Actually social entitlements make the vast majority of the federal budget. http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2002/ pdf/guide.pdf on page twelve there is a budget breakdown.
medicare/medicaid=19% of the budget social security=23% 7% = means based entitlements, thats stuff like food stamps vetrans benefits, child tax credits etc. total entitlement payments=59% of budget
contrast this with 10% on national debt interest defense 16% 19% non defense government budget
7% for federal insurance, federal retirement system, payment to farmers
thats 66% percent for more or less direct payments to people (if you include the 7% for insurance retirement, payments to farmers) contrasted to 16% for the defense department
One could argue that defense money could be better allocated to paying down the debt, or even more for national infrastructure. However, most people don't seem to realize that payments to our own citizens(who deserve money that they have payed in or need it because they can't help themselves) consumes the vast majority of the budget. This will be a huge problem in a few years worldwide when the babyboomers retire, just look at the current strikes in france to see such an issue.
they have priority back to 1995, it is a continuation of an earlier patent, this giving it priority.
How is storing a scroll rate preference not an advance on technology, it is something which apparently is not included in the art (goto http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-adv.htm search VOD and "scroll rate and you get only 3 patent listings all commonly owned by microsoft and invented by the same inventor having the same priority application date). Since the USPTO prior art database doesn't have anything on scroll rates in VOD and presumably neither do any journals, publications etc, the examiner doesn't have any choice but to allow the patent, unless they find some other teaching and they can find sufficent reason to combine.
Read most patents and you will find they are a very specific implementation of technotlogy. Apparently, no one within the VOD/EPG fields has thought to do this. Perhaps you can educate me where you can find a GUI scroll rate feature that is set by a user themselves, not the programmer? I can't think of any in the pre 1995 area, particualarly in a windows environment (I don't remember in xwindows either, but im not intmatly familiar with that system). You can set a mouse movement rate, but I personally haven't seen a scroll rate atribute in pre 1995.
What Im not sure if you understand is that when an examiner rejects something, they have to provide a specific motiviation to do so to convince an attorney, if the examiner does not, the attorney can appeal the case to a board of appeals. An examiner can't take prior art from two unrelated fields and try to combine them. Thats forbidden by the courts and called improper hindsight reasoning. While you personally do not have to prove if you are one skilled in the art would have known about such a feature or would have been ovbious to include a feature, it is up to the examiner to decide, in the particular case, if it would have been ovbious back in 1995, not 2003, thats where the hindsight problem lies.
This can be a big problem, if you look at some recently issued patents, you can see that they were filed in 1991, 1988 etc, but issued in 2003 (almost makes you wonder why they bothered for just a few years of patent protection), it is difficult for both the examiner to figure out if it would have been ovbious that many years back and to find prior art that teaches such a feature, because many of those features are not documented within the established patent databases, but are instead found in journals, manuals etc, which the examiner may or may not have access too.
As for the features you have listed, all of those are currently patented, and now are ovbious to include, but if you go back a few years were not because they were new features at the time. That is the difficulty for the examiner, having to put themselves in an engineers shoes knowing only what was known in the past.
how is it obvious? Are you one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made?
Please explain how you feel it would be obious to implement a scroll speed control preference within a VOD ordering application. Please show me where you can find a scroll speed preference within the electronic program guide art. Please provide sufficent motiviation to combine a scroll speed control preference with a VOD ordering application that it would have been ovbious to one skilled in the art. PLease explain how you would counter an attorney's argument that it is not ovbious. Please explain how you yourself are an expert in the art of video distribution.
Just because it is possible pull prior art from two different areas to achieve the same invention doesn't mean that it is unpatentable. Doing such is called hindsight, meaning not only there is no motivation to combine two teachings, but such acombination would not have been obvious to do, especially back in 1995 which is when this case has priority too.
i guess your didnt read the article/hear the article on NPR.
