CoinTerra won't have the bitcoins on hand to pay up, so lawyers will then bitch and fight over how to value those bitcoins in USD
Since they can be obtained on the open market; the court can order CoinTerra to buy the coins, and deliver the coins, and give them a 2 week deadline for doing so.
I'm not saying his case is without actual merit. I just think it's hilarious. I do doubt, however, that beyond being made whole for the purchase price that the plaintiff will be able to demonstrate any actual damages.
Since mining is to produce Bitcoins; he might pursue specific performance --- in the form of requiring that they deliver to him an amount of actual Bitcoins he would have mined with timely delivery of a unit meeting specifications, which is easy to calculate; instead of liquidated damages.
Since Bitcoin value is highly volatile; it is almost impossible to calculate liquidated damages, since it is highly dependant on the exact time of sale.
But if he just wants it ordered that the bitcoins be delivered to him, instead of a number of dollars equivalent to those bitcoins, then it's easy to figure out, since 1 Bitcoin is always worth exactly 1 Bitcoin; this is not speculative in the least.
Kinda like how if I promised to build you a fence for X dollars by Y date, and fail to meet the agreed upon pricing and schedule, well, that's your fault for trusting me, now isn't it?
Kind of. If you didn't do your DD. In practice, the most you would be liable for would be the X dollars I paid you upfront to build the fence, plus perhaps some miniscule extra amount in interest and costs required to find another fencebuilder.
It doesn't matter if I had a profit-making idea that would have made me millions most likely, which was ruined by your failure to timely build the fence, unless our contract states you agree to pay a penalty, then you don't owe me squat in terms of extra payments for lost theorized income, unless I can prove actual damages.
Also, if you partially constructed the fence, then unless our contract says otherwise ---- you are still entitled to payment for what you did build, even if it's now worthless to me, because it was not completed on time: I won't be able to recover the full amount I paid you, in court, only (perhaps) a portion.
"Your honor, the free money generation machine the plaintiff promised me did not generate NEARLY enough free money!"
Except the "free money generation machine" was very far from free; it cost both significant upfront payment to buy the machine, and very significant costs of energy to operate the machine.
Not to mention significant network risks; due to Bitcoin variable difficulty.
The risk in buying a miner is much higher than when a bank lends someone money to buy a house.
The expect ROI must compensate for the risk.
The possibility of suing for your principal back from a profitable counterparty, is a mitigation of risk ---- but in practice, it is very difficult.
I would be shocked if CoinTerra's lawyers hadn't required the buyer to acknowledge that delivery might not be timely, and specifications might vary.
The NSA doesn't use warrants, so they don't have any limitations placed on them. This is one of the key issues of warrantless surveillance, because it allows the NSA to use anything they find
So the investigators will start making their warrants more vague or lobby congress for more warrantless digital data acquisition powers.
I've noticed that the yards in my area that look the most like putting greens tend to be the most likely to have political signs on them around election time.
Perhaps so.... on the other hand.... personal use of pesticides as a luxury item is just the sort of use that is needless destruction to the environment.
Also... the EPA doesn't really have to answer to the voters, and since they apparently don't need to consult with congress either; I'm not entirely sure all the political signs matter.
How about banning the pesticide that's killing them off?
Yes... maybe force them to switch back to DDT and carefully restrict who can use pesticides and in what amounts and concentrations; require a permit to use agricultural pesticides, and use regulations to establish required abatements.
For example: no applying dangerous chemicals to your yard, just for aesthetic purposes.
Pesticides must only be used to protect specific food sources, human shelters from property damage, and control numbers of animals/plants that are a substantial threat to human health or safety.
At least with DDT; it is well studied: not a carcinogen, and in sufficiently dilute concentrations does not kill bees
or other beneficial wildlife, and the issues are more well-understood and can be combatted.
That's separate from an earlier class of patents, from back in the days that you weren't able to patent software
Yes.... but they have raised the bar, and that's the important, and useful thing they have done here.
It is totally unlikely for the court to lay down a decision about software patents as a whole, at least at this point, or for the foreseeable future; they're likely to find other merits in the defense besides "the invention was implemented in software only".
