no, but they are federally regulated. And They arent "SEIZE[ing] MONEY". They have suspended an account for suspicious behavior. You are telling me, a new account, taking in $3500/hour, right after a natural disaster isnt a little, hmm, suspicious?
It is odd. You are telling US that Lowtax did all this stuff, but the article fails to mention where you told it to paypal. Did you get a receipt for the red cross? Did you show it to paypal? I mean, you tell us how you cant show them a shipping invoice. But what DO you show them? I mean, you have to know there are a ton of scammers out there, just taking in people's "Donations". Dont you think Paypal had some level of obligation to protect those who are giving to the relief effort? To make sure they aren't giving relief to "line my pockets"? You are pissed that your account is suspeneded. But you dont tell us what you have done to show paypal you ARENT scammers. Just having read your article, I dont see why I should think you arent a scammer. Give me a link to who you donated the money too. Have THEM show me that you did. Give that link to paypal. Then, give them a business day. THEN bitch and moan. Right now, all I hear is the bitching and moaning. Which, while popular on slashdot, isnt very helpful. To you, or the Hurrican Victims
I just have to ask. Would you rather paypal not suspend this guys account, and NOT suspend countless accounts of people who ARE scamming people, or that paypal try to shut down accounts that SEEM to be scamming people, and then, upon futrther investigation, decide "this one isnt a scam, we will re-open it".
I mean, come on people. You all know that paypal is big, and that it relies on a certain level of automation to protect itself, and consumers, and sellers. And you also, all know that there are a ton of people out there raking in what are, well intentioned peoples "Donations". So this guy opens up a site (new, cause he used to use his own credit card processors) and, if the article is telling the truth, in 6 hours had gotten $20k.
You are all telling me that you DONT want paypal to suspend that until they have time to investigate?
I mean, I am all for donations, and helping. But, doesnt paypal have an obligation to protect people (from things like phishing blah blah blah)? How does paypal know this guy is legit (I, for instance, dont. Maybe you do. But does your knowledge neccessarily translate into paypal's knowledge?).
So you bitch when it doesnt do enough to protect people. And THEN you bitch when, in trying to protect people, it steps on somone's toes.
I haveto say, that, While I have never in my life VOTED for a republican. I find it very peculiar that you are claiming that " the same small group of people" run everything.
Last I checked, the people being voted into office (and say what you will, people still vote, and they make a CHOICE in that vote) are not, a small number. Just because you dont LIKE how people vote, isnt a good reason to try to deligitimize theri votes. In the case of Hitlers Germany, the voting process was suspended. Same thing In Russia (you couldnt vote unless you were a member of the party). Here? You can Vote. Most people dont. You want to complain about things which happened that were wrong? Say the shredding of voter application for black voters, the intimidation of blacks by the florida police? All good. I am here for you. BUt saying "OMG! A republican Elected is going to nominate somone to the COURT with a Republican Senate!!!! LOOK AT US WE ARE JUST LIKE... blah blah blah ominous ominous". I mean, come on, you dont even SAY which 2 countries you are talking about (for the record, I can think of A BUNCH of countries where one party is in power. Say, France. Or, well. England. Today. OK, they are parlimentary, so it isnt the same. But well. Neither are we so similar to Germany, who suspended the electoral process. etc). I mean. And please. Dont Mod this guy up. I mean, Really. Just cause, currently you dont like the administration (and I dont) is not sufficient reason to say that our political system is corrupt. Are there people and places that are corrupt? Sure. But, really. The majority of Americans Voted For BUSH. So, trying to say that they are some small minority. Not Very Honest.
Actually, DSL carries DO have to share their lines with everyone else. CABLE companies dont. But they didnt before anyhow.
People were trying to get a ruling that CABLE carries were regulated by the rules that regulate Phone carriers. But they arent. Havent been. Wont be. Phone Carriers (the people who run DSL) are still phone carries, and, yes, they have to share their networks.
please get your facts right BEFORE posting, and please Moderators, DONT MOD UP STUFF THAT IS JUST WRONG!!!!!
Sorry, I was not specific enough. The point is to protect the public from Company Q misrepresenting that it's products are Company Z's. If you want to claim that Google's ad results are indicative of random Insurance Company Actually BEING Geico you might have a case. I dont think you really would have a case, as I dont think a reasnoble person would think that. Geico has argued (apparently succsefully) that using the word "Geicko" _IN_ an ad is confusing to a reasnoble person. But if you could make that argument, you might have a case.
Just on a side Note. We live in a society, where we try to balance things. This right Vs. That right. One persons rights, by their nature,
will be limitations on another persons Freedome. That will ALWAYS be true. It is silly to say "I should have ALL the rights." That would mean that everyone else would have none. The law in general, attempts to create a framework for the Greatest rights, for the Greastest good of the public. "when I type in Geicko, I dont want to see ads for somone else". Who the *!#@!!! CARES what you want? You USE googles serice. Google has MADE that service (and made it pretty damn good). For the most part, they can do whatever they want with it. There are limitations on Their rights, also. We will see wheter google settles, or if the courts decide that google can be held liable for trademark infringment, when one of their clients uses their service to Commit Trademark infringment (think, should a TV station be liable if one of their advertisers, on an ad that they broadcast commits trademark infringement). What you want Google to be free, all their source to be free, so you can use it any way you please? Get your head out of the sand. The world has to work. Ugh, whatever. Mostly Grow Up.
Actually, no. You are allowed to leverage somone else's Trademarks to sell your service. You are not allowed to represent that you are connected with their trademark, unless you are.
