"So when was the last time you were called in on your vacation or a sunday morning? god some appreciation isn't really that much to ask for now is it? I should have guessed you were an engineer. "
I havebeen calledin on a snday monrin,it wasn't fun. I have some friends at UUnet who get called in at 3am at least 1x a month, that really sucks!
dude, im an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, i can do my own PC support. Now network troubleshooting is another situtation, i don't have time to do that and thats why people are paid to do that sort of work so i can focus on my job. IT makes my job easier, but my job can be done without it (albit slower). Circuits were designed in the past with out IT folks, so was software,so was civil engineering. IT guys generally take care of the network, and usually have NO CLUE how to support the applications i run outside of the MS suite of things (and they really shouldn't thats why people pay the 30+ bucks an hour to call those help lines).
Other departments are inhernetly more important than support departments because they are what the company is focused on i.e. products or services. Without people designing, selling or manufactutring a product/serivce, there is no revenue stream, which pays for your job as well as mine.
No you never said programing was IT, but i agree it can be a support function(unless you are a software developing company).
i'm not saying that IT is underappreciated (most support functions are, because they aren't considered essential by others, perhaps thats why that sys-admin guy invented sys admin day)
However, there are plenty of self important IT guys out there, who try to flaunt whatever miniscule power they have over others (ala the old temple of the computer stories back from the mainframe days). Unfortuneatly, ive had situations where it guys on their high horses would not give me persmissons to install software which was essential to my job function and worked previously prior to my system being upgraded (this was at a fortune 500 company, i was working in an R&D lab) until a VP of R&D yelled at the IT staff.
Unfortuneatly, most non technically oriented workers (i.e. most sales/admin staff, though sales engineers usually know whats going on), don't have the knowledge or time to spend fixing their computer, hence the role of the desktop support worker. However, treating your technical workers the same way i.e. programmers/engineers, doesnt nececescarily make the same sense (although they can screw things up just as easily, but generally have a better idea of what to do).
The only time i have eever had to call the IT staff for anything was to get a voicemail password as none was ever assigned.
When hard times hit, support functions, i.e. administrative, sales, it should be the first to go, before you dump your developers/engineering staff, because it is harder to replace that knowledge/experience. IT, is more of a commodity, thanks to those degree mills which advertise that there is still a market for 75K MSCE jobs out there(which isnt a good thing). It hard to find a good IT staff, when you have so many people who got into it just for the money, dont really have an interest in the underlying technology.
the sales/engineering job is MORE important than IT. sales/engineering is what brings in the money and develops the products.
IT, like marketing, HR and even the custiodial staff is a support function. IT makes things easier for sales/engineering, and while it is important to a company, is NOT its core function.
Its unfortunate that Slashdot has such an IT bent and little input from the engineering side of things(outside of software). BTW i don't equate IT with programming.
..Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
Oh plu-eaze....
You are going to tell me, that for example, Lipitor, a drug that controls enzyme blood levels for cholesterol for people that have high LDL levels in thier blood, would not be financially recovered in research and development if world wide a monopoly on the drug sale for 2 years, couldn't recoupe the cost? Furthermore because the market is a world wide monopoly as you suggest, the drug company in question sets the price anyway based on recovering expenses during that two years?
Perhaps you can do it for 2 years AFTER the FDA approves the treatment. By that time under your proposal, the patent would have expired. Besides, you are asuming that the drug would be patented/approved worldwide at the same time, a US patent is not enforced in another country, the inventor/asignee has to have a patent in another country as well. In the US, you can't get a patent on something which was made public or on sale in the US or another country at least one year prior to the date of filing.
I am sorry, but that was a real BAD assumption, basis for your argument, for biotech products in general in the pharmacological industry. Drug costs can be recovered in monopoly markets, costing BILLIONS of dollars for research and development in a VERY short period of time for example if they are sold world wide, in MONTHS, let alone years.
It also takes COPYCAT drug companies a few years to get to market with generics EVEN AFTER the Patent expires, and THEY TOO must go through FDA approval processes for distribution that makes the process longer than just a question of copying the mechanical aspects of production of the copycat drug.
Yes as you said, it takes everyone years to get to market because you have to go to the FDA, even generic manufacturers. In the US, a patent is good for 20 years from DATE OF FILING. It takes several years(currently as many as 4+) for a patent to be approved via the US patent office. Now, add in another 2-4 years for the FDA and you are down from 20 years patent protection to 12-14 years. It may only take a few months development, but not every drug can be patented, heck not every drug developed by companies can even go to market (the sucess rate is certainly less than 100%). I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but on the patent side, you have to believe the inventors specification and research when it comes to the effectiveness of the drug (if they are coming up with a new treatment that has never been done before, there is nothing to counter it).
