter of German patent law, which exists in parallel to the European system. German patent law states that software is not patentable "as such" (PatG 1, Abs. 3+4). Now, obviously, the phrase "as such" is not exactly clear - the rulings of the High Court have been focused on the meaning of "as such" for years. The general opinion of the High Court, which, by the way, is not changed by this ruling, is that a patent is not describing a computer program "as such", as long as the program solves a technical problem regarding the computer it is running on or outside of the computer. E.g. overcoming a hardware limitation of a computer makes the subject matter technical, as it is the case with this ruling. Controlling a car's suspension system by software would make that software likely patentable, as another example, as the software solves the technical problem of improving a car's dynamics.
No reason to panic - this is the usual/. patent propaganda machine running hot. The ruling is in line with the ruling practice of the BGH of the last 15 years at least. Nothing will change regarding software patents in Germany - they have always been possible, as long as the software in question deals with a technical matter within or external to the computer the software is running on.
After a quick skimming of the document, I can only say that the/. headline is as overblown and out of context as always. The ruling is perfectly in line with the prior rulings of the BGH: An invention encompassing a computer program is technical in nature, if the program addresses a technical property or limitation of the computer it is intended to run on, or if the program is depended on or effecting a technical subject external to this computer. The range of patentable software in Germany has not changed significantly by this ruling. I'll have to examine the document closer for more details, but that will probably be tomorrow on company time, as I get paid for that stuff...
Yep, this is a PDO matter and a such part of trademark law. It would technically be possible to patent a Schnitzel, too, if it was invented now. Food and beverages are not excluded from patent protection.
Mods, get off the crack - how does this deserve "troll"?
On the topic of reasons for extremism - I don't think that colonialism and poverty are the main reasons here. The parallels to evangelical fundamentalism are quite revealing. Both movements are more like a reaction to the extremely fast cultural developments in the last century - a reaction to a "culture shock", which is being perceived as a decline and degeneration of cultural values and morals. The very interesting BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear" elaborates on that point. If you haven't seen it yet, I strongly recommend it.
But, but... In nethack the @ represents YOU. Your use of the @, peace be upon it, therefore implies that you are The Prophet yourself. That, my friend, is worse than just drawing up a forbidden idol, that is blasphemy of the highest order, presumption of prophetic power! You better start uttering some damn convincing prophecy soon or you gonna get your arse kicked for that!
Attention! This is an announcement from your friendly neighborhood latin-speaking biochemist. People using "virii" as plural of "virus" shall be dragged into my secret underground lab, where my own tailor-made viruses shall be unleashed on them for testing purposes. The latin "virus" has no attested plural, so please refrain from making up a latin-looking plural for it. Even if it had one, "virii" would be neither a correct second nor third nor fourth declension plural. Thank you for your attention.
Always been wondering what those Swiss are doing under those mountains. Storing information about data formats, sure. This is propaganda straight from Them - They want you to believe this to secure what is *really* down there. Data formats, right - They could as well hang out a sign reading "The content of this underground bunker complex is BORING. Don't go there, you'd only waste your time." Something up in Their propaganda department lately? I am used to better work.
Slashdot Mirror
The probability of you making a significant discovery at home is close to zero. That is not meant to disencourage you. I spent enough time in professional labs myself to know that you can work for years on end on a scientific topic professionally without making any significant discoveries. However, home science is fun, so, by all means, go ahead with it! Just don't choose your field on the vague possibility of discovering something of greater meaning, just pick something that is actually FUN to you.
Americans will never "eat the rich" because they've bought completely into the myth that they have a reasonable chance of being one of them.
And that is exactly the core of the problem. The "American Dream". Slaves begging for the whip in the faint hope they might wield it themselves one day. George Carlin said it best: "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." One can only hope for people to wake up one of these days. Lots of people.
Well he is burning a rather complex meta-strawman there. I am still not sure what he really means, so I did a best guess.
Reusable flyback rockets. Sure. Newfangled nonsense. Buy a goddamn boomerang already!
"I am a teabagging moron" would have been shorter. Why waste your energy on typing all that exclamation marks?
Ahh, the good old TINA principle - There Is No Alternative. Preferred way out for the profiteers and their apologists. The problem is indeed really so much bigger - and you are part of it.
The only proven method for wells at this depth is a relief drill and killing it with drilling mud when the relief well is done. This has been done at comparable depth before, it just takes a long-ass time. There is no proven method to cap a blowout at this depth of water that works fast. The relief well strategy is not really influenced by water depth, we can drill down there as well as in a shallow well, and the pressure differentials are not that different. The usual quick strategies, however, rely on accessibility of the wellhead. That is not given in that case, as you can only reach it with a couple of ROVs and are not free to operate on it as you would like. They never tried to keep the well usable - I am the last one to find excuses for BP, but the fault does not lie there. From day one it was clear that this well it toast and will never be salvaged - and no one tried to. The fuckups happened earlier. Blame them for what they or their contractors really did wrong.
Humans tend to fuck up. A design that doesn't fail safe in that case, IS bad. You gotta take that factor into account.
Oh God... My eyes!!! Unfortunately, the Black Helicopter is down for maintenance at the moment, so expect the grab team not before Monday. I shall have to think about an appropriate punishment for this atrocity.... Bii... God, My brain! It hurts!!!
Usually electric vehicles use a combination of both - conventional brakes and some flavor of regenerative braking. Just using the engines is not sufficient in most cases, conventional disk brakes have a braking power that is roughly double that of the engine.
The court did not decide on novelty and obviousness, only on general patentability of the subject. The decision on novelty/obviousness is still to be made. The case has been send back to the next lower court, the Federal Patent Court, for that decision.