They tested two groups, one that played at least 1 hour aday of FPS type games. They acored above average. A second group never really played games and scored average. They had them play only 10 hours of some FPS, which I think was medal of honor. Afterwards they retested them and found that they scored similairly to the video game players group.
patents are backed up severals years on average its 22 months after filing before a first examination, but some arts have up to 48 months before the cases get a first look.
software/business methods weren't something the USPTO did by choice, it was forced upon them by court decisions, it was something that inventors and corporations wanted, for good reason, but hasn't really benefited the public good like in other technologies.
The problem with a lot of it is too much corporate money getting into politics, the judical system etc. I agree with you, the most important thing is to get more ordianry citizens involved in the political process instead of relying on professionals (aka lobbyists). Too many people are absorbed in their own world, of kids soccer games etc, or are focused on just putting food on the table. Judically wise, there should be a penalty for frivilous lawsuits etc, similiar to some of the penalities in europe (like the millonaire who had some traffic offisne and had to pay 10% of his income for a fine).
Sure, a big part of an examiner becoming familiar with the art, is knowing the art itself. Sounds kind of simple right? Well, education and professional experience help a lot for a patent examiner, however actually reading published references really helps a lot in becoming familiar in the art. Believe it or not, examiners are generally above "one skilled/knowledgable in the art" because they have seen and have access to databases which contain knowledge that is not as readily known to everyone else (unless you know a lot of engineers who sit around and read published patents, or patent applications that are published 18 months after they are filed).
The problem is, how will an examiner become familiar in the art if they don't spend time reading the newest possible references, all they will be able to base their examination on, is what they personally know from industry or school. A lot of what is new is old, that is, if you read 15-20 30 year old refereneces you will find a lot of stuff that people think are new today, but isn't really all that known. The problem spliting the search doesn't address is the following: if references are provided by the applicant (and searched by a private contractor paid by the applicant, which is a conflict of interest), will the examiner be able to apply art not listed by the applicant, which overcomes their invention? Will examiners be able to get time to do this? (examiners get as little as 8 to as much as 50+ hours per case)? These questions haven't been addressed, but im concerned that applicants for patents will be screwed in courts because of infringment cases, if the amount of prior art available to the examiner is limited.
On a side note, the EPO is considering going to a US style examination (same examiner searches and applies the art, while the US plan talks of contracting out searches privatly or using EPO/JPO searches).
I agree that pendancy and quality are problems, but no one seems to have a good solution. The problem is trying to balance pendancy and quality and not forsaking one for the other. No one has really thought of a good solution for that (either hire more examiners, or reduce time for examination (possibly at the expense of quality) or stop searching (generally what the most time is spent on).
Can't full screen, slow to start streaming. No option to save streams in non premium versions. Seems like they have an upgraded version every other month (with no increase in quality) requring me to install a new version for every new trailer I want to watch. Requires a dedicated player to play. Difficulty skipping ahead/behind in the stream to different segments of a streaming video.
I would prefer just plain mpeg1 or mpeg2, and having the ability to save the stream to my hard drive for later viewing. If anything this is a good thing since the trailers are realitivly small and you can distribute them to friends, thereby driving up the hype.
actually the patent process in the US is currently undergoing change.
the 21st century plan is a big concern among examiners, because job security is being threatend. A number ofjobs may be outsourced, to contracters. Additionally the search functions may be contracted out as well to reduce pendancy. (FYI fee diverson is money taken out of the new higher examination rates to pay for the waron terrorism).
let me reprint the article from popa
POPA Testifies Before Congress On April 3, 2003, POPA President Ron Stern testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property. Read the full written testimony and the following oral statement.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
POPA represents more than 3,900 employees, the vast majority of whom are patent examiners. Our members are firmly committed to maintaining the quality and integrity of the U.S. Patent System. They strongly believe that our Patent System will be seriously and irreversibly damaged by the agency's new plan.
Fee Diversion
Fee diversion is a big issue but there is not a single provision in the agency's proposals that would put an end to it.