Very very BAD example my friend...Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
This is drivel. If your idea is worth a hill of beans you do what ever other person does, you build a demo product from investors, prove it works, and THEN patent it.,/p>
YOU CAN NOT DO THIS. DOING SO PREVENTS YOU FROM GETTING A PATENT. (I am a patent examiner, that is a violation of 35USC 102 (a): the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.) You have then relinquished your right to a patent because you have disclosed it to others. Don't beleive me? Well, there have been more than a few cases of this. You can't disclose the invention until after you submit the application to the patent office, unless you work for a company, because most likely you assigned all IP that you create to that company. This does absolutely nothing for an independant inventor. Hence 2 years is still not enough. Now, you can file then go out and try to sell your invention while the patent is waiting to be examined.
You can't patent anything just from a sheet of paper and an IDEA you have to have a working model to begin with. I am sorry but your contention that no one would buy your invention before the patent expires is putting the horse before the cart.
I tend to disagree, again as I said, I am a patent examiner, and used to work in sales engineering at one point. It easily takes months or years to sell anything to someone which is not a commodity (i.e. some proprietary system).
It just doesn't work that way in the real world.
Yes, it does. I have the real world experience to prove it.
Your example is contrived, heavily, like an astroturfed AD claiming everyone is using your product when nobody has even heard of it.
In fact, if you do the research in the Biotech industry you will find it doesn't take long for drug research to be recovered and profits to be achieved. This is more a function of the patient having to consume the drug, usually fairly frequently for example on a daily basis, and the size of the market. Which, is quite huge if we are talking world wide with possibly hundreds of MILLIONS of people suffering from a common disease such as high cholesterol levels.
I also do NOT believe, since you glossed over a lot of what I said for example in my argument, that longer than 2 years, companies tend to get cash stock piles that are SO HUGE, they use them to legally suppress NEW RESEARCH that disproves a drugs effectiveness. For example, in the liptor case, inflamation, NOT HIGH LDL cholesterol levels, is emerging to be the root cause of heart attacks and heart disease, NOT high cholesterol levels.
I have NO DOUBT, that current Phizor attorneys at THIS VERY MOMENT are looking at suing, or putting out of business ANYONE that touches thier Lipitor drug markets until Phizor, and ONLY Phizor has a solution to this inflamation problem, REGARDLESS of the market opportunities for anyone who decides they want to do research or sell into that market share Phizor already owns from the sale of Lipitor.
They are entitled to do so, a patent is a monopoly. Without it, what incentive do they have to create the product?
This is a common problem with patents that last longer than 2 years. You can also see this in the unhealthy diversification of the software market, for example here in the US. Companies like Microsoft use thier HUGE accumulated cash stockpiles from YEARS of Monopoly market control to SQUASH, or legally DESTROY any small inventor, company or that has a particular idea.
I don't remember microsoft patenting MSDOS or patenting Windows. You can't patent an operating system via a single patent, you need dozens-hundreds to do so. Monopolies aren't inherently wrong (although lack of competition isn't good for the consumer). Microsoft used the money the recieved from being the only player in the business market, a position they gained because IBM did not seem to consider the OS market to be important. Did, you know that back in the early days of digital electronics, no one bothered patenting electronics because things changed so rapidly? The result was that everyone copied everyone else. Now was there innovation derived from that copying, most certainly yes and the world of electronics advanced, but early inventors were clearly shortchanged from their rights and ability to profit.
Most investors won't even TOUCH YOU if your idea has ANY IMPACT on Microsoft's percieved market place AND FOR GOOD REASON.
That shouldn't be the case, and I would argue just the opposite. Patent systems that provide market monopolies to companies longer than specified 2 years create stagnant market places, very little innovation and locks out new ideas or small inventors. Investors won't take the chance on an idea that could exhaust a startup's funds, just in legal expenses, if a company that controls a market monopoly can sue them out of business.
This has happened so many times in the past years with Microsoft and smaller companies it has bullied, I can't begin to explain.
Don't forget too, that the American consumer never ever gets to see any of these new ideas either because Microsoft would not permit the company to sell them on the open market place as well.
Well, all the inventor has to do is get a patent. Microsoft then has to fight it in the courts like everyone else. They can use their accumulated wealth to squash it from a marketing perspective or investment prospective, but they can't buy the examiner (you can't accept large sums of money/gifts from a company, its called bribing a federal offical). You can not get a software patent in the US. However, if you read the "software patents" claims, they usually read something like: A computer readable medium on which......
That is a slight distinction. Software patents really aren't that usefull (and you can't get a patent on algorithims), because the marketplace changes so quickly (as I stated above with early digital electronics). Buisness methods on the otherhand are another story.
Actually my friend I am an expert on this. Want to know why? I deal with it every day. I am a patent examiner, I use google for prior art. You can't just use what the applicant provides you for prior art because it is compromised (the search firms have a financial interest in finding the prior art). The problem is this, if I'm working on a patent which was filed in 1999, and today is 2002, i cant use something which was published on google in 2000. People dont seem to realize it that the examiner does their search for the state of that art at the time that the invention was filed! You can't use hindsight reasoning for ovbiousness as well.
