More accurately (if I understand the process right), the specific prior art provided by Google didn't use flags. Maybe these last couple of claims would be invalid if they submitted that prior art? Or maybe they can now claim that those parts are obvious? I'm not totally sure how the process works.
Well, it's more complex than that, once you include the distinction between independent and dependent claims. The independent claims are those with "teeth," so to speak. Of three patents that have had claims rejected, only one has an independent claim left.
Once the reexamination is complete, Oracle still has to prove that Google infringed on the remaining claims. The fewer claims that survive, the harder it will be to prove infringement. Out of court settlement becomes more likely, too.
Even if, in the end, there's only one patent with one independent claim that remains, and Google is found to have infringed on that patent, I would say that's a much better situation than seven patents with hundreds of claims to have infringed.
Considering how valuable patents are to companies, I'd think something with such a high failure rate would be much more of a "toxic asset" than any sort of mortgage product.
Then again, maybe the value of a patent is more psychological (i.e. FUD) than tangible anyway. Just don't let that patent go to court, or it might lose all value.
Read the Groklaw link. Four claims survived the reexamination process, none of which (I believe, but IANAL) are independent claims and are pretty much worthless.
Previously, one other patent was effectively invalidated in a similar fashion, and another one had just one independent claim survive. And they're not even done reexamining the patents yet!
Lastly, you apparently have no clue what FUD is. What fear? What uncertainty? What doubt? Read what others have said about this case (for example, that the damages could be astronomical and that Google could lose Android), and then you'll know what FUD is.
The surviving claims are 8, 9, 17, and 18, which read as follows:
8. The method of claim 7, wherein:
the method further includes the step of setting a flag associated with said first routine to indicate that said first routine is privileged; and
the step of determining that said next routine is said first routine includes determining that a flag associated with said next routine indicates said next routine is privileged.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the step of setting said flag associated with said first routine includes setting a flag in a frame in said calling hierarchy associated with said thread.
17. The computer readable medium of claim 16, wherein:
the computer readable medium further comprises one or more instructions for performing the step of setting a flag associated with said first routine to indicate that said first routine is privileged; and
the step of determining that said next routine is said first routine includes determining that a flag associated with said next routine indicates said next routine is privileged.
18. The computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the step of setting said flag associated with said first routine includes setting a flag in a frame in said calling hierarchy associated with said thread.
My understanding is that all four of these claims are dependent claims, but I'll leave it for others more knowledgeable in patent law to comment.
There's seven patents in question, with a total of 168 claims being made. 17 of those claims from one patent were just rejected. Two other patents were also examined with claims rejected. Groklow projects that a total of about 48 claims will survive after all is said and done. After that, the question is how many of those 48 are independent claims.
Surprising statistic: over 90% of claims are rejected when reexamined. Really?!?
Indeed, Congress can levy taxes... but only certain kinds. The argument is that the penalty for not having health insurance constitutes an unconstitutional taxation. Of course, I'm oversimplifying things... let's let SCOTUS figure that one out. I think a ruling either way would reaffirm the fact that this country follows the rules laid out in our constitution (sometimes, at least).
I should clarify. I decided that it was an inferior option. In the absence of police, it clearly is. Speeding up slightly carries with it no negative consequences, while slowing down stops up traffic until I can get over, and then leaves me in the same position I was in before I attempted to pass. Results in more total lane changes and increases congestion in the short term. Making traffic more dense makes the situation less predictable and more hazardous than just speeding up a few mph.
I think you're arguing the wrong point.
The real safety problem never was, and never will be, your speed. The real safety problem was the jerk behind you, who was using a two-ton mass of steel going 70+ mph to force you to move another two-ton mass of steel.
If you ask me, tailgaters should be arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
In the end, no matter what you decided on, the other driver's actions put you in a bad position. Unfortunately for you, the "less legal" action of exceeding the speed limit meant that you got nailed, instead of the guy putting everybody in danger. And that's the real problem, no?