Before they raise the bar further, I believe the next thing that needs to be brought before their court
is a case involving a purely business method patent of a similar nature.
And the court clearly stating the limitation against patenting a series of steps involving: "Apply non-patentable thing using X", to all kinds of method patents, not just to software patents.
Basically.... the bar needs to be raised higher for all method patents, of which software is just one special category; special in the fact, that all software patents are essentially method patents.
I see no chance of software patents being completely rejected, as long as more general business method patents continue to be allowed.
while you're trying the IP bandwidth routing issue on your "ideal" system.
Huh? That didn't make any sense.
If you have an IP bandwidth issue with the NVR-based system such as Ubiquiti AirVision2; you will also have an IP bandwidth issue with the dropcams.
The dropcam is not a magic solution which defeats fundamental laws of networking and lets you transfer data without consuming bandwidth. They're no faster or to setup, either
The laws of physics and mathematics will be satisfied by any system you setup.
What situations require a camera that records to multiple local and remote destinations not fixed to a central service?
The point is anything dependant on an internet WAN link and proper IP connectivity to a distant cloud service is fragile and unreliable, due to the possibly unreliable WAN, or the possibility of IP routing issues on the public internet.
Compared to a short LAN run to a local DVR.
With a backup battery to help against the often unreliable electric utility.
Seriously... who in their right mind would involve Google in their home security?
Doesn't seem very secure to me anyways.... it relies on the internet for video feed ----
so, if the network connection goes down (As it often does.... darn unreliable ISPs)....
oops.... vital footage won't be recorded.
The/ideal/ security cam solution would record to both multiple local and remote destinations of choice,
to prevent camera from being stopped by disconnecting internet ---- and also to ensure remote backup,
in case the intruder takes an axe to the local DVR in attempt to destroy footage.
If you're the first person to develop a mechanism to get a particular result, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to patent the result (within reason). Otherwise, it would be too easy to get around patents by making trivial changes to the mechanism.
No... development of the mechanism, not the result, IS the invention. You're supposed to be able to get around patents by using an altered mechanism. It's called a new invention.
And it works that way in other industries, otherwise the Reynolds pen company wouldn't exist,
as they got around the Birome ballpoint pen patent by designing a new mechanism.
If they could have gotten away with a patent for "Pointy stick that deposits ink on a page", or
"Pointy stick that deposits ink on a page, with a small ball bearing attached to the end",
they most certainly would have... then Bic and Reynolds would not exist, and one South American company would have a complete monopoly over the US pen market.
Obviously not. An elevator is an application of the laws of physics. You can patent an elevator design. You can't patent gravity.
What people have problems with... is most software patents look like this:
1. Apply the law of gravity, using electric circuits, using a machine to transport people between different
levels or heights in a building.
2. The method of claim 1, where a machine is used to carry people between floors in a building.
In other words: the "invention" has been turned into a "black box", which is not explained in the patent.
Instead of the specific elevator design you developed being patented,
ALL elevators using the basic principle of gravity are patented,
even though gravity itself is not patented.
They just say Apply (basic concept) using (new technology).
The invention is a black box not discussed in detail.
Surely there's nobody over there who would possibly want to use a completely anonymous and untraceable monetary system that would ever dream of causing any discomfort to another human being...
It's not a problem... those people have the $$$ now
Also.... Karpeles is portrayed to the world as weasel and an self-centered arrogant moronic arsehole.
It's not clear whether he is too stupid to understand the real dangers and how his tweets will be interpreted,
or if it's intentional self-deprecation possibly advised by PR/lawyers in attempt to help evade accountability.
A computer can be a person. Are you saying I can't speak to a person in code and tell them a series of steps?
A computer is not, legally speaking, a person, so no, you have no protected right to "speak" to a computer. However, the answer is you can "reveal" the code to the computer (such as by saving a copy of the code as a text file in notepad), as long as you do not do anything that would cause or allow the computer to execute that code, such as compiling and running, or loading the file using a script interpreter.