Has microsoft done some "evil" things, sure, but so did the train barons of the 19th century.
What you are arguing seems to be that for biotech and software, patents should be treated differently. You might not be aware of this, but the bigest application filers are in the ELECTRONICS/TELECOMMUNICATIONS industry. Likewise, for someone who patents machinery, do you believe that they should be entitiled to a 2 year patent? The mechanical device industry does opperate differently and it may take longer than the 2 years you suggest for all industries to recover the costs of development.
Perhaps a better arguement is that software patents should last 2 years, but as an examiner, i see more than just software type patents, as such, I can't see how the vast majority of companies/inventors can recover their profits in only 2 years on physical devices.
The software patents/biotech patents are not the only ones issued worldwide.
go take a course on patent law, its not as easy as you think. the claims are what define the invention, they can be worded so that you WILL NOT find it despite an invention which exists and seamingly appears to be prior art.
I tend to feel patents should have a maximum lifetime of 2 years for the following reasons:
1) 2 years is long enough for almost any technology, and allows other companies a lower barrier to market for what most patents come to be: industry standards or acceptable practices.
Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
2) It prevents a market place or any one company from manipulating the legal system for extensive periods of time to squash competition. Not only because of fear that a product might be superior, but to keep prices high and competition low.
A patent is a limited MONOPOLY granted to a inventor in exchange for the inventor disclosing how theinvention works to the public. without such a system, there will be little public disclosure of new invention except through peer reiew publications. what does that mean? Well, through a published patent, the public learns about new inventions and can use that base invention to make improvements and in turn file a new patent. With out a patent there is no incentive to make such information public and everything in industry would likely be a trade secret. Technology would likely develop at a slower rate since it would be more difficult for peple to learn how things work except through reverse engineering, which in some cases may take an inordinate amount of time.
3) Both 1 and 2 breed an industry, that economically in any country that has patents, that is unhealthy to said countries economic well being, and effectively causes problems in a world emerging marketplace for that company who wishes to compete world wide.
I would tend to disagree. Without patent protection, someone can easily copy your invention and manufacture it outside the country and possbily reimport it or use it to develop their own products and out sell you.
if a forgien company wants patent protection for a product they wish to sell in the US, they have to file a patent, likewise in their own country.
wow dude, you ovbiously have NO CLUE how the patent office works.
you make it sound as though the patent office allows EVERY case it recieves. this is in fact VERY incorrect. in excess of 90% of applications are rejected the first time. The average application takes several years after it is filled before it gets a first examination by an examiner. Afterwards it takes months-years before it becomes abandonded or allowed.
If an examiner allows the vast majority of cases on their docket on the first action, their boss would wonder what is going on. the patent ofice makes money in the US via fees, the more time you have to ammend and add new claims, the more revenue the office recieves.
the problem is bandwidth. the bandwidth of an HD signal could easily fit several SD signals (hence the idea of subchannels at lesser quality). an HD signal may be 18-27mbits, versus 6mbs for a standard definition signal.
the digital cable and DBS systems generally use digitally compressed analog streams. Some use regular MPEG2 streams as well
consumers want digital tv, but there aren't that many displays in "consumer" grade sizes. Samsung makes a 27" 4:3 display, and thats about it as far as i know for 27" and under displays which can display HD.
not everyone wants or can afford a 36"+ display. For some people its just impractal. Most people aren't videophiles, but just want to watch their sports, news and sit-coms.
I believe once you see more 13", 19", 25" and 27" HD capable displays at a reasonable pricepoint (say $50 more than an SD tv) sales will take off.
The other alternative is to offer HD exsclusive (sporting events?) content or some other added value(such as digital subchannels for NBC, CBS ETC) which are available OTA. Then consumers would have more incentive to upgrade.
then find a new job if you aren't happy. find something in a different area, go back to school
life is too short to be unhappy. considering you spend more waking hours at work than you do with your friends(assuming they dont work with you) children, wives etc, you should get a job you enjoy.
Really, do we have a CEO appreciaton day for all their hard work? Do we have a janitor appreciation day for thanking the janitor for cleaning up after us? Do we have a dentist appreciation day for the dental work they do?
You get paid a salary to provide a service, that should be enough compensation. Heck I'm an engineer, wheres the engineer appreciation day? No thanks for all the technology which was devleloped by scientists and engineers to provide sys-admins jobs?;)
this isn't really news-worthy, but i do find it funny.
i think RPI's main hinderance to getting more recognition is their masters programs. The programs while good, just don't get the recognition of other schools. RPI's strength is in its undergraduate education (and hockey team).
plus, what other schools sports teams are called the engineers (well they used to be before that stupid chicken).