Someone needs to mod this post up. It's rare on/. (or anywhere else, for that matter) for someone to admit that they're wrong, especially after so many vitriolic responses.
It gets even worse than that in Colorado. Some cities are part of multiple counties, which turns sales tax regions into a complex Venn diagram. On top of that, the tax rate depends on whether or not the local bus system runs through the area, which adds a third dimension to the diagram.
Fortunately, we usually don't have to deal with this, but every now and then an online retailer requires me to specify which tax region I live in (when they have a physical store in the area) -- they can narrow it down to three or four options, but my address alone isn't enough to tell them everything apparently.
That's how some parents manage having 10+ kids. While some people's jaws hit the floor at that number, there actually comes a point where more kids makes things easier. Think babysitters and drivers, if nothing else. The hard part is reaching that threshold -- something very few parents even attempt (for obvious reasons).
Wouldn't that almost be evidence that this type of law is necessary?
I'm not saying that I think this law in particular is the solution, but if the piracy problem really is that bad then I don't exactly blame Microsoft for wanting something like it.
Spoken like someone who has never had access to classified data.
Why do some people insist that the only reason documents get classified is to cover something up? Oh yeah -- because that's what tends to get leaked and that's what Hollywood likes to use in their scripts.
If you ever get a security clearance, you'll realize just how absurd these sorts of statements are.
Exactly. Liberty does not mean that everyone gets to do whatever they want. In a perfect world this might work, but in reality the desires of one party will infringe on the rights of another.
Reminds me of elementary school arguments. Somebody inevitably says "This is a free country! I can do whatever I want!" No, that's not what it means. Unfortunately, many adults never learn what liberty and freedom really are, and keep this quite naive viewpoint.
If you want to pass on a version with additional restrictions on what they can do with the software, then no, you can't do that.
"Freedom" does not mean, and never has meant, that you can do whatever you want. The problem is that to allow that will inevitably force someone else to give up their own freedom to do whatever they want. You have to balance the freedoms.
And that's exactly what was said. The GPL prevents placing restrictions on other peoples freedom. A restriction to prevent further restrictions.
You may not like how the GPL decided to balance freedom, but its approach is completely valid.
Consolidating and moving the conversion is the point. If you can increase efficiency by consolidating the conversion to a single large unit (or a small number of units for backup capabilities), then you've saved electrical costs already. You can also save by not buying power bricks and other converters for each device, and each time you replace it. What a waste!
Moving the conversion (and, therefore, the heat produced) to a more convenient location means that you don't have to remove that heat from the room. Air conditioning is much more inefficient than any sort of electrical power conversion, I believe.
Unfortunately, this is all quite an investment up front, not to mention a dramatic shift in how we think about electrical power.
It should be called the Holey Bible. Even if it was correct when originally written, it has been translated, retranslated, miscopied, purposefully changed, misunderstood... and that's just the beginning. Piecing together the original wording for even the New Testament is an exercise in futility.
Of course, that doesn't keep lots of people from believing that the Bible is infallible in every word. To them I say, which version?
It's one thing to believe in the Bible. It's quite another to be so ignorant as to believe it's perfect.
The real question is "Where do people go for searches" not "What back end is handling the searches." Most people don't care if Yahoo is powered by Bing, just that they find what they want when they go to www.yahoo.com.
Of course, now you'll probably see Yahoo plastering their page with "Powered by Bing!" to take advantage of public perception.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's ironic that Tesla has a store in Menlo Park.
Too bad it's Menlo Park, CA and not in NJ...
More accurately (if I understand the process right), the specific prior art provided by Google didn't use flags. Maybe these last couple of claims would be invalid if they submitted that prior art? Or maybe they can now claim that those parts are obvious? I'm not totally sure how the process works.
Well, it's more complex than that, once you include the distinction between independent and dependent claims. The independent claims are those with "teeth," so to speak. Of three patents that have had claims rejected, only one has an independent claim left.
