Thats the thing. Microsoft did not have implied consent. Thats was this announcement means. They likely have no record of who consented to be on this mailing list. I bet they simply have a list of of email addresses in a db somewhere. When you ask to be on the list they add you and then delete the email. When you ask off they remove you and delete the email. If they want to do an maililng list they have to start from scratch and keep better records.
RSS is just markup. A simple rss feed is just a an xml document you host like a web page that contains a list of items. Each item having a title, description and pubDate with rss as the root of the document.
The Canada Anti Spam Law requires very specific opt in from the people recieving emails. It requires that certian content not be in the email. It has fines. Microsoft is going to have to train its people and change its templates. It is going to have to get its emails approved by Canadian lawyers. It will take time for it to get in complience of the law. But the deadline is tommorow. So they will RSS feeds instead. It is very easy for an expert to say the emails are exsempt to the press. But I bet if you showed them a few emails they would find a few problems. Things Microsoft needs to fix or get fined.
In 1911, Charles F. Kettering, with Henry M. Leland, of Dayton Engineering Laboratories Company (DELCO) invented and filed U.S. Patent 1,150,523 for the first electric starter in America.
So glad I don't have to start my car the same way I start an old lawnmower.
Sure but you buying or selling shares does not effect their balance sheet. Your not an expense. You don't show up on the books the way salary does. On the flip side, you are not paying Amazon money when their shares go down over time.
Now that I think about it. You could crowd source this. You could give people a phone app. They could list their inventory of batteries, service hours and gps for landing spot. Prices would be set similer to those cab fair applications. They could scan the old drone with phone. Scan old battery. Scan new battery. Then place the drone in a takeoff spot. Then click finish on the app. The drones would then fly away.
I think you could do this same buisness with low tech. Just have a spot where worker scans a barcode on the drone, replaces the battery, and then checks a box on web form. Sort of a drone gass station.
I assumed they took youtube vids and then played them backwards half the time. Then they asked the computer to guess forward or backward.
I think it would be easier to guess based on the audio than the vidio. You could just put the audio through speach regonition. If the sound makes sense as words in some language then it is playing forwards. But good for them to look at the harder problem.
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof
A claim should fail 101 if it claims something that isn't one of the above.
The were not claiming to invent a machine (the computer)
They were not claiming to invent the process (hedging)
They were not claiming to invent a specific improvement to a computer. (software added to the computer)
Instead their claim was using a machine to solve a problem. That doesn't fall under 101 unless it falls under a patentable process. SCOTUS said that the 2 step process of (take exising process) and (apply it on a computer) is just a drafting trick to get a patent on old things. If you remove the drafting trick then you have a process with no steps. So they rejected it under 101.
I would also like to point out that the patent did not contain code. Alice wasn't patenting their implimentation with code. They were patenting the idea of fixing it with code. If they actually had an implimentation then they could get a narrow patent on the implimentation using 101. But a broad patent on the idea is blocked by 101.
Sure the computer is a machine. These patent doesn't tell you how to build a computer. They don't tell you how to improve a computer. If anything they might be processes. SCOTUS as a wierd deffinition of process where they try to limit it too what Congress was thinking when they wrote the law.
Yeah it sort of the difference between a problem statement and a solution to a problem. SCOTUS just ruled that using a computer isn't an inventive solution to a problem. By writing it the way they did they just restated the problem. In this case the solution to the problem was already known. So it could of been rejected under another part of the patent act. But that is not super important.
A computer can be a person. Are you saying I can't speak to a person in code and tell them a series of steps? That by doing so I have turned thier brain into a machine that is infringing? If I teach my dog to do the steps is my dog a new invention?
Well they didn't really invent it. They just gave a name to something that was in the act.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof
So what do you call something that isn't a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter"
SCOTUS gave it a name. They named it "abstract idea".
Well the district court did that because this case is almost identical to Bilski. And Bilski was invalidated on section 101. This is just a different kind of hedging than was in Bilski. No need to spend time looking to see if it was new when SCOTUS already said it was abstract.
Using a computerto create and maintain “shadow” accounts amounts to electronic recordkeeping—one of the most basic functionsof a computer. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U. S., at 65 (noting that a computer “operates . . . upon both new and previously stored data”). The same is true with respect to the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances,and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]” previously known to the industry. Mayo, 566
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 4). In short, each step does nomore than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
I think the above is one of the most important parts of the ruling. Basically stating that your patents stores data, or calculates something won't make it patent elligible if it wasn't patent elligible to start with. You could extend similer thinking to internet patents when talking about "well-understood, routine, convention activiteis"
It was invalidated because the process it describes is super super old. They only thing they added to the old process was using a computer. So if you invent something actually new. Then you can patent that. But "old idea + computer" is not patentable.
That is bs. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock...
Comcast total debt issuance has flucuated between -2 billion and 2.5 billion over the last 5 years.
Compare that with the dividends it pays out in 2014:
Quarterly Dividends and Quarterly Share Repurchases Increased 35.5% to $1.3 Billion
Slashdot Mirror
Thats the thing. Microsoft did not have implied consent. Thats was this announcement means. They likely have no record of who consented to be on this mailing list. I bet they simply have a list of of email addresses in a db somewhere. When you ask to be on the list they add you and then delete the email. When you ask off they remove you and delete the email. If they want to do an maililng list they have to start from scratch and keep better records.