Yes NY state taxes are high, but housing is very cheap in the Albany area. Traffic is very light. There is plenty of land to be developed and a good amount of empty buildings. Population is somewhere around 600k+ there as well.
You have one of the top engineering schools in the country RPI (NOT RIT) which consistantly is ranked by working engineers as one of the top 3 (Beating out MIT). General Electric is nearby and IBM is about 1.5 hours away. There is plenty of underused infrastructure (highways and cable) and an international airport nearby.
For recreation, you are 30-40 miles from both vermont and massachuessess so its easy to go skiing, lake george is 1 hour away and its about 2.5 hours to boston or NYC (3-4 to montreal).
It doesn't snow too much up there, but ice is a concern in the winter.
On a side note during my years at RPI i read that Troy has a population of 50k. I'm not sure where they all live though. Troy could use the money, last time i was there, the city Hall still read Tr city hall.
You are right on about the pacing. The books read more like a travel guide than some sort of "epic vision."
There is very little character development, most of the characters seem the same at the end of the story as they did in the begining. There is little dialouge (if you don't count the poems/songs). Face it the first 200 pages of the fellowship of the ring are pretty boring and not much happens at all (i wasn't expecting an action story when i read it though).
however...
the descriptions of the landscapes are exceptional, you can really see the areas the characters traveled and feel like you are there. the problem is though, that you really don't know how the characters feel since tolkien doesn't develop that side of the book enough.
anyone catch the recent southpark episode with lucas reinventing his movies?
realistically, it should not be different to have the extended version and theatrical version on the same disc. just used a different table of contents for the version you want to see.
i personally don't care about the making of, biographies etc, i just like seeing deleted scenes. the extra stuff is nice to have, but not nearly as interesting to me as extra movie footage, espescially when it is integrated with the film itself.
Get a Volkswagen TDI model (http://www.tdiclub.com/). In the US they have TDI jetta's, beetles and golfs (nearly every model in europe has a TDI, passat, lupo etc). In the US they are only rated for about 90hp(and 155hp of torque stock, they can get up to 115hp fairly easily), but get 49MPG (over 700miles a tank) for highway mileage. The TDI lupo (only in europe) is rated for 90MPG and costs far less than a honda!
They do offer a 150hp TDI engine in europe which still gets really good gas mileage, but won't run on current US grade diesel (which is real poor). There is even a TDI GTI! VW/Audi sells six different diesels in Europe (1.2l, 1.9l - 90hp, 1.9l - 110hp, 1.9l -115hp, 2.5l - 150hp, V8 3.3l - 225hp[available soon]) compared to only the 1.9l - 90hp available in North America. When mentioning these horse power figures though, we must also think where this power is available. On the 1.9l 90hp it peak torque is available at just 1900RPMs with 155 ft/lbs torque up to the V8 3.3l which generates 355 ft/lbs torque between 1800 and 3000RPMs. I guess we can only dream of these really high output models.
Diesel is good, unfortuneatly it got a bad name in the US due to the amount of black smoke earlier cars and big trucks would put out (about 2% of US cars are diesel compared to over 25% in Europe. A properly tuned diesel shouldnt spew black smole and has gobs of torque which is great for driving around town(you won't win a drag race).
VW is really the only auto manufacturer who still offers diesel cars, and their prices start around 15k. Plus you get a car which is much nicer than a civic both on the in and outside.
I expect more manufacturer's to bring diesels over to the US once the fuel standards increase.
On a side note, is there any technical problem which has stop diesel electric hybrids in cars (they have diesel electric trains). Seems to me you would get a more fuel efficent car than a gas electric.
what blizzard needs to do then is to provide more defensive unit options. have more static defensive structures(they had them in WC2). add units like command and conquers engineers to take over units, or commando's which can blow up a building in one shot.
make destroying support structures a priority (for example taking out a power yard in c&C takes down powered base defenses like rocket towers, or tower of nod). implementing this would be easy, destroy a house for peons and you loose control of those peons supported by the house or it takes longer to build units as a result.
sure with more defensive options, that might encourage some players to try to overcome a base with a huge rush, but when you have a strong defense, a crafty oponnent will try to distract you and sneak in an engineer/commando to destroy/sell off your base from within(or take over a building and build a rocket tower in the middle of it).
Slashdot Mirror
"So when was the last time you were called in on your vacation or a sunday morning? god some appreciation isn't really that much to ask for now is it? I should have guessed you were an engineer. "
I havebeen calledin on a snday monrin,it wasn't fun. I have some friends at UUnet who get called in at 3am at least 1x a month, that really sucks!
dude, im an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, i can do my own PC support. Now network troubleshooting is another situtation, i don't have time to do that and thats why people are paid to do that sort of work so i can focus on my job. IT makes my job easier, but my job can be done without it (albit slower). Circuits were designed in the past with out IT folks, so was software,so was civil engineering. IT guys generally take care of the network, and usually have NO CLUE how to support the applications i run outside of the MS suite of things (and they really shouldn't thats why people pay the 30+ bucks an hour to call those help lines).