Once the reexamination is complete, Oracle still has to prove that Google infringed on the remaining claims. The fewer claims that survive, the harder it will be to prove infringement. Out of court settlement becomes more likely, too.
Even if, in the end, there's only one patent with one independent claim that remains, and Google is found to have infringed on that patent, I would say that's a much better situation than seven patents with hundreds of claims to have infringed.
So, yes, this is a win for Google.
Considering how valuable patents are to companies, I'd think something with such a high failure rate would be much more of a "toxic asset" than any sort of mortgage product.
Then again, maybe the value of a patent is more psychological (i.e. FUD) than tangible anyway. Just don't let that patent go to court, or it might lose all value.
What idiot modded this up?
Read the Groklaw link. Four claims survived the reexamination process, none of which (I believe, but IANAL) are independent claims and are pretty much worthless.
Previously, one other patent was effectively invalidated in a similar fashion, and another one had just one independent claim survive. And they're not even done reexamining the patents yet!
Lastly, you apparently have no clue what FUD is. What fear? What uncertainty? What doubt? Read what others have said about this case (for example, that the damages could be astronomical and that Google could lose Android), and then you'll know what FUD is.
First, IANAL.
The surviving claims are 8, 9, 17, and 18, which read as follows:
8. The method of claim 7, wherein:
the method further includes the step of setting a flag associated with said first routine to indicate that said first routine is privileged; and
the step of determining that said next routine is said first routine includes determining that a flag associated with said next routine indicates said next routine is privileged.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the step of setting said flag associated with said first routine includes setting a flag in a frame in said calling hierarchy associated with said thread.
17. The computer readable medium of claim 16, wherein:
the computer readable medium further comprises one or more instructions for performing the step of setting a flag associated with said first routine to indicate that said first routine is privileged; and
the step of determining that said next routine is said first routine includes determining that a flag associated with said next routine indicates said next routine is privileged.
18. The computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the step of setting said flag associated with said first routine includes setting a flag in a frame in said calling hierarchy associated with said thread.
My understanding is that all four of these claims are dependent claims, but I'll leave it for others more knowledgeable in patent law to comment.
Correction: 46 down, 122 to go.
There's seven patents in question, with a total of 168 claims being made. 17 of those claims from one patent were just rejected. Two other patents were also examined with claims rejected. Groklow projects that a total of about 48 claims will survive after all is said and done. After that, the question is how many of those 48 are independent claims.
Surprising statistic: over 90% of claims are rejected when reexamined. Really?!?
I agree with you 100%. There are very few true accidents when it comes to shootings.
Well, almost 100%. I'll point out that firing a weapon in freezing rain could also be considered negligence ... so call it 99.9% or so.
Indeed, Congress can levy taxes ... but only certain kinds. The argument is that the penalty for not having health insurance constitutes an unconstitutional taxation. Of course, I'm oversimplifying things ... let's let SCOTUS figure that one out. I think a ruling either way would reaffirm the fact that this country follows the rules laid out in our constitution (sometimes, at least).
How does building a database of children's names and addresses protect them? Seems to me it does the exact opposite.
I should clarify. I decided that it was an inferior option. In the absence of police, it clearly is. Speeding up slightly carries with it no negative consequences, while slowing down stops up traffic until I can get over, and then leaves me in the same position I was in before I attempted to pass. Results in more total lane changes and increases congestion in the short term. Making traffic more dense makes the situation less predictable and more hazardous than just speeding up a few mph.
I think you're arguing the wrong point.
The real safety problem never was, and never will be, your speed. The real safety problem was the jerk behind you, who was using a two-ton mass of steel going 70+ mph to force you to move another two-ton mass of steel.
If you ask me, tailgaters should be arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
In the end, no matter what you decided on, the other driver's actions put you in a bad position. Unfortunately for you, the "less legal" action of exceeding the speed limit meant that you got nailed, instead of the guy putting everybody in danger. And that's the real problem, no?
Exactly! The accused should be required to prove that he's guilty!
