Why was I not surprised to discover this...
This one took me a little longer to find than the contest patent.....
U SP# 5,302,965 covers...
A display comprises a static unit (8) on which is mounted a rotating unit (7) driven by a motor (12). The rotating unit carries light emitting diodes (6) arranged as vertical columns which sweep around a
cylindrical surface. The light emitting diodes (6) are controlled by a control circuit (6) in accordance with data stored in a memory (61) so as to provide a cylindrical display. The control circuit (60) and
memory (61) are located in the rotating unit 97) and the memory (612) has a capacity for storing several different images for display.
I'm thinking maybe I should change my.sig to "Mr Patent Search"
(d) The reason FO has not penetrated to the "last mile" (i.e. a fibre each into each home) is because the cost of fibre modems are prohibitively expensive. (Unlikes copper network, which works off electricity, FO works off light, which means a fast-repeating laser at both ends, which means pricey electronics.)
No its not that fiber modems are prohibitively expensive, its that splicing fiber is very time consuming, time==money.
It is much cheaper to bring fiber near you and use copper the last ~1000 than to bring you fiber.
The other problem with fiber to the home (FTTH) is that it takes much less power to run the copper modem than the fiber modem.
Which is a big deal if you are also trying to provide 'lifeline' voice over the same link.
You don't share your 100Mbps of optical ring with anyone else......
I love it when people manage to turn a limitation on their equipment into an advantage...
Unfortunately you do have to share the bandwith when you and your 23 other 100Mbps users
try to fit your 2.4Gbps over the 1Gbps link to the router which is servicing the ring....
And you have to share the backbone bandwidth.
Sounds like fraudulent advertizing to me....
You can see for yourself by looking at the Cisco customer profile of Cogent Communications
Take a look at the figure at the bottom of the page for the juicy details....
You appear to be operating under the delusion that the government (at least the current one....)
has any interest in 'ensuring the public good', as opposed to, oh say lining the pockets of
companies that they hope will pay them big fat speakers fees as soon as they leave office
What I find most interesting about the article is that it says
People in both groups reported that, as they fell asleep, they dreamed about images of blocks falling and rotating, as they do on the computer screen when the game is in progress. They did not actually dream about the game itself.
I remember that when I used to play tetris (well actualy Hextris) in college way too much that I DID dream about the game.....
I remembered deleting rows
I remembered running out of space and eventualy losing the game
And worst of all I would remember that as usual I had failed to beat my girlfriend's high score...
This contest does appear to be in vilation of the following patent.....
USP# 5,916,024
Title "System and method of playing games and rewarding successful players"
Issued : June 29, 1999
Author : Henry Von Kohorn
What is claimed is:
1. A method for playing a game sponsored by an advertiser and for rewarding successful players with a prize, comprising the steps of:
transmitting from a central location a first signal group comprising signals conveying a game including a task to which players at their locations
are intended to respond, said signals of said first signal group further conveying response criteria defining at least one acceptable response
to a task by a successful player and governing a scoring of a response of the successful player, the player responding to a task;
establishing a player identification for each of said players and a game identification for correlating each of said players with a game;
scoring a player's response in accordance with said response criteria to determine a successful player's first prize value;
transmitting information regarding the player's first prize information to the advertiser;
following receipt of said information, the advertiser formatting players' prize enhancing instructions;
transmitting to players' locations a second signal group comprising signals conveying product information of the advertiser and prize
enhancing instructions of the advertiser to determine a player's total prize value;
enhancing a player's first prize value in accordance with said instructions to determine the player's total prize value;
providing at a location of the player a recording device programmable by signals of said second signal group;
programming said recording device by said signals; and
said recording device generating a record displaying said product information and the player's total prize information.
(It took me about 3 minutes to find this online..... )
Why does this remind me of the one about trademarking the letter 'l' and then suing
the number '1' for 'look and feel'
So what the reviewer is realy saying is....
on
Sizing Up a Start-Up
·
· Score: 1
That you should probably just go and read Startup, you will learn just as much about how to evaluate a startup...
and as an added bounus get you read a good story at the same time.