Other departments are inhernetly more important than support departments because they are what the company is focused on i.e. products or services. Without people designing, selling or manufactutring a product/serivce, there is no revenue stream, which pays for your job as well as mine.
No you never said programing was IT, but i agree it can be a support function(unless you are a software developing company).
i'm not saying that IT is underappreciated (most support functions are, because they aren't considered essential by others, perhaps thats why that sys-admin guy invented sys admin day)
However, there are plenty of self important IT guys out there, who try to flaunt whatever miniscule power they have over others (ala the old temple of the computer stories back from the mainframe days). Unfortuneatly, ive had situations where it guys on their high horses would not give me persmissons to install software which was essential to my job function and worked previously prior to my system being upgraded (this was at a fortune 500 company, i was working in an R&D lab) until a VP of R&D yelled at the IT staff.
Unfortuneatly, most non technically oriented workers (i.e. most sales/admin staff, though sales engineers usually know whats going on), don't have the knowledge or time to spend fixing their computer, hence the role of the desktop support worker. However, treating your technical workers the same way i.e. programmers/engineers, doesnt nececescarily make the same sense (although they can screw things up just as easily, but generally have a better idea of what to do).
The only time i have eever had to call the IT staff for anything was to get a voicemail password as none was ever assigned.
When hard times hit, support functions, i.e. administrative, sales, it should be the first to go, before you dump your developers/engineering staff, because it is harder to replace that knowledge/experience. IT, is more of a commodity, thanks to those degree mills which advertise that there is still a market for 75K MSCE jobs out there(which isnt a good thing). It hard to find a good IT staff, when you have so many people who got into it just for the money, dont really have an interest in the underlying technology.
the sales/engineering job is MORE important than IT. sales/engineering is what brings in the money and develops the products.
IT, like marketing, HR and even the custiodial staff is a support function. IT makes things easier for sales/engineering, and while it is important to a company, is NOT its core function.
Its unfortunate that Slashdot has such an IT bent and little input from the engineering side of things(outside of software). BTW i don't equate IT with programming.
I believe IMAX is a canadian company. A canadian friend of mine often bragged that there were a lot of IMAX screens in canada in malls etc.
i can't verify this though without a google search.
..Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
Oh plu-eaze....
You are going to tell me, that for example, Lipitor, a drug that controls enzyme blood levels for cholesterol for people that have high LDL levels in thier blood, would not be financially recovered in research and development if world wide a monopoly on the drug sale for 2 years, couldn't recoupe the cost? Furthermore because the market is a world wide monopoly as you suggest, the drug company in question sets the price anyway based on recovering expenses during that two years?
Perhaps you can do it for 2 years AFTER the FDA approves the treatment. By that time under your proposal, the patent would have expired. Besides, you are asuming that the drug would be patented/approved worldwide at the same time, a US patent is not enforced in another country, the inventor/asignee has to have a patent in another country as well. In the US, you can't get a patent on something which was made public or on sale in the US or another country at least one year prior to the date of filing.I am sorry, but that was a real BAD assumption, basis for your argument, for biotech products in general in the pharmacological industry. Drug costs can be recovered in monopoly markets, costing BILLIONS of dollars for research and development in a VERY short period of time for example if they are sold world wide, in MONTHS, let alone years. It also takes COPYCAT drug companies a few years to get to market with generics EVEN AFTER the Patent expires, and THEY TOO must go through FDA approval processes for distribution that makes the process longer than just a question of copying the mechanical aspects of production of the copycat drug.
Yes as you said, it takes everyone years to get to market because you have to go to the FDA, even generic manufacturers. In the US, a patent is good for 20 years from DATE OF FILING. It takes several years(currently as many as 4+) for a patent to be approved via the US patent office. Now, add in another 2-4 years for the FDA and you are down from 20 years patent protection to 12-14 years. It may only take a few months development, but not every drug can be patented, heck not every drug developed by companies can even go to market (the sucess rate is certainly less than 100%). I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but on the patent side, you have to believe the inventors specification and research when it comes to the effectiveness of the drug (if they are coming up with a new treatment that has never been done before, there is nothing to counter it).Very very BAD example my friend. ..Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
This is drivel. If your idea is worth a hill of beans you do what ever other person does, you build a demo product from investors, prove it works, and THEN patent it. ,/p>
YOU CAN NOT DO THIS. DOING SO PREVENTS YOU FROM GETTING A PATENT. (I am a patent examiner, that is a violation of 35USC 102 (a): the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.) You have then relinquished your right to a patent because you have disclosed it to others. Don't beleive me? Well, there have been more than a few cases of this. You can't disclose the invention until after you submit the application to the patent office, unless you work for a company, because most likely you assigned all IP that you create to that company. This does absolutely nothing for an independant inventor. Hence 2 years is still not enough. Now, you can file then go out and try to sell your invention while the patent is waiting to be examined.