The point of a trademark, actually, is to protect the PUBLIC. The idea is that a company, like ROLEX is widely known for making great watches. So the public has an expectation of quality from a company like Rolex. Thus, you are not allowed to represent that you are making Rolex watches, unless you ARE making Rolex watces (or have a working arrangment with them). If, however Rolex stops being a term used to describe a TYPE of something, (like Escalator) then the public no longer associates your brand name with YOU, and anyone can use your brand name.
Now, with regard to things like using a competitors brand name in MY advertising. It gets a little sticky. See, if I say "My stuff is better than BRAND X" then Brand X can sue me for trying to sully their brand name. Another issue is that as often as not advertising is really about name RECOGNITION, so if I include my competitors NAME in my ad, I am just giving them free advertising. Many companies, to avoid these problem, just dont use other brand names. However, if I stay completely factual (in a recent laboratory test, MyBrand cleaned clothes 38% faster than Brand X _TM_) and make sure that I represent BrandX as trademarked, then I shouldnt have LEGAL problems.
Think of things like the Coke Vs. Pepsi Ads. Better that Botox tm? face cream.
Why you cant put "armani" on the shirts you make, is because that would be representing that you are making Armani Shirts. However, in your advertising, if you wanted to, you could say "better than Armani?" Without much of a problem. However, saying "Better than ARMANI!" would likely get you in trouble.
Essentially, with Trademarks, the question to ask is "could a reasnoble member of the public think that this use of a trademark implies a connection between the user of the trademark, and the owner of the trademark?" If that answer is yes (or if you are sullying(not the right legal term) the name of the trademark, then you could be in trouble. Otherwise, have fun
The funny thing about obvious, is that a whole lot of stuff seems obvious in retrospect. I mean arent bar codes really obvious? But well. Not so much, until you have them.
In general, when something is in a dense market, if it hasnt been done, that lends a certain wait to calling it non-obvious. How long have word processors been around for? Do ANY of them have the ability to go through a document, highlighting all the numerical Data? I mean, if it is so obvious a thing to do, why has no-one done it yet?
Now, if you can show an instance of somone doing that (not highlighting SOME data, but highlighting NUMERICAL data) than you will have prior art. But, I am gonna guess you cant.
I mean, in retrospect the vast majority of inventions COULD be considered obvious. I mean, isnt a wire phone pretty obvious, once you have the telegraph? What about a wireless phone, once Maxwell has done his bit with the radio? How bout Radar? I mean, once it HAS been done, damn near anything is obvious. I know you all hate the Idea, but even the one click shopping. There had been shopping carts around for a while, and no-one had gotten one click shopping until Amazon. And cookies had even been around for a while. Sure, it is obvious ONCE SOMONE HAS COME UP WITH IT. How much of Knuths algorithms seem really obvious (once you have banged you head against a wall for hours) once you understnad them?
in consideration for USING OUR SITE, you agree...
how is that not Consideration? It doesnt have to be much, to be binding. You get something, the use of our site, we get something. No linking. Sounds legit to me...(IANAL)
Re:you forgot patents!
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
Actually this is how it works in Canada, Most of the EU and australia. A patent is good for 17 years from the date the patent is GRANTED. In the US a patent is good (barring a congressional act) for 20 years from the date the patent is APPLIED FOR. Because a patent has to be USEFUL, a drug patent in the US doesnt get granted until it has received FDA approval. This sometimes means that (in cases where the FDA doesnt approve for 8 years) the term of the patent in the US will be relatively short. It is not common, but not unheard of, in cases where the effective term of the patent is less than 17 years for the patent to recieve a special extension by congress.
oh that is so painful...
D'Oh, of course, I meant, un-informed. Ugh. Oh. And spell check wouldnt have helped, either. Ugh...
see, now when looking for a patent, look for stupid stuff like that. In thr wrong place in a claim, your dead
I used to say that uniformed people shouldnt talk about things like math, and patent law (My BS is CS/Math, and I am today a patent attorney). I rather like the idea that people should get to say what they want, where, and how they want. But I wish people would pay attention to what they are saying. No, the supreme court didnt know the numbers before hand. The supreme court said to Al gore, No, we are not going to count the undervotes in democratic counties. Which is what Gore was asking for. It trurns out, that had the supreme court said, "sure, count the undervotes in democratic counties" Gore STILL would have lost. The only way for Gore to have won, would have been if somone said "count both the undervotes, and the overvotes, in all of florida." A thing that Gore never asked them to do. So whoever wrote this comment should be more careful when he speaks, and speak only what he KNOWS about. To count the overvotes, incidentally, means taking a voter card, which has a hole for Gore, a whole for Buchanan, and is otherwise a straight democratic ticket, and determining that it is for Gore. I dont know if I am entirely comfortable with that idea, aside from the politics involved. Anyhow. Get informed. Then talk. Even if you are a Kerry supporter. Go be outraged by the attempts to disenfrachise people in Florida by purging voter ranks of blanks. Or by a private company, paid by repulicans selectivly registering the population. There are lots of things to be pissed about. Stop harping on the unsuccessful partisan strategy of the Gore Capmaign, versus the sucessful strategy of the Bush campaign, and calling it the EVIL partisanship. Both sides were being partisaned. It just happens that your side lost. That doest make the other side wrong (unless you want to start talking about how Gore was all about disenfrnchising the republicans. Why wasnt he asking that ALL votes, from ALL counties be counted? Does that make Gore evil? No? Why cause you liked his other policies?)
Actually, when trying to decide if something violates a patent, you look at the Claims. Everything in the description serves to describe the invention. The description is there to give a full accounting of the inverntion, such that one skilled in the art, with only the description, may bring the invention into effect. When trying to decide if something infringes the patent, you have to look at the claim. Ussually the first claim is the broadest, so in this case:
An instruction issuing system for a processor including an execution unit having multiple functional units comprising:
an instruction issuing unit receiving instructions from a memory, operating on instructions and forwarding instructions to said execution unit, said instruction issuing unit including means for detecting the existence of concurrencies in said instructions received from said memory; and
said instruction issuing unit further including means for issuing multiple instructions and non-sequential instructions to said execution unit within a single processor cycle when a concurrency is detected by said means for detecting the existence of concurrencies in said instructions.