You can also share the code with your friends, as long as the purpose is studying the code, and they will not execute the code ("practice the patent").
If I teach my dog to do the steps is my dog a new invention?
Any procedure composed of steps so simple a dog can learn them are so trivial as to be obvious non-patentable.
If you create a technological aid to enable the dog to execute a complicated procedure covered by the patent ("Such as stepping on a 'do patented thing switch' for a treat), then it is the combination of the dog and the technological aid that is infringing, not the dog.
A procedure/method to be executed by humans for training a dog to accomplish something unusual and useful such as bomb sniffing or drug sniffing may be patentable.
In that case: using that method, or training the dog on those steps itself for conducting the training could be considered infringement, but not the dog's use of their biological organs.
Honestly, I'm no fan of software patents, but that's as silly as claiming that if you weren't advancing the art of blacksmithing that you couldn't patent a complex and novel piece of machinery made out of iron.
I disagree. He should be able to publish all the code he wants, and even distribute books and copies of the source code to end users. Patents aren't allowed to restrict speech.
On the other hand: the instant someone takes that bit of code and tells the computer to run it, or ships an appliance that loads this bit of code; they have turned their computer's CPU into a machine which is infringing.
This is because a computer is a 'dynamic' machine that can be reconfigured in countless ways.
The source code is just a recipe for the CPU ---- exchanging the recipe is fine, so long as you don't configure the machine to execute the recipe.
It is a CPU executing the implementation that can be infringing, or a computer distributed to
run the recipe; not the source code or the binary itself --- which are just instructions regarding how to configure
the execution logic of a certain kind of computer for a certain task.
People started calling method patents "software patents" at some point. That is to say: people would come up with a brilliant new way to analyze and encode data (i.e. compression, psychoacoustics), and folks would start screaming that it shouldn't be patented.
If you come up with a new compression algorithm which is much better than any previous compression algorithm conceived so far, and you can explain how it is so, then it's not a generic idea; it is this complicated non-trivial algorithm you have come up with, and that you had to put a minimum amount of work in, of at least a few months to polish this algorithm and your implementation of it.
You should have no troubles proving you went through weeks of work to develop the algorithm and this implementation of the algorithm, and include all the fine details of your complete standalone implementation in the patent
There's nothing wrong with software patents.
You have rephrased the argument.
The problem is about patents which claim "ideas about themself".
For example: a patent on a procedure for compressing data, that also attempts to claim
the "idea" of compressing data by applying the concept of a dictionary or statistical principles (And therefore, essentially all likely compression algorithms)
Or the idea of: "Rendering data indecipherable by using a computer to encrypt it", Or
the idea of : "Performing encryption using equations based on elliptic curves."
It is your specific implementation of this idea that is supposed to be protectable, not the ideas about the implementation itself: certainly not mathematics, fundamental algorithms, or your choice to put them together in simple combinations.
The problem is with generic or otherwise known as somewhat trivial software patents, Or
obvious patents, which are claimed to be non-obvious, because you "Wouldn't have thought about doing X" if not for the patent.
Where X is often "Apply non-patentable thing using Y"; where Y is something new such as "a computer", or "the internet", or "the cloud", for example.
Where "Using Y" would also normally be common and non-patentable; plenty of people use Y,
and by "Applying X using Y"; they get no more improvement than the efficiency improvement "using Y" that would be expected.
Example of claims/generic concepts that should not be patentable:
"Authenticate website visitors using a notary or hardware device."
"Generate a one time code based on the current time of day using a small computer."
"Save money on disk space by deleting/merging data using a scan for duplicate information."
"Detect component failure by periodically sending a PING message or HELO signal using Y"
"Improve linear access speed by defragmenting"
"Track user sessions using cookies."
"Sell things online using the internet using a single mouse click."
"Display advertisements using a web browser."
"Approximate website visitors' geography using an IP address."
Most Supreme Court decisions are unanimous. In the last term, 52% of decisions were 9-0. Another 12% were 8-1.
The decisions are not a closed ballot vote; this is not a test question, where each judge is asked to come up with their answer in private, without knowledge of the other judges' choice. The judges can discuss amongst themselves, weigh the matter, and come to their conclusion.