You can't patent anything just from a sheet of paper and an IDEA you have to have a working model to begin with. I am sorry but your contention that no one would buy your invention before the patent expires is putting the horse before the cart.
I tend to disagree, again as I said, I am a patent examiner, and used to work in sales engineering at one point. It easily takes months or years to sell anything to someone which is not a commodity (i.e. some proprietary system).It just doesn't work that way in the real world.
Yes, it does. I have the real world experience to prove it.Your example is contrived, heavily, like an astroturfed AD claiming everyone is using your product when nobody has even heard of it. In fact, if you do the research in the Biotech industry you will find it doesn't take long for drug research to be recovered and profits to be achieved. This is more a function of the patient having to consume the drug, usually fairly frequently for example on a daily basis, and the size of the market. Which, is quite huge if we are talking world wide with possibly hundreds of MILLIONS of people suffering from a common disease such as high cholesterol levels. I also do NOT believe, since you glossed over a lot of what I said for example in my argument, that longer than 2 years, companies tend to get cash stock piles that are SO HUGE, they use them to legally suppress NEW RESEARCH that disproves a drugs effectiveness. For example, in the liptor case, inflamation, NOT HIGH LDL cholesterol levels, is emerging to be the root cause of heart attacks and heart disease, NOT high cholesterol levels. I have NO DOUBT, that current Phizor attorneys at THIS VERY MOMENT are looking at suing, or putting out of business ANYONE that touches thier Lipitor drug markets until Phizor, and ONLY Phizor has a solution to this inflamation problem, REGARDLESS of the market opportunities for anyone who decides they want to do research or sell into that market share Phizor already owns from the sale of Lipitor.
They are entitled to do so, a patent is a monopoly. Without it, what incentive do they have to create the product?This is a common problem with patents that last longer than 2 years. You can also see this in the unhealthy diversification of the software market, for example here in the US. Companies like Microsoft use thier HUGE accumulated cash stockpiles from YEARS of Monopoly market control to SQUASH, or legally DESTROY any small inventor, company or that has a particular idea.
I don't remember microsoft patenting MSDOS or patenting Windows. You can't patent an operating system via a single patent, you need dozens-hundreds to do so. Monopolies aren't inherently wrong (although lack of competition isn't good for the consumer). Microsoft used the money the recieved from being the only player in the business market, a position they gained because IBM did not seem to consider the OS market to be important. Did, you know that back in the early days of digital electronics, no one bothered patenting electronics because things changed so rapidly? The result was that everyone copied everyone else. Now was there innovation derived from that copying, most certainly yes and the world of electronics advanced, but early inventors were clearly shortchanged from their rights and ability to profit.Most investors won't even TOUCH YOU if your idea has ANY IMPACT on Microsoft's percieved market place AND FOR GOOD REASON. That shouldn't be the case, and I would argue just the opposite. Patent systems that provide market monopolies to companies longer than specified 2 years create stagnant market places, very little innovation and locks out new ideas or small inventors. Investors won't take the chance on an idea that could exhaust a startup's funds, just in legal expenses, if a company that controls a market monopoly can sue them out of business. This has happened so many times in the past years with Microsoft and smaller companies it has bullied, I can't begin to explain. Don't forget too, that the American consumer never ever gets to see any of these new ideas either because Microsoft would not permit the company to sell them on the open market place as well.
Well, all the inventor has to do is get a patent. Microsoft then has to fight it in the courts like everyone else. They can use their accumulated wealth to squash it from a marketing perspective or investment prospective, but they can't buy the examiner (you can't accept large sums of money/gifts from a company, its called bribing a federal offical). You can not get a software patent in the US. However, if you read the "software patents" claims, they usually read something like: A computer readable medium on which...... That is a slight distinction. Software patents really aren't that usefull (and you can't get a patent on algorithims), because the marketplace changes so quickly (as I stated above with early digital electronics). Buisness methods on the otherhand are another story. Actually my friend I am an expert on this. Want to know why? I deal with it every day. I am a patent examiner, I use google for prior art. You can't just use what the applicant provides you for prior art because it is compromised (the search firms have a financial interest in finding the prior art). The problem is this, if I'm working on a patent which was filed in 1999, and today is 2002, i cant use something which was published on google in 2000. People dont seem to realize it that the examiner does their search for the state of that art at the time that the invention was filed! You can't use hindsight reasoning for ovbiousness as well. Has microsoft done some "evil" things, sure, but so did the train barons of the 19th century. What you are arguing seems to be that for biotech and software, patents should be treated differently. You might not be aware of this, but the bigest application filers are in the ELECTRONICS/TELECOMMUNICATIONS industry. Likewise, for someone who patents machinery, do you believe that they should be entitiled to a 2 year patent? The mechanical device industry does opperate differently and it may take longer than the 2 years you suggest for all industries to recover the costs of development. Perhaps a better arguement is that software patents should last 2 years, but as an examiner, i see more than just software type patents, as such, I can't see how the vast majority of companies/inventors can recover their profits in only 2 years on physical devices. The software patents/biotech patents are not the only ones issued worldwide.um what are you talking about?
