The court on the one hand looked to the "information" contained in the isolated DNA sequence to say that it was a product of nature, and ignored the molecular changes due to cleaving the sequence from the chromosome.
On the other hand, with respect to cDNA, the court ignored the information similarity between mRNA and cDNA and instead looked at the molecular differences.
These two situations are distinguishable. The court said that Myriad does not "rely in any way on the chemical changes that result from the isolation of a particular section of DNA". (p 14) However, Myriad does rely on the chemical changes that distinguish cDNA from mRNA.
Thomas did not call the construction of cDNA "trivial".
Nowhere in nature do you find genes encoded in GATC sequences on a dioxyribose backbone with their introns removed.
"the US Supreme Court has decided that human genes cannot be patented."
Does it means animals and plants DNA can be patented?
"Human genes cannot be patented" is an overly broad interpretation of the ruling.
To say that these "isolated segments of naturally occurring human genes cannot be patented" would be more correct.
In the case where an inventor creates nonnaturally occurring gene sequence with markedly different characteristics from anything occurring in nature, it is left open whether or not those are patentable.
Plant genes meeting these criteria have been held to be patentable. See Monsanto, for example. It is possible that animal genes, or even human genes that meet this criteria would be patentable.
A programmed digital computer for reproducing audio programs, said computer comprising, in combination:....
Does this claim include a general purpose computer that is not "for reproducing audio programs", but happens to have the ability to reproduce audio programs?
It could be argued that they're doing more than the standard of care requires of them, so that would be a defence against a negligence tort. I'm not sure what other legal liability you're suggesting, though.
Ya that too:) I don't know what russotto talking about when he/she said:
The rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive. If this holds up (and I doubt it will), Microsoft could make a "Microsoft iPad", and LG, Samsung, Asus, would also be able to make "iPad" devices of their own. This would be a disaster for Apple, but I seriously doubt it is going to happen.
Partial marks are often part of the issue, but the marks are considered as a whole, and you're correct, the test is whether the mark is confusing, not character matching.
It is so they could start going after competitors that use "mini" in their name.
This isn't true. The test for confusion looks at the entire mark.
A trademark on "iPad Mini" wouldn't prohibit others from using the word "Mini" as part of another mark, unless that causes confusion with the original. For example, I doubt that a court would find "Surface Mini" confusing with "iPad Mini".
The rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive.
I think Apple would have a good counter-argument in that "iPad" has acquired secondary meaning, and that consumers use that mark to distinguish between wares made by Apple and those made by others.
A mark being "merely descriptive" is a prohibition against registration unless that mark has acquired secondary meaning via extensive use in the marketplace.
No, a trademark for "iPad mini", had it been granted, wouldn't prohibit the of "mini" in other contexts. "Austin Mini", "Mini Oreo", "Mini Ritz", "Blackberry Mini Keyboard", "Galaxy S4 Mini", "Android Mini Pad" would all be allowed, unless they cause confusion with the original mark.
Wwhere might one look for 'legal counsel' with the expertise to answer these types of legal questions as it relates to this inquiry. I would prefer to avoid legal fees, court cases, or license fees running the company into the ground.
You should see an IP laywer. While this won't avoid you all legal fees, you'll be able to get some basic answers for a small cost, and it will let you know if your other constraints (avoiding court or license fees) are reasonable.
Why not just put pounds on a barbell, and move that around instead? That at least puts load across your entire body, allows you to progressively increase the load by many pounds per workout, doesn't require you to move extra weight around at the end of a long lever arm for hours at a time.
Oops! Nail polish was supposed to reference the fact that nail polish sales go up when the economy tanks because people are looking for cheaper ways to brighten up their lives.
I agree. Most pople have been convinced they need smart phones not from well reasoned needs and priorities, but from external marketing and the desire to keep up with the joneses.
There's a tumbler highlighting this: http://wearentreallythe99percent.tumblr.com/. It's a bunch of people saying they can't afford stuff, but the pictures are taken with high end smart phones.
Yes, you can love your smart phone. I like mine. But I'll never say I need it, and it will be one of the first things to go if I'm in a bind for money.
