They do hire people skilled in the art of software. To be an examiner you have to be qualified in the field you are examining for.
The problem is that the job of patent examiner is mind numbingly boring. Any engineer in that kind of job with any energy and creativity would be unravelling his brain trough his ear hole in short order.
The real problem I think is the standard for obviousness; that is "obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art".
Well pooh. Someone with ordinary skill in the art isn't going to be all that creative, and 'obvious' means that he can come up with the same idea without any substantial time or effort.
That's a damn low hurdle.
Patents should be granted for something that clears a significantly higher hurdle, not something that could be thought up by any shlub who spent an evening on the problem.
Searches of stuff that you have an expectation of privacy for require warrants which require the Cops prove to the judge they have probable cause. cf 4th Amendment. Apparently they don't have it.
So they are trying for a judicial order (doesn't require probable cause) under the Stored Communication Act.
The judge says nope - the SCA is overridden by the 4th Amendment (praise the Founders!) because this request asks for 113 days of cell tower location data. That's broad enough to be considered a search.
I hope it sticks. This crap regarding any electronic data being fair game has to stop.
Nonsense. The US is home to 80% of the Nobel Prize winners since 1940. It makes easily the largest research investment in the world today, almost 3 times that of the next nation, China. A measure of scientific productivity is how often articles are cited by other scientists in the field. The US holds a 30% share of citations which is much larger than it's share of world GDP.
The market is stupid easy to beat, and there are lots of well established methods to beat it. One of the easy ways to do it is to buy a a distribution of index based mutual funds and bonds, and readjust every year to maintain that distribution.
That will not only beat the market, but also beat 90% of all the other mutual funds.
I would assume that patents are in some way related to the commercial value of technology. Otherwise there wouldn't be the money to do all this patenting.
Thus this report is a good thing.
What to do about it?
1. Monetize it. Increase fees of all sorts. 2. Use the income to improve the system. Better prior art searching for example. Better examiners.
I don't believe in banning something if a few people abuse it, either. Even if the person abusing that something dies from it. To me that sort of thing is a reasonable context to bring up the term 'nanny state' as well as ideas like we are tampering with natural selection to the detriment of the species.
However if innocent bystanders are dying because of the abuse then I'd say it is time to start looking at the wisdom of making the abuse illegal. The concept of negligent homicide is pretty well established and I don't think it should go away.
It's not the driller who want to keep the chemical composition confidential, it's the chemical suppliers. These are usually small, relatively low margin companies for whom the technology differentiation is critical to their business. If the formulations were not secret the drilling companies would just go out and make the stuff themselves and cut out the suppliers.
Water Supply? How does this have any technical relation to the field of petroleum geology. Answer: It doesn't.
This is malarkey. Horizontal drilling directly below a water supply tunnel? Come on, that's an absurd scenario as any geologist would realize. These formations are far below any water supply infrastructure. Likewise the idea of methane permeating rock formations for miles. Any such permeation would a) be miniscule and b) would occur naturally too.
The oil drilling industry has been using fracking to improve oil recovery for 75 years without any of the problems that the anti-frackers have brought up. While sound regulation is needed, what is NOT needed is bureaucrats writing opinion pieces in a journal that as no technical connection to the field.
Hogwash. I didn't start working as a software developer until I was 50. I learned Java, Perl and PHP in a year or so. I already knew C and FORTRAN at that time. Since then I've taught myself Python, Javascript, Scala and Ruby. I've recently started Erlang.
A year later I taught my father C; he was in his mid 70's and wanted to right some software to do some statistical analysis of stock data.
Don't let these whippersnappers tell you you can't do it. The fact is that is they know it, it's easy. The stuff that is actually hard is the math, and since you went to school more 20-30 years ago you have a far better education in the fundamentals that count than they do.