READ THE CLAIMS
not the disclosure
look at the filing date, not date of patent
go take a course on patent law, its not as easy as you think. the claims are what define the invention, they can be worded so that you WILL NOT find it despite an invention which exists and seamingly appears to be prior art.
I tend to feel patents should have a maximum lifetime of 2 years for the following reasons:
1) 2 years is long enough for almost any technology, and allows other companies a lower barrier to market for what most patents come to be: industry standards or acceptable practices.
Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
2) It prevents a market place or any one company from manipulating the legal system for extensive periods of time to squash competition. Not only because of fear that a product might be superior, but to keep prices high and competition low.
A patent is a limited MONOPOLY granted to a inventor in exchange for the inventor disclosing how theinvention works to the public. without such a system, there will be little public disclosure of new invention except through peer reiew publications. what does that mean? Well, through a published patent, the public learns about new inventions and can use that base invention to make improvements and in turn file a new patent. With out a patent there is no incentive to make such information public and everything in industry would likely be a trade secret. Technology would likely develop at a slower rate since it would be more difficult for peple to learn how things work except through reverse engineering, which in some cases may take an inordinate amount of time.
3) Both 1 and 2 breed an industry, that economically in any country that has patents, that is unhealthy to said countries economic well being, and effectively causes problems in a world emerging marketplace for that company who wishes to compete world wide.
I would tend to disagree. Without patent protection, someone can easily copy your invention and manufacture it outside the country and possbily reimport it or use it to develop their own products and out sell you.
if a forgien company wants patent protection for a product they wish to sell in the US, they have to file a patent, likewise in their own country.
actually the incentive for the examiner to do a prior art search is called keeping their job!
however, that being said, the stautes (35 USC 102,103) say , a person is entitled to a patent unless (read the statute).
wow dude, you ovbiously have NO CLUE how the patent office works.
you make it sound as though the patent office allows EVERY case it recieves. this is in fact VERY incorrect. in excess of 90% of applications are rejected the first time. The average application takes several years after it is filled before it gets a first examination by an examiner. Afterwards it takes months-years before it becomes abandonded or allowed.
If an examiner allows the vast majority of cases on their docket on the first action, their boss would wonder what is going on. the patent ofice makes money in the US via fees, the more time you have to ammend and add new claims, the more revenue the office recieves.
btw im a US examiner.
the problem is bandwidth. the bandwidth of an HD signal could easily fit several SD signals (hence the idea of subchannels at lesser quality). an HD signal may be 18-27mbits, versus 6mbs for a standard definition signal.
the digital cable and DBS systems generally use digitally compressed analog streams. Some use regular MPEG2 streams as well
consumers want digital tv, but there aren't that many displays in "consumer" grade sizes. Samsung makes a 27" 4:3 display, and thats about it as far as i know for 27" and under displays which can display HD.
not everyone wants or can afford a 36"+ display. For some people its just impractal. Most people aren't videophiles, but just want to watch their sports, news and sit-coms.
I believe once you see more 13", 19", 25" and 27" HD capable displays at a reasonable pricepoint (say $50 more than an SD tv) sales will take off.
The other alternative is to offer HD exsclusive (sporting events?) content or some other added value(such as digital subchannels for NBC, CBS ETC) which are available OTA. Then consumers would have more incentive to upgrade.
whoops, i misread the other post, sorry!
then find a new job if you aren't happy. find something in a different area, go back to school
life is too short to be unhappy. considering you spend more waking hours at work than you do with your friends(assuming they dont work with you) children, wives etc, you should get a job you enjoy.
Really, do we have a CEO appreciaton day for all their hard work? Do we have a janitor appreciation day for thanking the janitor for cleaning up after us? Do we have a dentist appreciation day for the dental work they do?
;)
You get paid a salary to provide a service, that should be enough compensation. Heck I'm an engineer, wheres the engineer appreciation day? No thanks for all the technology which was devleloped by scientists and engineers to provide sys-admins jobs?
this isn't really news-worthy, but i do find it funny.
actually, it rains a lotmore in troy and there is a lot more wind than in suny since it is located on a hill right above the hudson.
i used totake classes at suny and it would be sunny there and rainy back in troy
i think RPI's main hinderance to getting more recognition is their masters programs. The programs while good, just don't get the recognition of other schools. RPI's strength is in its undergraduate education (and hockey team).
plus, what other schools sports teams are called the engineers (well they used to be before that stupid chicken).