I did google it. That's how I found out the info in my post, and I also the wikipedia article you linked to. The wikipedia article says, as I did in my post, that machine learning is a branch of artificial intelligence. So if you say something is machine learning, it is also artificial intelligence.
Calling this work "AI-based" is correct.
The amount of times you'd have to tell an AI something in order for it to learn is irrelevant to this discussion.
Please explain the difference, then. At Stanford, UBC, MIT (I assume other places as well), their artificial intelligence labs include their machine learning groups.
For example, at Stanford, the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory includes the research groups of Daphne Koller, Andrew Ng, and Sebastien Thrun, who all describe their research as Machine Learning.
Andrew Ng, a machine learning research and instructor for the online machine learning course (http://www.ml-class.org/course/auth/welcome) is director of the artificial intelligence laboratory at Stanford.
If you say the techniques in the article are machine learning, then they are also artificial intelligence. The original post title is correct.
There is no wall! Why did you think there was? You can just choose who your posts are shared with. If you only want to share with one person, just choose that.
It does tell you who your post is shared with.
As for changing your profile picture, one would naturally go to Profile, then "Edit Profile", then the "Change Photo" link right underneath your photo.
That's the first three solutions to your "problems".
That's the point of a Google profile! To let people more easily find you. I would certainly hope that they allow indexing of this information. Why would you want a private profile? Like Creed from The Office, I can make a private profile with Microsoft Word.
Specialization has led to areas of research so narrow that they are of interest only to other people working in the same fields, subfields or sub-subfields...
So what? As long as the work is interesting to me, and that there is somebody around to talk to about it and collaborate with, isn't that enough?
Slashdot Mirror
The court on the one hand looked to the "information" contained in the isolated DNA sequence to say that it was a product of nature, and ignored the molecular changes due to cleaving the sequence from the chromosome.
On the other hand, with respect to cDNA, the court ignored the information similarity between mRNA and cDNA and instead looked at the molecular differences.
These two situations are distinguishable. The court said that Myriad does not "rely in any way on the chemical changes that result from the isolation of a particular section of DNA". (p 14) However, Myriad does rely on the chemical changes that distinguish cDNA from mRNA.
Thomas did not call the construction of cDNA "trivial".
Nowhere in nature do you find genes encoded in GATC sequences on a dioxyribose backbone with their introns removed.
"the US Supreme Court has decided that human genes cannot be patented."
Does it means animals and plants DNA can be patented?
"Human genes cannot be patented" is an overly broad interpretation of the ruling.
To say that these "isolated segments of naturally occurring human genes cannot be patented" would be more correct.
In the case where an inventor creates nonnaturally occurring gene sequence with markedly different characteristics from anything occurring in nature, it is left open whether or not those are patentable.
Plant genes meeting these criteria have been held to be patentable. See Monsanto, for example. It is possible that animal genes, or even human genes that meet this criteria would be patentable.
That is, certified to use 91 octane unleaded fuel.
The Rotax 912 and Rotax 912s found in Diamond's DA20-A1 and DA20-100 are certified 91 octane unleaded fuel.
Does this claim include a general purpose computer that is not "for reproducing audio programs", but happens to have the ability to reproduce audio programs?
No it's not. One would result in criminal charges, the other is just an insult.
It could be argued that they're doing more than the standard of care requires of them, so that would be a defence against a negligence tort. I'm not sure what other legal liability you're suggesting, though.
The rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive. If this holds up (and I doubt it will), Microsoft could make a "Microsoft iPad", and LG, Samsung, Asus, would also be able to make "iPad" devices of their own. This would be a disaster for Apple, but I seriously doubt it is going to happen.
Partial marks are often part of the issue, but the marks are considered as a whole, and you're correct, the test is whether the mark is confusing, not character matching.
It is so they could start going after competitors that use "mini" in their name.
This isn't true. The test for confusion looks at the entire mark.