Fee diversion is small now. In FY 01, it was about $45 million. In FY 02, it was about $23 million. This year, it's only expected to be $22 million. But the President's budget for next year sets diversion at approximately $100 million. That's going in the wrong direction. No one should think this bill will discourage fee diversion. Separation of Search and Examination
The agency's fee bill is not simply a proposal for raising fees but, instead, includes language that will make sweeping changes in the examination process. Separating search from examination and relying on outsourced searches will result in a loss of quality, integrity and efficiency. Passage of the proposed legislation will be construed by the agency as Congressional approval for its radical revision of America's proven patent system.
Examiners have raised their collective voice in opposition. Over 1,000 patent examiners have signed a petition requesting Congress to keep search and examination together.
Search and examination are integral parts of the same process. There is a synergy between the two functions that will be lost if they are separated. While searching, an examiner simultaneously becomes familiar with the state of the art and begins mentally formulating rejections to apply to the claimed invention. Thus, when the examiner prepares to take action in the case, much of the decision making process has already been completed.
The European Patent Office (EPO) has recognized the inherent efficiency and synergy in keeping search and examination together. After many years of using a separated process, the EPO has begun implementing the "BEST" program, an acronym for "Bringing Examination and Search Together." The EPO plans to fully convert to combined search and examination by 2005.
POPA has surveyed examiners on this issue. Ninety five percent (95%) do not believe they will be able to issue valid patents and protect the public from unwarranted patents without doing the search themselves. Ninety six percent (96%) believe that overall quality will go down if search and examination functions are separated.
A prestigious colleague once said, "massive claims require massive proof." Here, the agency is seeking Congressional approval before it conducts a pilot to verify whether outsourcing is capable of producing a high quality product at a cost effective price. We are convinced that the agency's request for legislation before the successful conclusion of pilots is putting the cart before the horse. The Search Is A Sovereign Function
Relying on foreign search reports will also result in tacitly transferring the sovereign functions of the United States to foreign powers. A patentability determination can only be as good as th
you can think of an invention, show it to no one, and file for a patent seveal years after you thought of it as long as you didn't tell anyone else, publish information on it, sell it etc. You will recieve a filling date based on when you filed an application, but you can file a sworn affidavit to estabish a new earlier filing date, during the patent process. it works like this
examiner produces prior art A, which was filed before applicants invention. the applicant replies with a sworn affidavit saying we made our invention before that date, the affidavit includes documentation proving that they had indeed invented before that date. the new filing date is the same date as the reference a's filing date.
"Not to nitpick, but shouldn't we expect a little common sense from the people that we pay with our tax dollars? I mean come on, the whole "ignorance is bliss/we are overworked" excuse is really beginning to wear a little thin."
I repeat again, patent examiners are NOT paid by your tax dollars, the USPTO is one of 2 fully fee funded organizations in the government (the other is part of the FAA), so patent examiners are paid by the applicants in effect, in fact currently 500 million of the USPTO's revenue is siphoned away to pay for other agencies's budgets(about 25% of their total revenue). If this money was restored, the PTO could hire more examiners, spend more money for training, etc.
From your comments, it doesn't sound like you are an educated patent professional. If you want to read things from an examiners perspective, read the USPTO patent examiner union's website, www.popa.org. This website should really be featured on slashdot so that posters can understand the patent process from the examiner's side.
Additionally, there is a backlog of over 500,000 applications, that is there are cases filed 4 years ago which haven't even had a first examination on them and the PTO processes less than 500,000 applications a year so pendency will increase even more.
In particular, this case has a priority date of 1994, that is, any references, publicatons, etc after 1994 can't be applied. Try understanding more about the patent office, the massive number of forgein application filins and PCT (patent cooperation treaty filings which are supposed to help applications) before you post.
these guys aren't operating a file swapping network, that would be RPI's network itself. They wrote an application which searches peoples window's shares. So, like any other tool, it can be used for piracy or non-infringing uses.
PAtent agents and attorneys are the ones who prepare the applications and respond to the office actions which the examiners write.
Patent agents are not patent examiners, that is they do not prosecute and search an application and are not employed by the USPTO, but instead work for an inventor or law firm.
AOL/TW is going to make this a box that a user rents from them each month, very much in the same way as a cable reciever, or digital cable reciever.