It will of course wind up being unanimous, unless there is pretty strong disagreement.
Unfortunately, you have to (1) be sued by Amazon for violating the patent (else you have no standing to challenge it)
If your business was damaged by their enforcement activities in the past, regarding their claims about their patent -- such as cease and decist letters, or you were required to license the patent, OR you had an offer to license the patent and refused to license the patent, you might also have standing to pursue declaratory judgement.
As far as we know; Amazon took action against Barnes and Noble once, and hasn't sued anyone since, so this isn't likely.
I worry that the stupid FAT32 patent will still be around (since it deals with how a HDD is formatted),
The fact that you can format a RAMDISK or an image file as FAT32; shows that the FAT filesystem actually an abstraction and claims about the abstract mathematical datastructures and parameters of the FAT filesystem really have nothing to do directly with the way the disk (or 'block' device) is formatted.
At this point you would have to be crazy NOT to expect a TLA to have an "answer" to Truecrypt-- thats exactly why theres a code audit being done.
How do we know the TLA doesn't have an answer to "publicly announced code audit" ?
Who is doing this audit... what is their process?
What happens when the person responsible for conducting the audit of module X, gets a national security letter ordering them to "Not report finding anything wrong" in their audit results with "such and such" file?
Apparently.... either they are in violation of the law, or we really need a new federal records act,
requiring that all electronic documents pertaining to business be preserved in their original electronic
form and backed up in at least two places, with yearly verification that the backup is working: with industry standard security controls to ensure that individual employees, regardless of status,
are not allowed to omit, alter, or remove items from the record;
technical measures are used to enforce the requirement; and,
administrator actions to override the technical requirement are logged and audited
and admin audit logs are backed up to at least two pieces of write-only media at different geographic locations.
Slashdot Mirror
CoinTerra won't have the bitcoins on hand to pay up, so lawyers will then bitch and fight over how to value those bitcoins in USD
Since they can be obtained on the open market; the court can order CoinTerra to buy the coins, and deliver the coins, and give them a 2 week deadline for doing so.
I'm not saying his case is without actual merit. I just think it's hilarious. I do doubt, however, that beyond being made whole for the purchase price that the plaintiff will be able to demonstrate any actual damages.
Since mining is to produce Bitcoins; he might pursue specific performance --- in the form of requiring that they deliver to him an amount of actual Bitcoins he would have mined with timely delivery of a unit meeting specifications, which is easy to calculate; instead of liquidated damages. Since Bitcoin value is highly volatile; it is almost impossible to calculate liquidated damages, since it is highly dependant on the exact time of sale.
But if he just wants it ordered that the bitcoins be delivered to him, instead of a number of dollars equivalent to those bitcoins, then it's easy to figure out, since 1 Bitcoin is always worth exactly 1 Bitcoin; this is not speculative in the least.
Kinda like how if I promised to build you a fence for X dollars by Y date, and fail to meet the agreed upon pricing and schedule, well, that's your fault for trusting me, now isn't it?
Kind of. If you didn't do your DD. In practice, the most you would be liable for would be the X dollars I paid you upfront to build the fence, plus perhaps some miniscule extra amount in interest and costs required to find another fencebuilder.
It doesn't matter if I had a profit-making idea that would have made me millions most likely, which was ruined by your failure to timely build the fence, unless our contract states you agree to pay a penalty, then you don't owe me squat in terms of extra payments for lost theorized income, unless I can prove actual damages.
Also, if you partially constructed the fence, then unless our contract says otherwise ---- you are still entitled to payment for what you did build, even if it's now worthless to me, because it was not completed on time: I won't be able to recover the full amount I paid you, in court, only (perhaps) a portion.
"Your honor, the free money generation machine the plaintiff promised me did not generate NEARLY enough free money!"
Except the "free money generation machine" was very far from free; it cost both significant upfront payment to buy the machine, and very significant costs of energy to operate the machine.
Not to mention significant network risks; due to Bitcoin variable difficulty.