Now, if something does that, then it infringes on the patent. Incidentally, if you can find something that does that, BEFORE the date the patent was filed, you can invalidate that claim. That is why there are sub-claims. each sub claim is more specific than the original claim, so that if the top claim gets knocked out, each subsequent claim might still stand.
Its just you are modded at three. Which is silly. And it happens a lot. People, get moderator points, and just go off and moderate whatever. Cause they can. Without knowing diddly about it. And I feel it brings down the quality of slashdot, and that annoys me. I wish people would pay more attention to what they say, preview before they post, and think for a minute before they mod. Anyhow...
The point it, it wasnt licenced. If I have a monopoly, you arent allowed to do it. Period. That is what a monopoly is. My monopoly can be invalidated in any number of ways. Lack of proper disclosure. Revelation of prior art. Those two come to immediately to mind. How long I wait to mention to you that I have a patent, is not one of the ways to invalidate my patent. Issued patents are all published. The assumption is, if you do something, you are supposed to make sure it ISN'T patented. If you do it for 10 years, without cheking if it is patneted I can come to you, in 10 years, and say "Hey, that is mine, you have been violating my monopoly, you owe me money." That is a right granted to me, by my monopoly.
Assuming that cornell has a legitamate patent, it doesnt matter why they didnt complain earlier. Further, it doesnt matter whether or not you HARM me by violating my monopoly. It is mine, granted by the govenrment, from the moment of patnent issue. If you are doing something, that I have a patent on, and you dont get a license, you are going to owe me money.
And the statemnt "Dude i dont know anything about friggin IP law " is rather the point of my post. You dont know anything about IP law. Why are making irrelevant proclamations, specifically
"what matters is how the technology was being licensed and why it took so long for Cornell to realise that HP was "stealing" the work done at Cornell",
it wasnt being licenced (read the article) and why it took cornell so long has nothing to do with cornells rights. You werernt being infomative, you were bieng mis-informend, and you have gotten modded up for it. I suppose I am railing as much againt the Moderators as your post. Your post was just not relevant. It says "The point is X" when X has next to nothing to do with the point. Now, if you want to say "Patent law should prescribe people from suing, if they do not aggresivley defend their patents, the way trademark law will invalidate a trademark not aggressivly defended" I guess that would sort of be relevant. But that isnt what you said. You said, "what matters is", and there you are just wrong. It has been that slashdot is a resource for people to learn about stuff. You want to just say something, ok. But I would hope that poeple who are mod-ing will pay attention to how they mod. I mean, seriously, you are at 3 now. When something is modded to 3 I would hope that it knows what it is talking about. And yes, it is slashdot, where people supposedly care about what their rights are and arent. So we should know about them. And not just say silly things. And hopefully not get arbitrarily modded up for saying silly things.
OK. Again, people this is not underatted, it is overated. Whoever posted this just wanted to shoot off their mouth as fast as they could. Just look at the title.
CORNELL ISNT TALKING ABOUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT PATENTS. If whoever wrote this post actually cared about his rights, he would look into them, just a little bit, and be aware that A PATENT IS NOT A COPYRIGHT. Patents and copyrights have totally diffrent terms, an defend their respective owners rights in completely diffrent ways. A copyright means that you can't copy what I did. It is assumed automatically upon creation of a new work. It need not be registered with anyone, anywhere (although you lose some rights if it isnt). If you something I cam up with, on your own, then I have no claims. The term of a copyright, today is 75 years past the authors death (thank Sonny Bono, It used to be 50) or straight up 75 (it might be 70, I forget) years if the copyright is owned by a corporation. The term of a patent, is, in general, 17 years from the date of issue of the patent. A patent is a limited monopoly. It must be registered, which means it has to be deemed new, non-obvious, and useful. It has to be published. That means you have to fully disclose how to do the thing you are claiming a monopoly on. In exchange for fully disclosing your idea, you get a limited monopoly. If you dont fully disclose your idea, and I can prove it, your patent is invalid. If you get a patent, a limited monopoly, anyone doing the thing covered by your patent, during those 17 years has to pay you licensing fees. If I inform you that you are violating my patent, and you dont stop, then you have to pay me triple damages from the point in time when I informed you that you are in violation of my patent. What caused the delay in action on Cornells part DOESNT MATTER. They are stilled owed (if, in fact HP is violationg their patent) licensing fees, because they still have the limited govenrment sponsored monopoly.
OK, People, if you are going to talk about IP law, PLEASE LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT IT. NO, HP can't "claim that the work was done independently at HP research and this is a coincidence". Cornell is saying they have a patent on something. If I have a patent on something, YOU CANT DO IT. A patent is a limited government sponsored monopoly. I get a patent, EVEN IF YOU COME UP WITH THE SAME THING ON YOUR OWN, YOU CANT DO IT. This is to encourage people to publish their work early.
Incidentally, if no-one else makes coffee the way you make it, or no-one else sets up their computer the way you do, OR if some other people do, but it is a big secret, then go ahead. Although you just screwed yourself by publicly disclosing what you do. Whoever modded this post up clearly knows as little about IP law as whoever posted it. Please people, dont Mod something you dont know anything about, and dont post anything you similarly know nothing about.
Please dont do this. I have wondered at time if Slashdot already accepts sponsored stories, I am betting it doesnt. I sure hope not.