You can get the same sort of thing like directtv or dishnetwork where you can buy or rent their PVR's from them. However, I don't know of too many cable providers that allow someone to use their own digital cable set top box.
The only way then for a user to get full Tivo/Replay TV functionality would be to A: mod it themselves or B: buy a separate unit. I don't think too many people will do either and will likely be happy with whatever functionality their cable provider gives them.
I'm curious what the average GPA among the ARCHE's was, considering they put in more hours than engineers or hard science majors (CS curriculum at RPI isn't as hard as enginering due to far more electives).
I still wonder about the EMAC and management guy's average major was as well? I was an EE in 2000.
Yeah, apparently, my 53 humanities credits(i graduated with 33 credits more than required, all 33 were extra credits in humanities) didn't teach me anything, then again 32 of them were in the japanese language. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a minor in the Japanese language.
Blame the fall of spelling in informal communications due to laziness and too much use of a spell checker, rather than ones intelligence or education. If this was formal communication, for example, as part of a design document,such a mistake would not be easily forgivable, but in a conversational informal environment, I fail to see the importance, or in particular how it lessens a persons arguement.
you work really hard to pass an admissions test, but once you are in, it is difficult to fail out. You have to go to few classes, little homework, few exams.
i attended a japanese university, albet during the summer semester, one of my college roomates went to japan's number two university and basically said the same above.
Its actually a big problem over there, and as a result, employers require you to take a written exam as part of an evaluation.
I agree, I should have looked into Professor Rojstaczer's employment further, however geology/evironmental engineering/sciences are generally part of the softer side of the sciences, as opposed to physics or even the application of science (engineering). Certainly in both the Geology and environmental studies, much of the course work can include quantative as well as qualatative work, is the same true of other sciences or the application of science? Yes, but I would imagine with less time spent on doing mathematics.
I went to RPI(consistantly ranked in the top 5 among practicing engineers for engineering programs), and can attest, that while courses were curved, plenty of C's, D's and F's were handed out(i remember getting a 35 on my first test and getting a B). Additonally, I went to SUNY Albany, where they actualled did not give F's, instead the offered the E grade (which I always assumed meant Excellent Try), but was not equivlent of an F. Actually for the 26 credits of humanities I took there, I don't remember anyone getting lower than a B-. I can't say I heard of anyone getting lower than a C for humantities classes at RPI either.
I am the poster, and I agree with you regarding humanities, however, if "everyone" is getting grades in the a-B range, it is far more difficult to show how much you have learned to an HR person. Sure once you get into an interview you can show off how much you learned via a writing sample or in conversation. For a science related job, looking at a GPA is one step for getting in the door, some companies like accenture, won't hire you if you have a 4.0 because they believe you aren't a balanced person, but instead only studied. However, they won't hire with under a 3.0 since they don't think you studied enough (i don't work for accenture, but my old roomate does, i work in electrical engineering for the government).
If everyone gets a-b's we might as well just adopt the japanese system for college.
I am actually an employed electrical engineer and the guy who posted it:P
I just thought it was odd when I was in school a couple years back that the liberal arts kids were heald to a lower standard than the science/engineering students in terms of work load and grading.
I agree wholeheartedly. I would not buy any new games from blizzard/valve etc, if they only come out for x-box or if they come out for the PC 2 years AFTER they come out for the x-box.
Halo is a great game, warcraft is a great game. Both would be better on the PC due to the interface (read mouse). For those of you who disagree and say how easy it is to play via a gaming controller (which would be horrible for an RTS!) compare how well people who played networked games on the dreamcast did with the people they played against with a keyboard and mouse (both available for dreamcast).
If anything good comes out of this, new developers will come into play to create new games.
The x-box is a good system, its just that I prefer PC games (no RTCW for the consoles) which are team based and support a higher number of players.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually social entitlements make the vast majority of the federal budget./ pdf/guide .pdf on page twelve there is a budget breakdown.