The risk in buying a miner is much higher than when a bank lends someone money to buy a house. The expect ROI must compensate for the risk.
The possibility of suing for your principal back from a profitable counterparty, is a mitigation of risk ---- but in practice, it is very difficult.
I would be shocked if CoinTerra's lawyers hadn't required the buyer to acknowledge that delivery might not be timely, and specifications might vary.
The NSA doesn't use warrants, so they don't have any limitations placed on them. This is one of the key issues of warrantless surveillance, because it allows the NSA to use anything they find
So the investigators will start making their warrants more vague or lobby congress for more warrantless digital data acquisition powers.
What's that mythycal backup thing you speak of.
A mechanical typewriter a photocopier, and a manual courier to bring copies for manual filing to all concerned parties, if necessary.
IT problems don't abridge that right. Police officers having a tough day don't abridge that right.
No, but they should have a backup system to meet the 3 day requirement, regardless of any IT issues.
I've noticed that the yards in my area that look the most like putting greens tend to be the most likely to have political signs on them around election time.
Perhaps so.... on the other hand.... personal use of pesticides as a luxury item is just the sort of use that is needless destruction to the environment.
Also... the EPA doesn't really have to answer to the voters, and since they apparently don't need to consult with congress either; I'm not entirely sure all the political signs matter.
How about banning the pesticide that's killing them off?
Yes... maybe force them to switch back to DDT and carefully restrict who can use pesticides and in what amounts and concentrations; require a permit to use agricultural pesticides, and use regulations to establish required abatements.
For example: no applying dangerous chemicals to your yard, just for aesthetic purposes. Pesticides must only be used to protect specific food sources, human shelters from property damage, and control numbers of animals/plants that are a substantial threat to human health or safety.
At least with DDT; it is well studied: not a carcinogen, and in sufficiently dilute concentrations does not kill bees or other beneficial wildlife, and the issues are more well-understood and can be combatted.
That's separate from an earlier class of patents, from back in the days that you weren't able to patent software
Yes.... but they have raised the bar, and that's the important, and useful thing they have done here. It is totally unlikely for the court to lay down a decision about software patents as a whole, at least at this point, or for the foreseeable future; they're likely to find other merits in the defense besides "the invention was implemented in software only".
Before they raise the bar further, I believe the next thing that needs to be brought before their court is a case involving a purely business method patent of a similar nature.
And the court clearly stating the limitation against patenting a series of steps involving: "Apply non-patentable thing using X", to all kinds of method patents, not just to software patents.
Basically.... the bar needs to be raised higher for all method patents, of which software is just one special category; special in the fact, that all software patents are essentially method patents.
I see no chance of software patents being completely rejected, as long as more general business method patents continue to be allowed.
while you're trying the IP bandwidth routing issue on your "ideal" system.
Huh? That didn't make any sense.
If you have an IP bandwidth issue with the NVR-based system such as Ubiquiti AirVision2; you will also have an IP bandwidth issue with the dropcams.
The dropcam is not a magic solution which defeats fundamental laws of networking and lets you transfer data without consuming bandwidth. They're no faster or to setup, either
The laws of physics and mathematics will be satisfied by any system you setup.
What situations require a camera that records to multiple local and remote destinations not fixed to a central service?
The point is anything dependant on an internet WAN link and proper IP connectivity to a distant cloud service is fragile and unreliable, due to the possibly unreliable WAN, or the possibility of IP routing issues on the public internet.
Compared to a short LAN run to a local DVR.
With a backup battery to help against the often unreliable electric utility.
Seriously... who in their right mind would involve Google in their home security?
Doesn't seem very secure to me anyways.... it relies on the internet for video feed ---- so, if the network connection goes down (As it often does.... darn unreliable ISPs).... oops.... vital footage won't be recorded.
The /ideal/ security cam solution would record to both multiple local and remote destinations of choice,
to prevent camera from being stopped by disconnecting internet ---- and also to ensure remote backup,
in case the intruder takes an axe to the local DVR in attempt to destroy footage.
If you're the first person to develop a mechanism to get a particular result, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to patent the result (within reason). Otherwise, it would be too easy to get around patents by making trivial changes to the mechanism.
