When we realize the government has inadequate security we leap together in unison and scream, "Why didn't they fix that loophole before??"
But when someone tries to raise awareness about the need to take preventative measures on a large scale, all of a sudden it's "lulz silly journalist."
Also, the author is not even a journalist. His name is Ram Mohan, "Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at Afilias, a global provider of Internet infrastructure services including domain name registry and DNS solutions. "
An individual can usually file a suit for just about anything.
Attorneys, on the other hand, are usually held to a higher standard.
Look up "malicious prosecution"
Filing a suit against an attorney who is informing citizens of their Constitutional rights? Absolutely ridiculous.
The attorney who filed this suit should be disbarred.
The scary thing is that a District Court did this. District Courts are local - there are 94 of them in America.
On what authority can a local court take down a global website?
Just shop around until you find a district that signs the papers.
The Supreme Court has already decided that prejudgment seizures of property are unconstitutional if not accompanied by notice and a hearing on the merits.
See: Fuentes v. Shevin
I don't see why this wouldn't apply to domain names as well.
Wonder how long it will be before this statute gets challenged.
Uhm, the bacteria only holds the information we already have. It doesn't magically hold information that hasn't been created yet.
How exactly do traditional notions of intellectual property become meaningless again?
File a "Citation of Prior Art." It's very easy to do, and anyone can do it.
Next, file a Request for Reexamination. There are two kinds of reexaminations: Ex Parte (which means you submit the request and the fee, and then your personality responsibilities are terminated), and Inter Partes (which means you have a say throughout the entire re-examination). The latter is more expensive. Here is a link that may help you get started: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200_2210.htm#sect2210
Since your work was listed as prior art, you are going to have a very tough time ahead of you. That designation means that before the patent was granted the examiner looked at your work and said "IBM's invention was not obvious from the prior art."
If you are unable to cite your own work due to it already being cited in the patent, you could try citing the work that predates yours by twelve years (and also mentioning your previous work as well).
[Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and I am not a patent agent. I'm not giving you any legal/non-legal advice, just some ideas that you might want to talk to a patent attorney/agent about.]
Re:from the skool of bad journalism :)
on
The Great Cyberheist
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Even the summary is written in Engrish.
"While reportedly not a gifted programmer, even the Feds that Gonzalez two-timed admired his ingenuity, likening him to top CEOs. "
What?
For those of us that don't want to read through the Federal Register, here's a summary of the current obviousness tests.
I don't believe the removal of these tests will make it easier for patents to pass the obviousness bar; rather, this seems more like an effort to consolidate burdensome caselaw.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/uspto-guidelines-for-determining-obviousness.html
To be against software patents is akin to saying that there's no innovation in the field of software, or that if there is innovation it doesn't need to be protected. Without software patents, there's nothing to stop a big company, or anyone for that matter, from stealing a small developer's idea. Some of them absolutely legitimate and innovative. In hindsight, we now think that the inventions were clear as day, when at the time they really may have been something revolutionary.
People here say that software patents need to be abolished. Why? I understand how some people think that too many of these patents were obvious and are now being used as tools of extortion. Fine, have more stringent standards for software patents instead of abolishing them. I personally believe that innovation happens rapidly for emerging fields, and consequently the obviousness requirement needs to be much more hard-pressed.
Really, absent evidence that he stole something, is this news in any way?
He was on American soil for ten years, maybe he hacked into America's weapons arsenals too?
This should not be rated as informative as it's just flat out wrong.
The application appears to be a continuation of an app. filed in 1997. What matters in determining priority is when the original app. was filed and whether or not the applications were co-pending.
Slashdot Mirror
Black on slightly-less black is so easy to read.
Right or wrong, if you kill him becomes a martyr. What a surprise that Sarah Palin didn't think before she spoke.