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2002
medicare/medicaid=19% of the budget
social security=23%
7% = means based entitlements, thats stuff like food stamps vetrans benefits, child tax credits etc.
total entitlement payments=59% of budget
contrast this with 10% on national debt interest
defense 16%
19% non defense government budget
7% for federal insurance, federal retirement system, payment to farmers
thats 66% percent for more or less direct payments to people (if you include the 7% for insurance retirement, payments to farmers) contrasted to 16% for the defense department
One could argue that defense money could be better allocated to paying down the debt, or even more for national infrastructure. However, most people don't seem to realize that payments to our own citizens(who deserve money that they have payed in or need it because they can't help themselves) consumes the vast majority of the budget. This will be a huge problem in a few years worldwide when the babyboomers retire, just look at the current strikes in france to see such an issue.
they have priority back to 1995, it is a continuation of an earlier patent, this giving it priority.
How is storing a scroll rate preference not an advance on technology, it is something which apparently is not included in the art (goto http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-adv.htm search VOD and "scroll rate and you get only 3 patent listings all commonly owned by microsoft and invented by the same inventor having the same priority application date). Since the USPTO prior art database doesn't have anything on scroll rates in VOD and presumably neither do any journals, publications etc, the examiner doesn't have any choice but to allow the patent, unless they find some other teaching and they can find sufficent reason to combine.
Read most patents and you will find they are a very specific implementation of technotlogy. Apparently, no one within the VOD/EPG fields has thought to do this. Perhaps you can educate me where you can find a GUI scroll rate feature that is set by a user themselves, not the programmer? I can't think of any in the pre 1995 area, particualarly in a windows environment (I don't remember in xwindows either, but im not intmatly familiar with that system). You can set a mouse movement rate, but I personally haven't seen a scroll rate atribute in pre 1995.
What Im not sure if you understand is that when an examiner rejects something, they have to provide a specific motiviation to do so to convince an attorney, if the examiner does not, the attorney can appeal the case to a board of appeals. An examiner can't take prior art from two unrelated fields and try to combine them. Thats forbidden by the courts and called improper hindsight reasoning. While you personally do not have to prove if you are one skilled in the art would have known about such a feature or would have been ovbious to include a feature, it is up to the examiner to decide, in the particular case, if it would have been ovbious back in 1995, not 2003, thats where the hindsight problem lies.
This can be a big problem, if you look at some recently issued patents, you can see that they were filed in 1991, 1988 etc, but issued in 2003 (almost makes you wonder why they bothered for just a few years of patent protection), it is difficult for both the examiner to figure out if it would have been ovbious that many years back and to find prior art that teaches such a feature, because many of those features are not documented within the established patent databases, but are instead found in journals, manuals etc, which the examiner may or may not have access too.
As for the features you have listed, all of those are currently patented, and now are ovbious to include, but if you go back a few years were not because they were new features at the time. That is the difficulty for the examiner, having to put themselves in an engineers shoes knowing only what was known in the past.
how is it obvious? Are you one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made?
Please explain how you feel it would be obious to implement a scroll speed control preference within a VOD ordering application. Please show me where you can find a scroll speed preference within the electronic program guide art. Please provide sufficent motiviation to combine a scroll speed control preference with a VOD ordering application that it would have been ovbious to one skilled in the art. PLease explain how you would counter an attorney's argument that it is not ovbious. Please explain how you yourself are an expert in the art of video distribution.
Just because it is possible pull prior art from two different areas to achieve the same invention doesn't mean that it is unpatentable. Doing such is called hindsight, meaning not only there is no motivation to combine two teachings, but such acombination would not have been obvious to do, especially back in 1995 which is when this case has priority too.
i guess your didnt read the article/hear the article on NPR.
They tested two groups, one that played at least 1 hour aday of FPS type games. They acored above average. A second group never really played games and scored average. They had them play only 10 hours of some FPS, which I think was medal of honor. Afterwards they retested them and found that they scored similairly to the video game players group.
it took me 4 years to learn how to spell it
just calling it RPI was so much easier, though I don't get how people can still confuse RIT with it!
ill have to check that out, i work as an examiner and was told differently in training.
thanks!
patents are backed up severals years on average its 22 months after filing before a first examination, but some arts have up to 48 months before the cases get a first look.
software/business methods weren't something the USPTO did by choice, it was forced upon them by court decisions, it was something that inventors and corporations wanted, for good reason, but hasn't really benefited the public good like in other technologies.