What the fuck is RSS?
RSS is just markup. A simple rss feed is just a an xml document you host like a web page that contains a list of items. Each item having a title, description and pubDate with rss as the root of the document.
The Canada Anti Spam Law requires very specific opt in from the people recieving emails. It requires that certian content not be in the email. It has fines. Microsoft is going to have to train its people and change its templates. It is going to have to get its emails approved by Canadian lawyers. It will take time for it to get in complience of the law. But the deadline is tommorow. So they will RSS feeds instead. It is very easy for an expert to say the emails are exsempt to the press. But I bet if you showed them a few emails they would find a few problems. Things Microsoft needs to fix or get fined.
In 1911, Charles F. Kettering, with Henry M. Leland, of Dayton Engineering Laboratories Company (DELCO) invented and filed U.S. Patent 1,150,523 for the first electric starter in America.
So glad I don't have to start my car the same way I start an old lawnmower.
Sure but you buying or selling shares does not effect their balance sheet. Your not an expense. You don't show up on the books the way salary does. On the flip side, you are not paying Amazon money when their shares go down over time.
lol I don't think Amazon pays a dividend. So you can remove shareholders from the list.
I suppose that is true if your trying to replace humans doing deliveries. Then it would not make a ton of sense unless the station stayed busy.
Now that I think about it. You could crowd source this. You could give people a phone app. They could list their inventory of batteries, service hours and gps for landing spot. Prices would be set similer to those cab fair applications. They could scan the old drone with phone. Scan old battery. Scan new battery. Then place the drone in a takeoff spot. Then click finish on the app. The drones would then fly away.
I think you could do this same buisness with low tech. Just have a spot where worker scans a barcode on the drone, replaces the battery, and then checks a box on web form. Sort of a drone gass station.
I assumed they took youtube vids and then played them backwards half the time. Then they asked the computer to guess forward or backward. I think it would be easier to guess based on the audio than the vidio. You could just put the audio through speach regonition. If the sound makes sense as words in some language then it is playing forwards. But good for them to look at the harder problem.
hey guys..
End
Click Like To Subscribe. Follow Hashtag blah on twitter, blah blah reddit. Hand waves to bottom of screen.
He already admitted he could decrypt it. So not really an issue here.
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof
A claim should fail 101 if it claims something that isn't one of the above. The were not claiming to invent a machine (the computer) They were not claiming to invent the process (hedging) They were not claiming to invent a specific improvement to a computer. (software added to the computer) Instead their claim was using a machine to solve a problem. That doesn't fall under 101 unless it falls under a patentable process. SCOTUS said that the 2 step process of (take exising process) and (apply it on a computer) is just a drafting trick to get a patent on old things. If you remove the drafting trick then you have a process with no steps. So they rejected it under 101.
I would also like to point out that the patent did not contain code. Alice wasn't patenting their implimentation with code. They were patenting the idea of fixing it with code. If they actually had an implimentation then they could get a narrow patent on the implimentation using 101. But a broad patent on the idea is blocked by 101.
Sure the computer is a machine. These patent doesn't tell you how to build a computer. They don't tell you how to improve a computer. If anything they might be processes. SCOTUS as a wierd deffinition of process where they try to limit it too what Congress was thinking when they wrote the law.
Yeah it sort of the difference between a problem statement and a solution to a problem. SCOTUS just ruled that using a computer isn't an inventive solution to a problem. By writing it the way they did they just restated the problem. In this case the solution to the problem was already known. So it could of been rejected under another part of the patent act. But that is not super important.
A computer can be a person. Are you saying I can't speak to a person in code and tell them a series of steps? That by doing so I have turned thier brain into a machine that is infringing? If I teach my dog to do the steps is my dog a new invention?
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof
So what do you call something that isn't a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter"
SCOTUS gave it a name. They named it "abstract idea".
Mueller isn't a lawyer.
Well the district court did that because this case is almost identical to Bilski. And Bilski was invalidated on section 101. This is just a different kind of hedging than was in Bilski. No need to spend time looking to see if it was new when SCOTUS already said it was abstract.
Using a computerto create and maintain “shadow” accounts amounts to electronic recordkeeping—one of the most basic functionsof a computer. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U. S., at 65 (noting that a computer “operates . . . upon both new and previously stored data”). The same is true with respect to the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances,and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]” previously known to the industry. Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 4). In short, each step does nomore than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
I think the above is one of the most important parts of the ruling. Basically stating that your patents stores data, or calculates something won't make it patent elligible if it wasn't patent elligible to start with. You could extend similer thinking to internet patents when talking about "well-understood, routine, convention activiteis"
It was invalidated because the process it describes is super super old. They only thing they added to the old process was using a computer. So if you invent something actually new. Then you can patent that. But "old idea + computer" is not patentable.
I 'm sure Amazon does. I probably just costs more.
Well there is the possiblility that Japan sold the plutionium. (seem suicidal but stranger things have happened)
That is bs. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock...
Comcast total debt issuance has flucuated between -2 billion and 2.5 billion over the last 5 years. Compare that with the dividends it pays out in 2014: Quarterly Dividends and Quarterly Share Repurchases Increased 35.5% to $1.3 Billion