Speaking as one who designs the equipment that people like TW will use to provide 'open access',
by the time TW hands your packet to your ISP TW wil already have done almost all the work.
As such it is not unreasonable for them to ask for almost all the revinue generated by their work.
It is possible that ISP's will not be able to make money after giving TW a 75% cut, but that
does not mean that TW is asking for too much, it may just mean that there is too little left
for the ISP's to do to make a profit.
You notice in the article the manager of the ISP is qouted as saying that it is 'ridiculous',
go and see if you can find an ISP claiming that TW's demands are 'not techincaly justifible'
and THEN you can become outraged.
Trying to put a cap on useage... i.e. X megabytes per week and you will cut access is a losing proposition from a game theory point of view.
There will always be the student who desides that the response to this is to download as much as possible before you cut access.
Or the student who thinks it would be realy cool to push the useage over the limit so you cut everyones access off.
Your best answer by far is to use a QoS aware firewall which can control the bandwidth used based on a policy you set.
There are a number of companies who make them, and one of them, Packeteer, even has a page devoted to exactly your problem.
You might want to check it out at http://www.packeteer.com/wintherace/
One Click Shopping is not like patenting
"Method for Building Larger then Average Gasoline Tank"
this implies that all the click's were the same and you are just reducing the number of times
you have to do the same thing. each click is a different step and they were eliminating the
some of the steps.
One Click Shopping is like patenting
"Method for Filling a Gasoline Tank Without Requiring the Operator of the Vehicle to Exit
the Vehicle, Open the Gasoline Filling Cover, or Requiring the Operator to Roll Down their
Window to Pay for the Gasoline Recieved."
One click purchacing and shopping carts are buisness method patents and would be covered.
As for the fee to request an opposition to the patent, if you look at what the law would REQUIRE the USPTO to do, the cost in time alone will be far greater than $200. If you didn't charge a fee then the process would make for a good DoS attack on the patent office.
The reason to make the exception for buisness method patents is that they are the ones giving the most grief these days.
And just what is an internet patent anyway that you claim is not covered by this bill?
Slashdot Mirror
Why was I not surprised to discover this...
This one took me a little longer to find than the contest patent.....
U SP# 5,302,965 covers...
A display comprises a static unit (8) on which is mounted a rotating unit (7) driven by a motor (12). The rotating unit carries light emitting diodes (6) arranged as vertical columns which sweep around a cylindrical surface. The light emitting diodes (6) are controlled by a control circuit (6) in accordance with data stored in a memory (61) so as to provide a cylindrical display. The control circuit (60) and memory (61) are located in the rotating unit 97) and the memory (612) has a capacity for storing several different images for display.
I'm thinking maybe I should change my
(d) The reason FO has not penetrated to the "last mile" (i.e. a fibre each into each home) is because the cost of fibre modems are prohibitively expensive. (Unlikes copper network, which works off electricity, FO works off light, which means a fast-repeating laser at both ends, which means pricey electronics.)
No its not that fiber modems are prohibitively expensive, its that splicing fiber is very time consuming, time==money.
It is much cheaper to bring fiber near you and use copper the last ~1000 than to bring you fiber.
The other problem with fiber to the home (FTTH) is that it takes much less power to run the copper modem than the fiber modem.
Which is a big deal if you are also trying to provide 'lifeline' voice over the same link.
You don't share your 100Mbps of optical ring with anyone else......
I love it when people manage to turn a limitation on their equipment into an advantage...
Unfortunately you do have to share the bandwith when you and your 23 other 100Mbps users
try to fit your 2.4Gbps over the 1Gbps link to the router which is servicing the ring....
And you have to share the backbone bandwidth.
Sounds like fraudulent advertizing to me....
You can see for yourself by looking at the Cisco customer profile of Cogent Communications
Take a look at the figure at the bottom of the page for the juicy details....
You appear to be operating under the delusion that the government (at least the current one....)
has any interest in 'ensuring the public good', as opposed to, oh say lining the pockets of
companies that they hope will pay them big fat speakers fees as soon as they leave office
What I find most interesting about the article is that it says
People in both groups reported that, as they fell asleep, they dreamed about images of blocks falling and rotating, as they do on the computer screen when the game is in progress. They did not actually dream about the game itself.