The problem with a lot of it is too much corporate money getting into politics, the judical system etc. I agree with you, the most important thing is to get more ordianry citizens involved in the political process instead of relying on professionals (aka lobbyists). Too many people are absorbed in their own world, of kids soccer games etc, or are focused on just putting food on the table. Judically wise, there should be a penalty for frivilous lawsuits etc, similiar to some of the penalities in europe (like the millonaire who had some traffic offisne and had to pay 10% of his income for a fine).
Sure, a big part of an examiner becoming familiar with the art, is knowing the art itself. Sounds kind of simple right? Well, education and professional experience help a lot for a patent examiner, however actually reading published references really helps a lot in becoming familiar in the art. Believe it or not, examiners are generally above "one skilled/knowledgable in the art" because they have seen and have access to databases which contain knowledge that is not as readily known to everyone else (unless you know a lot of engineers who sit around and read published patents, or patent applications that are published 18 months after they are filed).
The problem is, how will an examiner become familiar in the art if they don't spend time reading the newest possible references, all they will be able to base their examination on, is what they personally know from industry or school. A lot of what is new is old, that is, if you read 15-20 30 year old refereneces you will find a lot of stuff that people think are new today, but isn't really all that known. The problem spliting the search doesn't address is the following: if references are provided by the applicant (and searched by a private contractor paid by the applicant, which is a conflict of interest), will the examiner be able to apply art not listed by the applicant, which overcomes their invention? Will examiners be able to get time to do this? (examiners get as little as 8 to as much as 50+ hours per case)? These questions haven't been addressed, but im concerned that applicants for patents will be screwed in courts because of infringment cases, if the amount of prior art available to the examiner is limited.
On a side note, the EPO is considering going to a US style examination (same examiner searches and applies the art, while the US plan talks of contracting out searches privatly or using EPO/JPO searches).
I agree that pendancy and quality are problems, but no one seems to have a good solution. The problem is trying to balance pendancy and quality and not forsaking one for the other. No one has really thought of a good solution for that (either hire more examiners, or reduce time for examination (possibly at the expense of quality) or stop searching (generally what the most time is spent on).
I'm surprised actually, that there isn't a site which archives trailers and has new ones and charges a small fee to view them each month.
Can't full screen, slow to start streaming. No option to save streams in non premium versions. Seems like they have an upgraded version every other month (with no increase in quality) requring me to install a new version for every new trailer I want to watch. Requires a dedicated player to play. Difficulty skipping ahead/behind in the stream to different segments of a streaming video.
I would prefer just plain mpeg1 or mpeg2, and having the ability to save the stream to my hard drive for later viewing. If anything this is a good thing since the trailers are realitivly small and you can distribute them to friends, thereby driving up the hype.
actually the patent process in the US is currently undergoing change.
the 21st century plan is a big concern among examiners, because job security is being threatend. A number ofjobs may be outsourced, to contracters. Additionally the search functions may be contracted out as well to reduce pendancy. (FYI fee diverson is money taken out of the new higher examination rates to pay for the waron terrorism).
let me reprint the article from popa
POPA Testifies Before Congress
On April 3, 2003, POPA President Ron Stern testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property. Read the full written testimony and the following oral statement.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
POPA represents more than 3,900 employees, the vast majority of whom are patent examiners. Our members are firmly committed to maintaining the quality and integrity of the U.S. Patent System. They strongly believe that our Patent System will be seriously and irreversibly damaged by the agency's new plan.
Fee Diversion
Fee diversion is a big issue but there is not a single provision in the agency's proposals that would put an end to it.
Fee diversion is small now. In FY 01, it was about $45 million. In FY 02, it was about $23 million. This year, it's only expected to be $22 million. But the President's budget for next year sets diversion at approximately $100 million. That's going in the wrong direction. No one should think this bill will discourage fee diversion.