No... development of the mechanism, not the result, IS the invention. You're supposed to be able to get around patents by using an altered mechanism. It's called a new invention.
And it works that way in other industries, otherwise the Reynolds pen company wouldn't exist, as they got around the Birome ballpoint pen patent by designing a new mechanism.
If they could have gotten away with a patent for "Pointy stick that deposits ink on a page", or "Pointy stick that deposits ink on a page, with a small ball bearing attached to the end", they most certainly would have... then Bic and Reynolds would not exist, and one South American company would have a complete monopoly over the US pen market.
Install sensors in Abraham lincoln's grave. As he turns in his grave; the direction he chooses to turn will indicate the vote; Aye or Nay.
Obviously not. An elevator is an application of the laws of physics. You can patent an elevator design. You can't patent gravity.
What people have problems with... is most software patents look like this:
1. Apply the law of gravity, using electric circuits, using a machine to transport people between different levels or heights in a building.
2. The method of claim 1, where a machine is used to carry people between floors in a building.
In other words: the "invention" has been turned into a "black box", which is not explained in the patent.
Instead of the specific elevator design you developed being patented, ALL elevators using the basic principle of gravity are patented, even though gravity itself is not patented.
They just say Apply (basic concept) using (new technology).
The invention is a black box not discussed in detail.
Surely there's nobody over there who would possibly want to use a completely anonymous and untraceable monetary system that would ever dream of causing any discomfort to another human being...
It's not a problem... those people have the $$$ now
Also.... Karpeles is portrayed to the world as weasel and an self-centered arrogant moronic arsehole.
It's not clear whether he is too stupid to understand the real dangers and how his tweets will be interpreted, or if it's intentional self-deprecation possibly advised by PR/lawyers in attempt to help evade accountability.
A computer can be a person. Are you saying I can't speak to a person in code and tell them a series of steps?
A computer is not, legally speaking, a person, so no, you have no protected right to "speak" to a computer. However, the answer is you can "reveal" the code to the computer (such as by saving a copy of the code as a text file in notepad), as long as you do not do anything that would cause or allow the computer to execute that code, such as compiling and running, or loading the file using a script interpreter.
You can also share the code with your friends, as long as the purpose is studying the code, and they will not execute the code ("practice the patent").
If I teach my dog to do the steps is my dog a new invention?
Any procedure composed of steps so simple a dog can learn them are so trivial as to be obvious non-patentable. If you create a technological aid to enable the dog to execute a complicated procedure covered by the patent ("Such as stepping on a 'do patented thing switch' for a treat), then it is the combination of the dog and the technological aid that is infringing, not the dog.
A procedure/method to be executed by humans for training a dog to accomplish something unusual and useful such as bomb sniffing or drug sniffing may be patentable. In that case: using that method, or training the dog on those steps itself for conducting the training could be considered infringement, but not the dog's use of their biological organs.
Honestly, I'm no fan of software patents, but that's as silly as claiming that if you weren't advancing the art of blacksmithing that you couldn't patent a complex and novel piece of machinery made out of iron.
I disagree. He should be able to publish all the code he wants, and even distribute books and copies of the source code to end users. Patents aren't allowed to restrict speech.
On the other hand: the instant someone takes that bit of code and tells the computer to run it, or ships an appliance that loads this bit of code; they have turned their computer's CPU into a machine which is infringing.
This is because a computer is a 'dynamic' machine that can be reconfigured in countless ways. The source code is just a recipe for the CPU ---- exchanging the recipe is fine, so long as you don't configure the machine to execute the recipe.
It is a CPU executing the implementation that can be infringing, or a computer distributed to run the recipe; not the source code or the binary itself --- which are just instructions regarding how to configure the execution logic of a certain kind of computer for a certain task.
People started calling method patents "software patents" at some point. That is to say: people would come up with a brilliant new way to analyze and encode data (i.e. compression, psychoacoustics), and folks would start screaming that it shouldn't be patented.