I remember that when I used to play tetris (well actualy Hextris) in college way too much that I DID dream about the game.....
I remembered deleting rows
I remembered running out of space and eventualy losing the game
And worst of all I would remember that as usual I had failed to beat my girlfriend's high score...
This contest does appear to be in vilation of the following patent.....
USP# 5,916,024
Title "System and method of playing games and rewarding successful players"
Issued : June 29, 1999
Author : Henry Von Kohorn
What is claimed is:
1. A method for playing a game sponsored by an advertiser and for rewarding successful players with a prize, comprising the steps of:
transmitting from a central location a first signal group comprising signals conveying a game including a task to which players at their locations
are intended to respond, said signals of said first signal group further conveying response criteria defining at least one acceptable response
to a task by a successful player and governing a scoring of a response of the successful player, the player responding to a task;
establishing a player identification for each of said players and a game identification for correlating each of said players with a game;
scoring a player's response in accordance with said response criteria to determine a successful player's first prize value;
transmitting information regarding the player's first prize information to the advertiser;
following receipt of said information, the advertiser formatting players' prize enhancing instructions;
transmitting to players' locations a second signal group comprising signals conveying product information of the advertiser and prize
enhancing instructions of the advertiser to determine a player's total prize value;
enhancing a player's first prize value in accordance with said instructions to determine the player's total prize value;
providing at a location of the player a recording device programmable by signals of said second signal group;
programming said recording device by said signals; and
said recording device generating a record displaying said product information and the player's total prize information.
(It took me about 3 minutes to find this online..... )
Why does this remind me of the one about trademarking the letter 'l' and then suing
the number '1' for 'look and feel'
That you should probably just go and read Startup, you will learn just as much about how to evaluate a startup...
and as an added bounus get you read a good story at the same time.
Speaking as one who designs the equipment that people like TW will use to provide 'open access',
by the time TW hands your packet to your ISP TW wil already have done almost all the work.
As such it is not unreasonable for them to ask for almost all the revinue generated by their work.
It is possible that ISP's will not be able to make money after giving TW a 75% cut, but that
does not mean that TW is asking for too much, it may just mean that there is too little left
for the ISP's to do to make a profit.
You notice in the article the manager of the ISP is qouted as saying that it is 'ridiculous',
go and see if you can find an ISP claiming that TW's demands are 'not techincaly justifible'
and THEN you can become outraged.
Trying to put a cap on useage... i.e. X megabytes per week and you will cut access is a losing proposition from a game theory point of view.
There will always be the student who desides that the response to this is to download as much as possible before you cut access.
Or the student who thinks it would be realy cool to push the useage over the limit so you cut everyones access off.
Your best answer by far is to use a QoS aware firewall which can control the bandwidth used based on a policy you set.
There are a number of companies who make them, and one of them, Packeteer, even has a page devoted to exactly your problem.
You might want to check it out at http://www.packeteer.com/wintherace/
One Click Shopping is not like patenting
"Method for Building Larger then Average Gasoline Tank"
this implies that all the click's were the same and you are just reducing the number of times
you have to do the same thing. each click is a different step and they were eliminating the
some of the steps.
One Click Shopping is like patenting
"Method for Filling a Gasoline Tank Without Requiring the Operator of the Vehicle to Exit
the Vehicle, Open the Gasoline Filling Cover, or Requiring the Operator to Roll Down their
Window to Pay for the Gasoline Recieved."
Independent invention by ONE other party
does not prove something was obvious.
Independent invention by ONE HUNDRED other
parties would prove it was obvious.
What sucks are your comments about it.....
One click purchacing and shopping carts are buisness method patents and would be covered.
As for the fee to request an opposition to the patent, if you look at what the law would REQUIRE the USPTO to do, the cost in time alone will be far greater than $200. If you didn't charge a fee then the process would make for a good DoS attack on the patent office.
The reason to make the exception for buisness method patents is that they are the ones giving the most grief these days.
And just what is an internet patent anyway that you claim is not covered by this bill?