I think as soon as you start acception "sponsored" stories you lose at least your percieved journalistic integrety, if not your actual integrity. How far is it till the latest oracle benchmark starts appearing every to week, with oracles happy colors? It gives the editors a bias, which otherwise doesnt exist. Not that the editors arent biased based on thir expirience. Still, their expiriential bias is diffrent than the expirience of getting paid more.
I accept the need for sponsorship, and am happy to have ads appear as they must to continue running/.. But sponsored stories? It just seems that that would do away with at least the percieved reliability of the site.
"Well, it's clear that violence has never worked, so perhaps it's time to try something different."
Actually, there is a long history of violence working very well, to combat terrorism. It typically has to be applied in heinous perportion, quickly. When that is done, violence seems to work quite well.
It is when violence is applied in small, controlled, seeminly reasnoble perportion that is fails at controlling terrorism. Somone above reffered to Israels attempt to use violence to curb terrorism, and how that attmept had utterly failed. I think it is a good idea to examin how Israel has attempted to use violence to control radical Isalmic groups, and compare the Israeli attempt with the succesful use of violence employed by Jordan, and Syria.
In 1970, Jordan had an intifada, much as Israel is having one now. The intifada was led by none other than Yasser Arafat. In response to this intifada, The former king Hussein killed some 10,000 palestinians, in what has become known as black september. After black september, Jordan had no further problems with palestinians.
Similarly, Syria was faced with a militant Sunni Muslim uprising in 1982, and in response, leveled the town of Hama, killing an estimated 20,000 people. Syria had no further militant islamic problem, afterwards.
Compare these responses to the relatively (in comparison to the responses of Jordan and Syria, when faced with similar situations) measured, reasnoble response of Israel, in response to terrorism, where soldiers are instructed not to use lethal force except in the case where they feel their lives are threatened, and where the death tolls are measured in the hundreds, and not thousands.
I think it then becomes clear that violence, as a response, does work, but not measured reasnoble violence, but rather, brutal horrific violence. Please note, I am not neccesarily advocating the use of horrific brutal violence, but rather saying that statements to the effect of "Violence doesnt work" are wrong. Violence has a long history of working. But typically, when invoked on a large, and disperportionate scale.
In defence of disperportionate violence, I would like to say that if you look at the syrian and Jordanian responses, and compare the long term effects of Syria, and Jordans response with the long term effects of Israels response, I think you will quickly see that a horrific disperpotionate use of violence, applied early in a conflict, is much better than any sort of reasnoble response, which tries to minimize harm to innocents. Jordan and Syria can create economic stability for their country (or they could if they had a vibrant economy). Israel, in an attempt to protect its citizens, does horrific, large scale economic damage to all the palestinians. If Israel had quelled the Palestinian Intifada in 1987, as Syria had dealt with their militants in 1982, or as Jordan had in 1970, then today, there might be a much stronger vibrant economy in the palestinian territories.
I gotta disagree here. There is a time when force is neccesary. There is a time when killing innocent civilians in neccesary. There are not, "ALWAYS" other options.
I understand the sentiment that people dont like killing. Great. I agree. In the abstract, all other things being eaqual, killing is to be avoided. And I would even agree that killing is almost always horrible. But the fact that something is horrible need not mean that we shouldnt do it.
Need we be so simpleminded so that we can either say: "Killing is horrible, dont do it ever", or: "The fuckers deserve everything that is coming to them, nuke em nuke em nuke em all, kill kill kill!"? Killing is horrific. No question. Go read Johnny Got His Gun byt Dalton Trumbo if you dont think so. Killing, and war are horrible things. No question. Unfortunately, the world we live in is a messy, and at times horrible place. Cant we accept the horror of the act of killing, without having it neccesarily mean that the atrocity is out of bounds? Cant we say that yes, killing is horrible, but potentially, the best response to certain situations?
There are people in this world who are intent on harming us. Once a suicide bomber is on his way, it is next to impossible to stop him. So if you wish to stop them, your recourse is to destroy the organizatinos that support him. The US gave afghanistan the chance to hand over Bin Laden. Afghanistan refused. So, it becomes incubant upon the US goverment to defend its citizens from an organization intent on causing us harm. Afaghanistan chose to stand between the US government and that goal. There is then, not so much choice. How else will we get to the training camps? How else to you root out these people and orgnizations intent on our harm? Does that make what we must do less horrible? I dont think so. But does the horror of what must be done, make it less neccesarry?
I just wanted to say I think whoever modded this down is being silly. It is not off-topic, and, if the claim is true, it isnt really flamebait, it is an expression of anger, pain, hate, whatnot.
I think we miss the point that we are people. Many of the people in this forum are very liberal, and have a notion that all people are valuble. Good. Great. I applaud that sentiment. I think it is a mistake when you take the sentiment that all people are equal, and have it mean that everyone else is more eaqual than I am.
If I had my brother killed in the twin towers, I think the sentiment of "lets kill the fuckers who did this" would be completely reasnoble. If somone kills your brother, anger, even crudely expressed anger is a wholly legitamate response. Let us not have our open-minded humanism trump our rights and expiriences. If somones brother was brutally murdered, let us not silece their rage. Rage is not wholly wrong. Anger is not wholly wrong. Why do I hear people defending the rights of the so called opressed groups to hate us, but when somone with a legitamate complaint expresses similar anger, that person is modded down as flamebait? Perhaps we woulnt wish to mod somone who expresses their anger in crude terms up, but why should they be modded down? I would hope that somone mod the above post up to at least 0, if not one or 2, as a legitimazation of the expression of rage.
Slashdot Mirror
no, but they are federally regulated. And They arent "SEIZE[ing] MONEY". They have suspended an account for suspicious behavior. You are telling me, a new account, taking in $3500/hour, right after a natural disaster isnt a little, hmm, suspicious?