Separation of Search and Examination
The agency's fee bill is not simply a proposal for raising fees but, instead, includes language that will make sweeping changes in the examination process. Separating search from examination and relying on outsourced searches will result in a loss of quality, integrity and efficiency. Passage of the proposed legislation will be construed by the agency as Congressional approval for its radical revision of America's proven patent system.
Examiners have raised their collective voice in opposition. Over 1,000 patent examiners have signed a petition requesting Congress to keep search and examination together.
Search and examination are integral parts of the same process. There is a synergy between the two functions that will be lost if they are separated. While searching, an examiner simultaneously becomes familiar with the state of the art and begins mentally formulating rejections to apply to the claimed invention. Thus, when the examiner prepares to take action in the case, much of the decision making process has already been completed.
The European Patent Office (EPO) has recognized the inherent efficiency and synergy in keeping search and examination together. After many years of using a separated process, the EPO has begun implementing the "BEST" program, an acronym for "Bringing Examination and Search Together." The EPO plans to fully convert to combined search and examination by 2005.
POPA has surveyed examiners on this issue. Ninety five percent (95%) do not believe they will be able to issue valid patents and protect the public from unwarranted patents without doing the search themselves. Ninety six percent (96%) believe that overall quality will go down if search and examination functions are separated.
A prestigious colleague once said, "massive claims require massive proof." Here, the agency is seeking Congressional approval before it conducts a pilot to verify whether outsourcing is capable of producing a high quality product at a cost effective price. We are convinced that the agency's request for legislation before the successful conclusion of pilots is putting the cart before the horse.
The Search Is A Sovereign Function
Relying on foreign search reports will also result in tacitly transferring the sovereign functions of the United States to foreign powers. A patentability determination can only be as good as th
you can think of an invention, show it to no one, and file for a patent seveal years after you thought of it as long as you didn't tell anyone else, publish information on it, sell it etc. You will recieve a filling date based on when you filed an application, but you can file a sworn affidavit to estabish a new earlier filing date, during the patent process. it works like this
examiner produces prior art A, which was filed before applicants invention. the applicant replies with a sworn affidavit saying we made our invention before that date, the affidavit includes documentation proving that they had indeed invented before that date. the new filing date is the same date as the reference a's filing date.
"Not to nitpick, but shouldn't we expect a little common sense from the people that we pay with our tax dollars? I mean come on, the whole "ignorance is bliss/we are overworked" excuse is really beginning to wear a little thin."
I repeat again, patent examiners are NOT paid by your tax dollars, the USPTO is one of 2 fully fee funded organizations in the government (the other is part of the FAA), so patent examiners are paid by the applicants in effect, in fact currently 500 million of the USPTO's revenue is siphoned away to pay for other agencies's budgets(about 25% of their total revenue). If this money was restored, the PTO could hire more examiners, spend more money for training, etc.
From your comments, it doesn't sound like you are an educated patent professional. If you want to read things from an examiners perspective, read the USPTO patent examiner union's website, www.popa.org. This website should really be featured on slashdot so that posters can understand the patent process from the examiner's side.
Additionally, there is a backlog of over 500,000 applications, that is there are cases filed 4 years ago which haven't even had a first examination on them and the PTO processes less than 500,000 applications a year so pendency will increase even more.
In particular, this case has a priority date of 1994, that is, any references, publicatons, etc after 1994 can't be applied. Try understanding more about the patent office, the massive number of forgein application filins and PCT (patent cooperation treaty filings which are supposed to help applications) before you post.
i was an RPI student back when Phynd was written.
these guys aren't operating a file swapping network, that would be RPI's network itself. They wrote an application which searches peoples window's shares. So, like any other tool, it can be used for piracy or non-infringing uses.
This is not a patent, this is a published application as a patent, as such it means it has yet to become a patent and is unenforceable.
It can actually be used as prior art against another application with a later filing date.
PAtent agents and attorneys are the ones who prepare the applications and respond to the office actions which the examiners write.
Patent agents are not patent examiners, that is they do not prosecute and search an application and are not employed by the USPTO, but instead work for an inventor or law firm.