When we realize the government has inadequate security we leap together in unison and scream, "Why didn't they fix that loophole before??" But when someone tries to raise awareness about the need to take preventative measures on a large scale, all of a sudden it's "lulz silly journalist." Also, the author is not even a journalist. His name is Ram Mohan, "Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at Afilias, a global provider of Internet infrastructure services including domain name registry and DNS solutions. "
Next week's headline: "Eight year old's patent invalidated over prior art."
Good point
An individual can usually file a suit for just about anything. Attorneys, on the other hand, are usually held to a higher standard. Look up "malicious prosecution"
That is the definition of malicious prosecution.
Filing a suit against an attorney who is informing citizens of their Constitutional rights? Absolutely ridiculous. The attorney who filed this suit should be disbarred.
The scary thing is that a District Court did this. District Courts are local - there are 94 of them in America. On what authority can a local court take down a global website? Just shop around until you find a district that signs the papers.
The Supreme Court has already decided that prejudgment seizures of property are unconstitutional if not accompanied by notice and a hearing on the merits. See: Fuentes v. Shevin I don't see why this wouldn't apply to domain names as well. Wonder how long it will be before this statute gets challenged.
Uhm, the bacteria only holds the information we already have. It doesn't magically hold information that hasn't been created yet. How exactly do traditional notions of intellectual property become meaningless again?
File a "Citation of Prior Art." It's very easy to do, and anyone can do it. Next, file a Request for Reexamination. There are two kinds of reexaminations: Ex Parte (which means you submit the request and the fee, and then your personality responsibilities are terminated), and Inter Partes (which means you have a say throughout the entire re-examination). The latter is more expensive. Here is a link that may help you get started: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200_2210.htm#sect2210 Since your work was listed as prior art, you are going to have a very tough time ahead of you. That designation means that before the patent was granted the examiner looked at your work and said "IBM's invention was not obvious from the prior art." If you are unable to cite your own work due to it already being cited in the patent, you could try citing the work that predates yours by twelve years (and also mentioning your previous work as well). [Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and I am not a patent agent. I'm not giving you any legal/non-legal advice, just some ideas that you might want to talk to a patent attorney/agent about.]
Even the summary is written in Engrish. "While reportedly not a gifted programmer, even the Feds that Gonzalez two-timed admired his ingenuity, likening him to top CEOs. " What?
Teens that are more social are more likely to be engaged in social activities!
How come it's usually the most ignorant and inflammatory statements that are modded to +5 insightful?
And how do you propose a patent attorney advises his client? That his application will be denied "just because?"
For those of us that don't want to read through the Federal Register, here's a summary of the current obviousness tests. I don't believe the removal of these tests will make it easier for patents to pass the obviousness bar; rather, this seems more like an effort to consolidate burdensome caselaw. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/uspto-guidelines-for-determining-obviousness.html
I'm certain my album would have sold a billion copies if not for piracy. Where do I get my check?
No kidding, let's not become the Fox News of the internet.
To be against software patents is akin to saying that there's no innovation in the field of software, or that if there is innovation it doesn't need to be protected. Without software patents, there's nothing to stop a big company, or anyone for that matter, from stealing a small developer's idea. Some of them absolutely legitimate and innovative. In hindsight, we now think that the inventions were clear as day, when at the time they really may have been something revolutionary. People here say that software patents need to be abolished. Why? I understand how some people think that too many of these patents were obvious and are now being used as tools of extortion. Fine, have more stringent standards for software patents instead of abolishing them. I personally believe that innovation happens rapidly for emerging fields, and consequently the obviousness requirement needs to be much more hard-pressed.
All they need to do now is Photoshop him having sex with one of the prawn and it will be the largest international manhunt in the world.
Really, absent evidence that he stole something, is this news in any way? He was on American soil for ten years, maybe he hacked into America's weapons arsenals too?
I just invented a zero gravity device for storing clothes. I'm going to call it, a "hanger"
Wonder how long it'll be until someone finally tracks down a troll (in real life) and loots their corpse
This should not be rated as informative as it's just flat out wrong. The application appears to be a continuation of an app. filed in 1997. What matters in determining priority is when the original app. was filed and whether or not the applications were co-pending.