It is odd. You are telling US that Lowtax did all this stuff, but the article fails to mention where you told it to paypal. Did you get a receipt for the red cross? Did you show it to paypal? I mean, you tell us how you cant show them a shipping invoice. But what DO you show them? I mean, you have to know there are a ton of scammers out there, just taking in people's "Donations". Dont you think Paypal had some level of obligation to protect those who are giving to the relief effort? To make sure they aren't giving relief to "line my pockets"? You are pissed that your account is suspeneded. But you dont tell us what you have done to show paypal you ARENT scammers. Just having read your article, I dont see why I should think you arent a scammer. Give me a link to who you donated the money too. Have THEM show me that you did. Give that link to paypal. Then, give them a business day. THEN bitch and moan. Right now, all I hear is the bitching and moaning. Which, while popular on slashdot, isnt very helpful. To you, or the Hurrican Victims
I just have to ask. Would you rather paypal not suspend this guys account, and NOT suspend countless accounts of people who ARE scamming people, or that paypal try to shut down accounts that SEEM to be scamming people, and then, upon futrther investigation, decide "this one isnt a scam, we will re-open it".
I mean, come on people. You all know that paypal is big, and that it relies on a certain level of automation to protect itself, and consumers, and sellers. And you also, all know that there are a ton of people out there raking in what are, well intentioned peoples "Donations". So this guy opens up a site (new, cause he used to use his own credit card processors) and, if the article is telling the truth, in 6 hours had gotten $20k.
You are all telling me that you DONT want paypal to suspend that until they have time to investigate?
I mean, I am all for donations, and helping. But, doesnt paypal have an obligation to protect people (from things like phishing blah blah blah)? How does paypal know this guy is legit (I, for instance, dont. Maybe you do. But does your knowledge neccessarily translate into paypal's knowledge?).
So you bitch when it doesnt do enough to protect people. And THEN you bitch when, in trying to protect people, it steps on somone's toes.
I haveto say, that, While I have never in my life VOTED for a republican. I find it very peculiar that you are claiming that " the same small group of people" run everything.
... blah blah blah ominous ominous". I mean, come on, you dont even SAY which 2 countries you are talking about (for the record, I can think of A BUNCH of countries where one party is in power. Say, France. Or, well. England. Today. OK, they are parlimentary, so it isnt the same. But well. Neither are we so similar to Germany, who suspended the electoral process. etc). I mean. And please. Dont Mod this guy up. I mean, Really. Just cause, currently you dont like the administration (and I dont) is not sufficient reason to say that our political system is corrupt. Are there people and places that are corrupt? Sure. But, really. The majority of Americans Voted For BUSH. So, trying to say that they are some small minority. Not Very Honest.
Last I checked, the people being voted into office (and say what you will, people still vote, and they make a CHOICE in that vote) are not, a small number. Just because you dont LIKE how people vote, isnt a good reason to try to deligitimize theri votes. In the case of Hitlers Germany, the voting process was suspended. Same thing In Russia (you couldnt vote unless you were a member of the party). Here? You can Vote. Most people dont. You want to complain about things which happened that were wrong? Say the shredding of voter application for black voters, the intimidation of blacks by the florida police? All good. I am here for you. BUt saying "OMG! A republican Elected is going to nominate somone to the COURT with a Republican Senate!!!! LOOK AT US WE ARE JUST LIKE
Actually, DSL carries DO have to share their lines with everyone else. CABLE companies dont. But they didnt before anyhow.
People were trying to get a ruling that CABLE carries were regulated by the rules that regulate Phone carriers. But they arent. Havent been. Wont be. Phone Carriers (the people who run DSL) are still phone carries, and, yes, they have to share their networks.
please get your facts right BEFORE posting, and please Moderators, DONT MOD UP STUFF THAT IS JUST WRONG!!!!!
Sorry, I was not specific enough. The point is to protect the public from Company Q misrepresenting that it's products are Company Z's. If you want to claim that Google's ad results are indicative of random Insurance Company Actually BEING Geico you might have a case. I dont think you really would have a case, as I dont think a reasnoble person would think that. Geico has argued (apparently succsefully) that using the word "Geicko" _IN_ an ad is confusing to a reasnoble person. But if you could make that argument, you might have a case.
Just on a side Note. We live in a society, where we try to balance things. This right Vs. That right. One persons rights, by their nature, will be limitations on another persons Freedome. That will ALWAYS be true. It is silly to say "I should have ALL the rights." That would mean that everyone else would have none. The law in general, attempts to create a framework for the Greatest rights, for the Greastest good of the public. "when I type in Geicko, I dont want to see ads for somone else". Who the *!#@!!! CARES what you want? You USE googles serice. Google has MADE that service (and made it pretty damn good). For the most part, they can do whatever they want with it. There are limitations on Their rights, also. We will see wheter google settles, or if the courts decide that google can be held liable for trademark infringment, when one of their clients uses their service to Commit Trademark infringment (think, should a TV station be liable if one of their advertisers, on an ad that they broadcast commits trademark infringement). What you want Google to be free, all their source to be free, so you can use it any way you please? Get your head out of the sand. The world has to work. Ugh, whatever. Mostly Grow Up.
Actually, no. You are allowed to leverage somone else's Trademarks to sell your service. You are not allowed to represent that you are connected with their trademark, unless you are.
The point of a trademark, actually, is to protect the PUBLIC. The idea is that a company, like ROLEX is widely known for making great watches. So the public has an expectation of quality from a company like Rolex. Thus, you are not allowed to represent that you are making Rolex watches, unless you ARE making Rolex watces (or have a working arrangment with them). If, however Rolex stops being a term used to describe a TYPE of something, (like Escalator) then the public no longer associates your brand name with YOU, and anyone can use your brand name.