Yes NY state taxes are high, but housing is very cheap in the Albany area. Traffic is very light. There is plenty of land to be developed and a good amount of empty buildings. Population is somewhere around 600k+ there as well.
You have one of the top engineering schools in the country RPI (NOT RIT) which consistantly is ranked by working engineers as one of the top 3 (Beating out MIT). General Electric is nearby and IBM is about 1.5 hours away. There is plenty of underused infrastructure (highways and cable) and an international airport nearby.
For recreation, you are 30-40 miles from both vermont and massachuessess so its easy to go skiing, lake george is 1 hour away and its about 2.5 hours to boston or NYC (3-4 to montreal).
It doesn't snow too much up there, but ice is a concern in the winter.
On a side note during my years at RPI i read that Troy has a population of 50k. I'm not sure where they all live though. Troy could use the money, last time i was there, the city Hall still read Tr city hall.
hey not a problem!
You are right on about the pacing. The books read more like a travel guide than some sort of "epic vision."
There is very little character development, most of the characters seem the same at the end of the story as they did in the begining. There is little dialouge (if you don't count the poems/songs). Face it the first 200 pages of the fellowship of the ring are pretty boring and not much happens at all (i wasn't expecting an action story when i read it though).
however...
the descriptions of the landscapes are exceptional, you can really see the areas the characters traveled and feel like you are there. the problem is though, that you really don't know how the characters feel since tolkien doesn't develop that side of the book enough.
anyone catch the recent southpark episode with lucas reinventing his movies?
realistically, it should not be different to have the extended version and theatrical version on the same disc. just used a different table of contents for the version you want to see.
i personally don't care about the making of, biographies etc, i just like seeing deleted scenes. the extra stuff is nice to have, but not nearly as interesting to me as extra movie footage, espescially when it is integrated with the film itself.
http://www.fantasycars.com/1/2002/EliseUSA/eliseus a.html
its out at a 2003 model, but not before then
of course they raised the price in the US market
get a VW tdi, they look like regular production cars and have similar performance to their 2.0 (read 2.slow)models
um the VW lupo gets 90MPG, and is in production NOW. Most of the really nice diesels are in europe :(
There is a vw diesel concept which got 240mpg.
goto www.vwvortex.com for info
Get a Volkswagen TDI model (http://www.tdiclub.com/). In the US they have TDI jetta's, beetles and golfs (nearly every model in europe has a TDI, passat, lupo etc). In the US they are only rated for about 90hp(and 155hp of torque stock, they can get up to 115hp fairly easily), but get 49MPG (over 700miles a tank) for highway mileage. The TDI lupo (only in europe) is rated for 90MPG and costs far less than a honda!
They do offer a 150hp TDI engine in europe which still gets really good gas mileage, but won't run on current US grade diesel (which is real poor). There is even a TDI GTI! VW/Audi sells six different diesels in Europe (1.2l, 1.9l - 90hp, 1.9l - 110hp, 1.9l -115hp, 2.5l - 150hp, V8 3.3l - 225hp[available soon]) compared to only the 1.9l - 90hp available in North America. When mentioning these horse power figures though, we must also think where this power is available. On the 1.9l 90hp it peak torque is available at just 1900RPMs with 155 ft/lbs torque up to the V8 3.3l which generates 355 ft/lbs torque between 1800 and 3000RPMs. I guess we can only dream of these really high output models.
Diesel is good, unfortuneatly it got a bad name in the US due to the amount of black smoke earlier cars and big trucks would put out (about 2% of US cars are diesel compared to over 25% in Europe. A properly tuned diesel shouldnt spew black smole and has gobs of torque which is great for driving around town(you won't win a drag race).
VW is really the only auto manufacturer who still offers diesel cars, and their prices start around 15k. Plus you get a car which is much nicer than a civic both on the in and outside.
I expect more manufacturer's to bring diesels over to the US once the fuel standards increase.
On a side note, is there any technical problem which has stop diesel electric hybrids in cars (they have diesel electric trains). Seems to me you would get a more fuel efficent car than a gas electric.
what blizzard needs to do then is to provide more defensive unit options. have more static defensive structures(they had them in WC2). add units like command and conquers engineers to take over units, or commando's which can blow up a building in one shot.
make destroying support structures a priority (for example taking out a power yard in c&C takes down powered base defenses like rocket towers, or tower of nod). implementing this would be easy, destroy a house for peons and you loose control of those peons supported by the house or it takes longer to build units as a result.
sure with more defensive options, that might encourage some players to try to overcome a base with a huge rush, but when you have a strong defense, a crafty oponnent will try to distract you and sneak in an engineer/commando to destroy/sell off your base from within(or take over a building and build a rocket tower in the middle of it).