Someone needs to mod this post up. It's rare on /. (or anywhere else, for that matter) for someone to admit that they're wrong, especially after so many vitriolic responses.
All data is archived somewhere.
Not true. Any data you explicitly want to back up won't be archived. Seems to be a rule of computing.
The solution: automatically back up all data on your phone -- that will guarantee that no archives of that data will exist, anywhere.
It gets even worse than that in Colorado. Some cities are part of multiple counties, which turns sales tax regions into a complex Venn diagram. On top of that, the tax rate depends on whether or not the local bus system runs through the area, which adds a third dimension to the diagram.
Fortunately, we usually don't have to deal with this, but every now and then an online retailer requires me to specify which tax region I live in (when they have a physical store in the area) -- they can narrow it down to three or four options, but my address alone isn't enough to tell them everything apparently.
That's how some parents manage having 10+ kids. While some people's jaws hit the floor at that number, there actually comes a point where more kids makes things easier. Think babysitters and drivers, if nothing else. The hard part is reaching that threshold -- something very few parents even attempt (for obvious reasons).
Wouldn't that almost be evidence that this type of law is necessary?
I'm not saying that I think this law in particular is the solution, but if the piracy problem really is that bad then I don't exactly blame Microsoft for wanting something like it.
Spoken like someone who has never had access to classified data.
Why do some people insist that the only reason documents get classified is to cover something up? Oh yeah -- because that's what tends to get leaked and that's what Hollywood likes to use in their scripts.
If you ever get a security clearance, you'll realize just how absurd these sorts of statements are.
Exactly. Liberty does not mean that everyone gets to do whatever they want. In a perfect world this might work, but in reality the desires of one party will infringe on the rights of another.
Reminds me of elementary school arguments. Somebody inevitably says "This is a free country! I can do whatever I want!" No, that's not what it means. Unfortunately, many adults never learn what liberty and freedom really are, and keep this quite naive viewpoint.
Please, please reread the whole sentence:
If you want to pass on a version with additional restrictions on what they can do with the software, then no, you can't do that.
"Freedom" does not mean, and never has meant, that you can do whatever you want. The problem is that to allow that will inevitably force someone else to give up their own freedom to do whatever they want. You have to balance the freedoms.
And that's exactly what was said. The GPL prevents placing restrictions on other peoples freedom. A restriction to prevent further restrictions.
You may not like how the GPL decided to balance freedom, but its approach is completely valid.
Consolidating and moving the conversion is the point. If you can increase efficiency by consolidating the conversion to a single large unit (or a small number of units for backup capabilities), then you've saved electrical costs already. You can also save by not buying power bricks and other converters for each device, and each time you replace it. What a waste!
Moving the conversion (and, therefore, the heat produced) to a more convenient location means that you don't have to remove that heat from the room. Air conditioning is much more inefficient than any sort of electrical power conversion, I believe.
Unfortunately, this is all quite an investment up front, not to mention a dramatic shift in how we think about electrical power.
The voltage needed to make damage to the body it's in the 50V to 60V by my experience.
That must have been a painful experience! Please, tell us more.
You must have had a deprived childhood.
--
U..u..U - Uncle Ubb's umbrella and his underwear, too!
Yes, you are mistaken.
It should be called the Holey Bible. Even if it was correct when originally written, it has been translated, retranslated, miscopied, purposefully changed, misunderstood ... and that's just the beginning. Piecing together the original wording for even the New Testament is an exercise in futility.
Of course, that doesn't keep lots of people from believing that the Bible is infallible in every word. To them I say, which version?
It's one thing to believe in the Bible. It's quite another to be so ignorant as to believe it's perfect.
The real question is "Where do people go for searches" not "What back end is handling the searches." Most people don't care if Yahoo is powered by Bing, just that they find what they want when they go to www.yahoo.com.
Of course, now you'll probably see Yahoo plastering their page with "Powered by Bing!" to take advantage of public perception.