Now, with regard to things like using a competitors brand name in MY advertising. It gets a little sticky. See, if I say "My stuff is better than BRAND X" then Brand X can sue me for trying to sully their brand name. Another issue is that as often as not advertising is really about name RECOGNITION, so if I include my competitors NAME in my ad, I am just giving them free advertising. Many companies, to avoid these problem, just dont use other brand names. However, if I stay completely factual (in a recent laboratory test, MyBrand cleaned clothes 38% faster than Brand X _TM_) and make sure that I represent BrandX as trademarked, then I shouldnt have LEGAL problems.
Think of things like the Coke Vs. Pepsi Ads. Better that Botox tm? face cream.
Why you cant put "armani" on the shirts you make, is because that would be representing that you are making Armani Shirts. However, in your advertising, if you wanted to, you could say "better than Armani?" Without much of a problem. However, saying "Better than ARMANI!" would likely get you in trouble.
Essentially, with Trademarks, the question to ask is "could a reasnoble member of the public think that this use of a trademark implies a connection between the user of the trademark, and the owner of the trademark?" If that answer is yes (or if you are sullying(not the right legal term) the name of the trademark, then you could be in trouble. Otherwise, have fun
The funny thing about obvious, is that a whole lot of stuff seems obvious in retrospect. I mean arent bar codes really obvious? But well. Not so much, until you have them.
In general, when something is in a dense market, if it hasnt been done, that lends a certain wait to calling it non-obvious. How long have word processors been around for? Do ANY of them have the ability to go through a document, highlighting all the numerical Data? I mean, if it is so obvious a thing to do, why has no-one done it yet?
Now, if you can show an instance of somone doing that (not highlighting SOME data, but highlighting NUMERICAL data) than you will have prior art. But, I am gonna guess you cant.
I mean, in retrospect the vast majority of inventions COULD be considered obvious. I mean, isnt a wire phone pretty obvious, once you have the telegraph? What about a wireless phone, once Maxwell has done his bit with the radio? How bout Radar? I mean, once it HAS been done, damn near anything is obvious. I know you all hate the Idea, but even the one click shopping. There had been shopping carts around for a while, and no-one had gotten one click shopping until Amazon. And cookies had even been around for a while. Sure, it is obvious ONCE SOMONE HAS COME UP WITH IT. How much of Knuths algorithms seem really obvious (once you have banged you head against a wall for hours) once you understnad them?
oh, I am a moron, already there, didnt see it. oh well. DOH!
So Slashdot Doesnt Care that Astronomers are reporting Finding a NEW PLANET?
What is this place Coming to?
I cant believe I just spent a minute and 44 seconds watching a black ball roll around in the snow. There is something wrong with me.....
in consideration for USING OUR SITE, you agree... how is that not Consideration? It doesnt have to be much, to be binding. You get something, the use of our site, we get something. No linking. Sounds legit to me...(IANAL)
Actually this is how it works in Canada, Most of the EU and australia. A patent is good for 17 years from the date the patent is GRANTED. In the US a patent is good (barring a congressional act) for 20 years from the date the patent is APPLIED FOR. Because a patent has to be USEFUL, a drug patent in the US doesnt get granted until it has received FDA approval. This sometimes means that (in cases where the FDA doesnt approve for 8 years) the term of the patent in the US will be relatively short. It is not common, but not unheard of, in cases where the effective term of the patent is less than 17 years for the patent to recieve a special extension by congress.
well I do EDIT patents. yes yes yes, there is a preview button, I should learn to use it....
oh that is so painful... D'Oh, of course, I meant, un-informed. Ugh. Oh. And spell check wouldnt have helped, either. Ugh... see, now when looking for a patent, look for stupid stuff like that. In thr wrong place in a claim, your dead
I used to say that uniformed people shouldnt talk about things like math, and patent law (My BS is CS/Math, and I am today a patent attorney). I rather like the idea that people should get to say what they want, where, and how they want. But I wish people would pay attention to what they are saying. No, the supreme court didnt know the numbers before hand. The supreme court said to Al gore, No, we are not going to count the undervotes in democratic counties. Which is what Gore was asking for. It trurns out, that had the supreme court said, "sure, count the undervotes in democratic counties" Gore STILL would have lost. The only way for Gore to have won, would have been if somone said "count both the undervotes, and the overvotes, in all of florida." A thing that Gore never asked them to do. So whoever wrote this comment should be more careful when he speaks, and speak only what he KNOWS about. To count the overvotes, incidentally, means taking a voter card, which has a hole for Gore, a whole for Buchanan, and is otherwise a straight democratic ticket, and determining that it is for Gore. I dont know if I am entirely comfortable with that idea, aside from the politics involved. Anyhow. Get informed. Then talk. Even if you are a Kerry supporter. Go be outraged by the attempts to disenfrachise people in Florida by purging voter ranks of blanks. Or by a private company, paid by repulicans selectivly registering the population. There are lots of things to be pissed about. Stop harping on the unsuccessful partisan strategy of the Gore Capmaign, versus the sucessful strategy of the Bush campaign, and calling it the EVIL partisanship. Both sides were being partisaned. It just happens that your side lost. That doest make the other side wrong (unless you want to start talking about how Gore was all about disenfrnchising the republicans. Why wasnt he asking that ALL votes, from ALL counties be counted? Does that make Gore evil? No? Why cause you liked his other policies?)