If you come up with a new compression algorithm which is much better than any previous compression algorithm conceived so far, and you can explain how it is so, then it's not a generic idea; it is this complicated non-trivial algorithm you have come up with, and that you had to put a minimum amount of work in, of at least a few months to polish this algorithm and your implementation of it.
You should have no troubles proving you went through weeks of work to develop the algorithm and this implementation of the algorithm, and include all the fine details of your complete standalone implementation in the patent
There's nothing wrong with software patents.
You have rephrased the argument.
The problem is about patents which claim "ideas about themself".
For example: a patent on a procedure for compressing data, that also attempts to claim the "idea" of compressing data by applying the concept of a dictionary or statistical principles (And therefore, essentially all likely compression algorithms)
Or the idea of: "Rendering data indecipherable by using a computer to encrypt it", Or the idea of : "Performing encryption using equations based on elliptic curves."
It is your specific implementation of this idea that is supposed to be protectable, not the ideas about the implementation itself: certainly not mathematics, fundamental algorithms, or your choice to put them together in simple combinations.
The problem is with generic or otherwise known as somewhat trivial software patents, Or obvious patents, which are claimed to be non-obvious, because you "Wouldn't have thought about doing X" if not for the patent.
Where X is often "Apply non-patentable thing using Y"; where Y is something new such as "a computer", or "the internet", or "the cloud", for example. Where "Using Y" would also normally be common and non-patentable; plenty of people use Y, and by "Applying X using Y"; they get no more improvement than the efficiency improvement "using Y" that would be expected.
Example of claims/generic concepts that should not be patentable: "Authenticate website visitors using a notary or hardware device."
"Generate a one time code based on the current time of day using a small computer."
"Save money on disk space by deleting/merging data using a scan for duplicate information."
"Detect component failure by periodically sending a PING message or HELO signal using Y"
"Improve linear access speed by defragmenting"
"Track user sessions using cookies."
"Sell things online using the internet using a single mouse click."
"Display advertisements using a web browser."
"Approximate website visitors' geography using an IP address."
Most Supreme Court decisions are unanimous. In the last term, 52% of decisions were 9-0. Another 12% were 8-1.
The decisions are not a closed ballot vote; this is not a test question, where each judge is asked to come up with their answer in private, without knowledge of the other judges' choice. The judges can discuss amongst themselves, weigh the matter, and come to their conclusion.
It will of course wind up being unanimous, unless there is pretty strong disagreement.
Unfortunately, you have to (1) be sued by Amazon for violating the patent (else you have no standing to challenge it)
If your business was damaged by their enforcement activities in the past, regarding their claims about their patent -- such as cease and decist letters, or you were required to license the patent, OR you had an offer to license the patent and refused to license the patent, you might also have standing to pursue declaratory judgement.
As far as we know; Amazon took action against Barnes and Noble once, and hasn't sued anyone since, so this isn't likely.
I worry that the stupid FAT32 patent will still be around (since it deals with how a HDD is formatted),
The fact that you can format a RAMDISK or an image file as FAT32; shows that the FAT filesystem actually an abstraction and claims about the abstract mathematical datastructures and parameters of the FAT filesystem really have nothing to do directly with the way the disk (or 'block' device) is formatted.
At this point you would have to be crazy NOT to expect a TLA to have an "answer" to Truecrypt-- thats exactly why theres a code audit being done.
How do we know the TLA doesn't have an answer to "publicly announced code audit" ?
Who is doing this audit... what is their process?
What happens when the person responsible for conducting the audit of module X, gets a national security letter ordering them to "Not report finding anything wrong" in their audit results with "such and such" file?
The IRS doesn't archive email? REALLY?
Apparently.... either they are in violation of the law, or we really need a new federal records act, requiring that all electronic documents pertaining to business be preserved in their original electronic form and backed up in at least two places, with yearly verification that the backup is working: with industry standard security controls to ensure that individual employees, regardless of status, are not allowed to omit, alter, or remove items from the record; technical measures are used to enforce the requirement; and, administrator actions to override the technical requirement are logged and audited and admin audit logs are backed up to at least two pieces of write-only media at different geographic locations.