A trademark on "iPad Mini" wouldn't prohibit others from using the word "Mini" as part of another mark, unless that causes confusion with the original. For example, I doubt that a court would find "Surface Mini" confusing with "iPad Mini".
The rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive.
I think Apple would have a good counter-argument in that "iPad" has acquired secondary meaning, and that consumers use that mark to distinguish between wares made by Apple and those made by others.
A mark being "merely descriptive" is a prohibition against registration unless that mark has acquired secondary meaning via extensive use in the marketplace.
No, a trademark for "iPad mini", had it been granted, wouldn't prohibit the of "mini" in other contexts. "Austin Mini", "Mini Oreo", "Mini Ritz", "Blackberry Mini Keyboard", "Galaxy S4 Mini", "Android Mini Pad" would all be allowed, unless they cause confusion with the original mark.
Rick Joyce and Gopal Gupta - Identity Authentication Based on Keystroke Latencies, 1990
F Monrose, A Rubin - Authentication via Keystroke Dynamics, 1997
Arkady G. Zilberman - US Patent 6442692: Security method and apparatus employing authentication by keystroke dynamics, 1998 (I think some of the claims in this patent could be invalidated because of previous disclosure in the 1990 and 1997 papers)
Bank of Montreal's passwords for online banking must be exactly 6 characters long, and contain no special characters.
FYI: List of Kirkland & Ellis IP lawyers in New York
Wwhere might one look for 'legal counsel' with the expertise to answer these types of legal questions as it relates to this inquiry. I would prefer to avoid legal fees, court cases, or license fees running the company into the ground.
You should see an IP laywer. While this won't avoid you all legal fees, you'll be able to get some basic answers for a small cost, and it will let you know if your other constraints (avoiding court or license fees) are reasonable.
Why not just put pounds on a barbell, and move that around instead? That at least puts load across your entire body, allows you to progressively increase the load by many pounds per workout, doesn't require you to move extra weight around at the end of a long lever arm for hours at a time.
Oops! Nail polish was supposed to reference the fact that nail polish sales go up when the economy tanks because people are looking for cheaper ways to brighten up their lives.
I agree. Most pople have been convinced they need smart phones not from well reasoned needs and priorities, but from external marketing and the desire to keep up with the joneses.
There's a tumbler highlighting this: http://wearentreallythe99percent.tumblr.com/. It's a bunch of people saying they can't afford stuff, but the pictures are taken with high end smart phones.
Yes, you can love your smart phone. I like mine. But I'll never say I need it, and it will be one of the first things to go if I'm in a bind for money.
I did google it. That's how I found out the info in my post, and I also the wikipedia article you linked to. The wikipedia article says, as I did in my post, that machine learning is a branch of artificial intelligence. So if you say something is machine learning, it is also artificial intelligence.
Calling this work "AI-based" is correct.
The amount of times you'd have to tell an AI something in order for it to learn is irrelevant to this discussion.
It's machine learning.
There's a difference.
Please explain the difference, then. At Stanford, UBC, MIT (I assume other places as well), their artificial intelligence labs include their machine learning groups.
For example, at Stanford, the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory includes the research groups of Daphne Koller, Andrew Ng, and Sebastien Thrun, who all describe their research as Machine Learning.
Andrew Ng, a machine learning research and instructor for the online machine learning course (http://www.ml-class.org/course/auth/welcome) is director of the artificial intelligence laboratory at Stanford.
If you say the techniques in the article are machine learning, then they are also artificial intelligence. The original post title is correct.
There is no wall! Why did you think there was? You can just choose who your posts are shared with. If you only want to share with one person, just choose that.
It does tell you who your post is shared with.
As for changing your profile picture, one would naturally go to Profile, then "Edit Profile", then the "Change Photo" link right underneath your photo.
That's the first three solutions to your "problems".
It's not terrible.
That's the point of a Google profile! To let people more easily find you. I would certainly hope that they allow indexing of this information.
Why would you want a private profile? Like Creed from The Office, I can make a private profile with Microsoft Word.
So what? As long as the work is interesting to me, and that there is somebody around to talk to about it and collaborate with, isn't that enough?
Yup!