Actually, when trying to decide if something violates a patent, you look at the Claims. Everything in the description serves to describe the invention. The description is there to give a full accounting of the inverntion, such that one skilled in the art, with only the description, may bring the invention into effect. When trying to decide if something infringes the patent, you have to look at the claim. Ussually the first claim is the broadest, so in this case:
An instruction issuing system for a processor including an execution unit having multiple functional units comprising:
an instruction issuing unit receiving instructions from a memory, operating on instructions and forwarding instructions to said execution unit, said instruction issuing unit including means for detecting the existence of concurrencies in said instructions received from said memory; and
said instruction issuing unit further including means for issuing multiple instructions and non-sequential instructions to said execution unit within a single processor cycle when a concurrency is detected by said means for detecting the existence of concurrencies in said instructions.
Now, if something does that, then it infringes on the patent. Incidentally, if you can find something that does that, BEFORE the date the patent was filed, you can invalidate that claim. That is why there are sub-claims. each sub claim is more specific than the original claim, so that if the top claim gets knocked out, each subsequent claim might still stand.
man I would just copy and paste.
:-P
All good. Sorry to rail at you like that.
Its just you are modded at three. Which is silly. And it happens a lot. People, get moderator points, and just go off and moderate whatever. Cause they can. Without knowing diddly about it. And I feel it brings down the quality of slashdot, and that annoys me. I wish people would pay more attention to what they say, preview before they post, and think for a minute before they mod. Anyhow...
The point it, it wasnt licenced. If I have a monopoly, you arent allowed to do it. Period. That is what a monopoly is. My monopoly can be invalidated in any number of ways. Lack of proper disclosure. Revelation of prior art. Those two come to immediately to mind. How long I wait to mention to you that I have a patent, is not one of the ways to invalidate my patent. Issued patents are all published. The assumption is, if you do something, you are supposed to make sure it ISN'T patented. If you do it for 10 years, without cheking if it is patneted I can come to you, in 10 years, and say "Hey, that is mine, you have been violating my monopoly, you owe me money." That is a right granted to me, by my monopoly.
Assuming that cornell has a legitamate patent, it doesnt matter why they didnt complain earlier. Further, it doesnt matter whether or not you HARM me by violating my monopoly. It is mine, granted by the govenrment, from the moment of patnent issue. If you are doing something, that I have a patent on, and you dont get a license, you are going to owe me money.
And the statemnt "Dude i dont know anything about friggin IP law " is rather the point of my post. You dont know anything about IP law. Why are making irrelevant proclamations, specifically
"what matters is how the technology was being licensed and why it took so long for Cornell to realise that HP was "stealing" the work done at Cornell",
it wasnt being licenced (read the article) and why it took cornell so long has nothing to do with cornells rights. You werernt being infomative, you were bieng mis-informend, and you have gotten modded up for it. I suppose I am railing as much againt the Moderators as your post. Your post was just not relevant. It says "The point is X" when X has next to nothing to do with the point. Now, if you want to say "Patent law should prescribe people from suing, if they do not aggresivley defend their patents, the way trademark law will invalidate a trademark not aggressivly defended" I guess that would sort of be relevant. But that isnt what you said. You said, "what matters is", and there you are just wrong. It has been that slashdot is a resource for people to learn about stuff. You want to just say something, ok. But I would hope that poeple who are mod-ing will pay attention to how they mod. I mean, seriously, you are at 3 now. When something is modded to 3 I would hope that it knows what it is talking about. And yes, it is slashdot, where people supposedly care about what their rights are and arent. So we should know about them. And not just say silly things. And hopefully not get arbitrarily modded up for saying silly things.
OK. Again, people this is not underatted, it is overated. Whoever posted this just wanted to shoot off their mouth as fast as they could. Just look at the title. CORNELL ISNT TALKING ABOUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT PATENTS. If whoever wrote this post actually cared about his rights, he would look into them, just a little bit, and be aware that A PATENT IS NOT A COPYRIGHT. Patents and copyrights have totally diffrent terms, an defend their respective owners rights in completely diffrent ways. A copyright means that you can't copy what I did. It is assumed automatically upon creation of a new work. It need not be registered with anyone, anywhere (although you lose some rights if it isnt). If you something I cam up with, on your own, then I have no claims. The term of a copyright, today is 75 years past the authors death (thank Sonny Bono, It used to be 50) or straight up 75 (it might be 70, I forget) years if the copyright is owned by a corporation. The term of a patent, is, in general, 17 years from the date of issue of the patent. A patent is a limited monopoly. It must be registered, which means it has to be deemed new, non-obvious, and useful. It has to be published. That means you have to fully disclose how to do the thing you are claiming a monopoly on. In exchange for fully disclosing your idea, you get a limited monopoly. If you dont fully disclose your idea, and I can prove it, your patent is invalid. If you get a patent, a limited monopoly, anyone doing the thing covered by your patent, during those 17 years has to pay you licensing fees. If I inform you that you are violating my patent, and you dont stop, then you have to pay me triple damages from the point in time when I informed you that you are in violation of my patent. What caused the delay in action on Cornells part DOESNT MATTER. They are stilled owed (if, in fact HP is violationg their patent) licensing fees, because they still have the limited govenrment sponsored monopoly.
OK, People, if you are going to talk about IP law, PLEASE LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT IT. NO, HP can't "claim that the work was done independently at HP research and this is a coincidence". Cornell is saying they have a patent on something. If I have a patent on something, YOU CANT DO IT. A patent is a limited government sponsored monopoly. I get a patent, EVEN IF YOU COME UP WITH THE SAME THING ON YOUR OWN, YOU CANT DO IT. This is to encourage people to publish their work early. Incidentally, if no-one else makes coffee the way you make it, or no-one else sets up their computer the way you do, OR if some other people do, but it is a big secret, then go ahead. Although you just screwed yourself by publicly disclosing what you do. Whoever modded this post up clearly knows as little about IP law as whoever posted it. Please people, dont Mod something you dont know anything about, and dont post anything you similarly know nothing about.