Yes, under these conditions it would be patentable. Not as a broad general claim, though, but as claim restricted to the useful technical application, or as a specific implementation that, for example, optimized computing time. I agree with you here, and I am not overly happy with the current state of software patents. However, I still fail to see how this ruling changes things substantially. It would have already been patentable under "Seitenpuffer", if it optimized computing time or other workings of the computer, and it would have been patentable under "Tauchcomputer" and all the following rulings with the same tenor, if it would lead to an external technical effect. As you say, there already are lots of crypto patents - so it obviously has been possible before. I don't want to defend software patents here - I just fail to see how this decision is a major change to the status quo. I guess we will have to see how the examiners and the BPatG reacts to it.
Where did the decision waive the requirement of a technical nature of the inventive step? Paragraph 27 states that technical means for solving a technical problem are existent, if the workings of a program are "determined by technical conditions outside of the data processing system" or if "the program considers technical conditions within the data processing system" - the latter being the reason for the decision. This is in line with "Seitenpuffer", for example.
As for a claim of a program "as such" - I would offer a process claim dealing with a plain, abstract algorithm. Just imagine a "Process for performing the Sieve of Erathosthenes algorithm." - you can derive a full claim from that yourself, the steps of the algorithm are known. The claim contains no technical attribute, and therefore is not patentable under 1 - compare paragraph 19 of the decision. It is a "program as such".
Now let's extend that to "Process for performing the Sieve of Erathosthenes algorithm on a digital data processing system". Now, the claim contains a technical attribute, of course - the data processing system. This would indeed not be a program as such under the current ruling. However, following the standing decisions, as cited and emphasized in paragraph 22 of the current decision, not only has a technical element to be present, there have to be technical means for solving a technical problem. The workings of this program are neither determined by external nor internal technical factors of the computer, therefore, there are no technical means for solving a technical problem. Therefore this is still not patentable under the standing decisions of the BGH and BPatG.
Harmonized, yes - this does not mean that they are absolutely identical. There still are considerable differences between the systems, especially with regard to software patents. Especially the mode of analysis of the technical nature of an invention used by the patent examiners is substantially different between the European and the German office.
As I said, for now I just skimmed over it. From that I get that the "controllable forces of nature"-standard is still alive - either by the software overcoming a technical limitation of the computer (which, admittedly, is WIDE open to interpretation), or by the software dealing with a technical problem outside of the computer as such. These standards appear to be upheld in the reasoning of the court. The word "technical" alone implies the "forces of nature"-standard by standing ruling of the BGH in my opinion. Again - I have to spend more time reading it - that's why underlined that I only skimmed over it. One thing is clear, however - this decision does NOT open the door for software patents "as such", as the headline seems to imply to me.
I definitely will have a look at your wiki. I generally no friend of software patents myself, but I try to encourage a somewhat more rational discussion of patent matters than often found on /.. I am certainly open to contribute something to further these goals - when I find time. Regarding the last BGH decision: As I said, this was a quick analysis from skimming over it, but I definitely will have a more detailed look into it and discuss it with some people. If it turns out to be a larger change of the status quo than I am thinking at the moment, I'll drop you a line on the wiki. The court references a lot of earlier decisions, which, in my current opinion, are just being clarified by the current ruling. After spending a day with legal matters, however, I am not overly inclined to get those decisions right now and do a more proper review right now ;)
As usual: IANAL, this is not legal advice.
No reason to panic - this is the usual /. patent propaganda machine running hot. The ruling is in line with the ruling practice of the BGH of the last 15 years at least. Nothing will change regarding software patents in Germany - they have always been possible, as long as the software in question deals with a technical matter within or external to the computer the software is running on.
After a quick skimming of the document, I can only say that the /. headline is as overblown and out of context as always. The ruling is perfectly in line with the prior rulings of the BGH: An invention encompassing a computer program is technical in nature, if the program addresses a technical property or limitation of the computer it is intended to run on, or if the program is depended on or effecting a technical subject external to this computer. The range of patentable software in Germany has not changed significantly by this ruling. I'll have to examine the document closer for more details, but that will probably be tomorrow on company time, as I get paid for that stuff...
Yep, this is a PDO matter and a such part of trademark law. It would technically be possible to patent a Schnitzel, too, if it was invented now. Food and beverages are not excluded from patent protection.
On the topic of reasons for extremism - I don't think that colonialism and poverty are the main reasons here. The parallels to evangelical fundamentalism are quite revealing. Both movements are more like a reaction to the extremely fast cultural developments in the last century - a reaction to a "culture shock", which is being perceived as a decline and degeneration of cultural values and morals. The very interesting BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear" elaborates on that point. If you haven't seen it yet, I strongly recommend it.
But, but... In nethack the @ represents YOU. Your use of the @, peace be upon it, therefore implies that you are The Prophet yourself. That, my friend, is worse than just drawing up a forbidden idol, that is blasphemy of the highest order, presumption of prophetic power! You better start uttering some damn convincing prophecy soon or you gonna get your arse kicked for that!
Are you a communist or something? ;)
Attention! This is an announcement from your friendly neighborhood latin-speaking biochemist. People using "virii" as plural of "virus" shall be dragged into my secret underground lab, where my own tailor-made viruses shall be unleashed on them for testing purposes. The latin "virus" has no attested plural, so please refrain from making up a latin-looking plural for it. Even if it had one, "virii" would be neither a correct second nor third nor fourth declension plural. Thank you for your attention.
Always been wondering what those Swiss are doing under those mountains. Storing information about data formats, sure. This is propaganda straight from Them - They want you to believe this to secure what is *really* down there. Data formats, right - They could as well hang out a sign reading "The content of this underground bunker complex is BORING. Don't go there, you'd only waste your time." Something up in Their propaganda department lately? I am used to better work.