AOL/TW is going to make this a box that a user rents from them each month, very much in the same way as a cable reciever, or digital cable reciever.
You can get the same sort of thing like directtv or dishnetwork where you can buy or rent their PVR's from them. However, I don't know of too many cable providers that allow someone to use their own digital cable set top box.
The only way then for a user to get full Tivo/Replay TV functionality would be to A: mod it themselves or B: buy a separate unit. I don't think too many people will do either and will likely be happy with whatever functionality their cable provider gives them.
I'm curious what the average GPA among the ARCHE's was, considering they put in more hours than engineers or hard science majors (CS curriculum at RPI isn't as hard as enginering due to far more electives).
I still wonder about the EMAC and management guy's average major was as well? I was an EE in 2000.
""heald"?! Oh. man! That's beautiful! "
Yeah, apparently, my 53 humanities credits(i graduated with 33 credits more than required, all 33 were extra credits in humanities) didn't teach me anything, then again 32 of them were in the japanese language. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a minor in the Japanese language.
Blame the fall of spelling in informal communications due to laziness and too much use of a spell checker, rather than ones intelligence or education. If this was formal communication, for example, as part of a design document,such a mistake would not be easily forgivable, but in a conversational informal environment, I fail to see the importance, or in particular how it lessens a persons arguement.
you work really hard to pass an admissions test, but once you are in, it is difficult to fail out. You have to go to few classes, little homework, few exams.
i attended a japanese university, albet during the summer semester, one of my college roomates went to japan's number two university and basically said the same above.
Its actually a big problem over there, and as a result, employers require you to take a written exam as part of an evaluation.
I agree, I should have looked into Professor Rojstaczer's employment further, however geology/evironmental engineering/sciences are generally part of the softer side of the sciences, as opposed to physics or even the application of science (engineering). Certainly in both the Geology and environmental studies, much of the course work can include quantative as well as qualatative work, is the same true of other sciences or the application of science? Yes, but I would imagine with less time spent on doing mathematics.
I went to RPI(consistantly ranked in the top 5 among practicing engineers for engineering programs), and can attest, that while courses were curved, plenty of C's, D's and F's were handed out(i remember getting a 35 on my first test and getting a B). Additonally, I went to SUNY Albany, where they actualled did not give F's, instead the offered the E grade (which I always assumed meant Excellent Try), but was not equivlent of an F. Actually for the 26 credits of humanities I took there, I don't remember anyone getting lower than a B-. I can't say I heard of anyone getting lower than a C for humantities classes at RPI either.
I am the poster, and I agree with you regarding humanities, however, if "everyone" is getting grades in the a-B range, it is far more difficult to show how much you have learned to an HR person. Sure once you get into an interview you can show off how much you learned via a writing sample or in conversation. For a science related job, looking at a GPA is one step for getting in the door, some companies like accenture, won't hire you if you have a 4.0 because they believe you aren't a balanced person, but instead only studied. However, they won't hire with under a 3.0 since they don't think you studied enough (i don't work for accenture, but my old roomate does, i work in electrical engineering for the government).
If everyone gets a-b's we might as well just adopt the japanese system for college.
I am actually an employed electrical engineer and the guy who posted it :P
I just thought it was odd when I was in school a couple years back that the liberal arts kids were heald to a lower standard than the science/engineering students in terms of work load and grading.
i played quake1 when it came out exclusivly with the keyboard for about 4 months. When I switched over to a mouse, my ability increased 10x
I agree wholeheartedly. I would not buy any new games from blizzard/valve etc, if they only come out for x-box or if they come out for the PC 2 years AFTER they come out for the x-box.
Halo is a great game, warcraft is a great game. Both would be better on the PC due to the interface (read mouse). For those of you who disagree and say how easy it is to play via a gaming controller (which would be horrible for an RTS!) compare how well people who played networked games on the dreamcast did with the people they played against with a keyboard and mouse (both available for dreamcast).
If anything good comes out of this, new developers will come into play to create new games.
The x-box is a good system, its just that I prefer PC games (no RTCW for the consoles) which are team based and support a higher number of players.