Please dont do this. I have wondered at time if Slashdot already accepts sponsored stories, I am betting it doesnt. I sure hope not.
/.. But sponsored stories? It just seems that that would do away with at least the percieved reliability of the site.
I think as soon as you start acception "sponsored" stories you lose at least your percieved journalistic integrety, if not your actual integrity. How far is it till the latest oracle benchmark starts appearing every to week, with oracles happy colors? It gives the editors a bias, which otherwise doesnt exist. Not that the editors arent biased based on thir expirience. Still, their expiriential bias is diffrent than the expirience of getting paid more.
I accept the need for sponsorship, and am happy to have ads appear as they must to continue running
"Well, it's clear that violence has never worked, so perhaps it's time to try something different."
Actually, there is a long history of violence working very well, to combat terrorism. It typically has to be applied in heinous perportion, quickly. When that is done, violence seems to work quite well.
It is when violence is applied in small, controlled, seeminly reasnoble perportion that is fails at controlling terrorism. Somone above reffered to Israels attempt to use violence to curb terrorism, and how that attmept had utterly failed. I think it is a good idea to examin how Israel has attempted to use violence to control radical Isalmic groups, and compare the Israeli attempt with the succesful use of violence employed by Jordan, and Syria.
In 1970, Jordan had an intifada, much as Israel is having one now. The intifada was led by none other than Yasser Arafat. In response to this intifada, The former king Hussein killed some 10,000 palestinians, in what has become known as black september. After black september, Jordan had no further problems with palestinians.
Similarly, Syria was faced with a militant Sunni Muslim uprising in 1982, and in response, leveled the town of Hama, killing an estimated 20,000 people. Syria had no further militant islamic problem, afterwards.
Compare these responses to the relatively (in comparison to the responses of Jordan and Syria, when faced with similar situations) measured, reasnoble response of Israel, in response to terrorism, where soldiers are instructed not to use lethal force except in the case where they feel their lives are threatened, and where the death tolls are measured in the hundreds, and not thousands.
I think it then becomes clear that violence, as a response, does work, but not measured reasnoble violence, but rather, brutal horrific violence. Please note, I am not neccesarily advocating the use of horrific brutal violence, but rather saying that statements to the effect of "Violence doesnt work" are wrong. Violence has a long history of working. But typically, when invoked on a large, and disperportionate scale.
In defence of disperportionate violence, I would like to say that if you look at the syrian and Jordanian responses, and compare the long term effects of Syria, and Jordans response with the long term effects of Israels response, I think you will quickly see that a horrific disperpotionate use of violence, applied early in a conflict, is much better than any sort of reasnoble response, which tries to minimize harm to innocents. Jordan and Syria can create economic stability for their country (or they could if they had a vibrant economy). Israel, in an attempt to protect its citizens, does horrific, large scale economic damage to all the palestinians. If Israel had quelled the Palestinian Intifada in 1987, as Syria had dealt with their militants in 1982, or as Jordan had in 1970, then today, there might be a much stronger vibrant economy in the palestinian territories.
I gotta disagree here. There is a time when force is neccesary. There is a time when killing innocent civilians in neccesary. There are not, "ALWAYS" other options.
I understand the sentiment that people dont like killing. Great. I agree. In the abstract, all other things being eaqual, killing is to be avoided. And I would even agree that killing is almost always horrible. But the fact that something is horrible need not mean that we shouldnt do it.
Need we be so simpleminded so that we can either say: "Killing is horrible, dont do it ever", or: "The fuckers deserve everything that is coming to them, nuke em nuke em nuke em all, kill kill kill!"? Killing is horrific. No question. Go read Johnny Got His Gun byt Dalton Trumbo if you dont think so. Killing, and war are horrible things. No question. Unfortunately, the world we live in is a messy, and at times horrible place. Cant we accept the horror of the act of killing, without having it neccesarily mean that the atrocity is out of bounds? Cant we say that yes, killing is horrible, but potentially, the best response to certain situations?
There are people in this world who are intent on harming us. Once a suicide bomber is on his way, it is next to impossible to stop him. So if you wish to stop them, your recourse is to destroy the organizatinos that support him. The US gave afghanistan the chance to hand over Bin Laden. Afghanistan refused. So, it becomes incubant upon the US goverment to defend its citizens from an organization intent on causing us harm. Afaghanistan chose to stand between the US government and that goal. There is then, not so much choice. How else will we get to the training camps? How else to you root out these people and orgnizations intent on our harm? Does that make what we must do less horrible? I dont think so. But does the horror of what must be done, make it less neccesarry?
I just wanted to say I think whoever modded this down is being silly. It is not off-topic, and, if the claim is true, it isnt really flamebait, it is an expression of anger, pain, hate, whatnot.
I think we miss the point that we are people. Many of the people in this forum are very liberal, and have a notion that all people are valuble. Good. Great. I applaud that sentiment. I think it is a mistake when you take the sentiment that all people are equal, and have it mean that everyone else is more eaqual than I am.
If I had my brother killed in the twin towers, I think the sentiment of "lets kill the fuckers who did this" would be completely reasnoble. If somone kills your brother, anger, even crudely expressed anger is a wholly legitamate response. Let us not have our open-minded humanism trump our rights and expiriences. If somones brother was brutally murdered, let us not silece their rage. Rage is not wholly wrong. Anger is not wholly wrong. Why do I hear people defending the rights of the so called opressed groups to hate us, but when somone with a legitamate complaint expresses similar anger, that person is modded down as flamebait? Perhaps we woulnt wish to mod somone who expresses their anger in crude terms up, but why should they be modded down? I would hope that somone mod the above post up to at least 0, if not one or 2, as a legitimazation of the expression of rage.