Accuracy of DNA "Matches" to Definitively Identify Suspects Questioned
New research has called into question the reliability of some use of DNA tests to definitively identify suspects in criminal investigations. After recent evidence of chromosomal "matches" based on DNA testing turned out to belong to unrelated individuals, some scientists wonder whether there are flaws in the assumptions that underlie the FBIâ(TM)s statistical estimates of DNA accuracy. In 2001, Arizona state crime lab analyst Kathryn Troyer was running tests on the stateâ(TM)s database when she came across two felons with remarkably similar genetic profiles. They matched at 9 of the 13 locations on chromosomes, or loci, commonly used to distinguish people. While the FBI estimated the odds of finding unrelated people sharing those genetic markers to be 1 in 113 billion, Troyer found the men to be unrelated and of different races--one was black and the other white.
Since that initial discovery, Troyer has found dozens of similar "matches," sparking a legal fight over whether the nationâ(TM)s genetic databases should be more closely scrutinized. At the time of her discovery, many states looked at only nine or fewer loci when searching for suspects (most attempt to compare 13 loci when evidence is available). Because of her results, Troyer and her colleagues believed that a 9-locus match could lead investigators to the wrong person. âoeWe felt it was interesting and just wanted people to understand it could happen,â Troyer explained. âoeIf youâ(TM)re going to search at nine loci, you need to be aware of what it means. Itâ(TM)s not necessarily absolutely the guy,â added Troyerâ(TM)s colleague Phoenix Lab Director Todd Griffith.
Inspired by these findings, defense attorney Bicka Barlow investigated if there might be similar matches in DNA databases to challenge prosecutorsâ(TM) assertions that the odds of a coincidental match were as remote as 1 in 1 trillion. She subpoenaed a new search of the Arizona database and found that there were 122 pairs of individuals that matched at 9 of 13 loci and 20 pairs that matched 10 out of about 65,000 felons. For years, courtrooms have treated DNA results as the gold standard in evidence, finding it hard to argue with odds like 1 in 100 billion. âoeTroyerâ(TM)s discovery threatened to turn the tables on prosecutors. At first blush, the Arizona matches appeared to contradict those statistics and the popular notion that DNA profiles, like DNA, were essentially unique.â
The FBIâ(TM)s estimates originated from a sample population of a few hundred people in the 1990â(TM)s. The FBI sent out a nationwide alert to crime labs warning of defense requests after Barlowâ(TM)s subpoena. Illinois did a similar search of their database in 2006 and found 903 pairs of profiles matching at 9 or more loci in a database of about 220,000. Maryland searched their database for matches in 2007 and found 32 pairs matched at 9 or more loci among fewer than 30,000 profiles. (J. Felch, M. Dolan, "How reliable is DNA in identifying suspects," L.A. Times, July 20, 2008). See Studies and Innocence.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so you end corporate personhood.
What do you substitute as a legal mechanism that allows you to sue or apply contract law or criminal law to a corporation after you do this?
> Overreact to distant disasters week?
Only a very small percentage of anything is getting evacuated.
Nah. The messenger will be used as an example of the issue that modern society has frozen evolution in time so that the species has stopped advancing.
Cleanup is a farce anyway. The only thing you can do is stop or prevent leaks.
The rest is up to the microbiology.
Nah. 80%. 75% the year.
40% since the introduction of the Nobel.
They do hire people skilled in the art of software. To be an examiner you have to be qualified in the field you are examining for.
The problem is that the job of patent examiner is mind numbingly boring. Any engineer in that kind of job with any energy and creativity would be unravelling his brain trough his ear hole in short order.
The real problem I think is the standard for obviousness; that is "obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art".
Well pooh. Someone with ordinary skill in the art isn't going to be all that creative, and 'obvious' means that he can come up with the same idea without any substantial time or effort.
That's a damn low hurdle.
Patents should be granted for something that clears a significantly higher hurdle, not something that could be thought up by any shlub who spent an evening on the problem.
He doesn't own the patent. It's not his to defend.
No it doesn't. Some handsets can't be completely turned off. Take the battery out or use a foil bag.
Searches of stuff that you have an expectation of privacy for require warrants which require the Cops prove to the judge they have probable cause. cf 4th Amendment. Apparently they don't have it.
So they are trying for a judicial order (doesn't require probable cause) under the Stored Communication Act.
The judge says nope - the SCA is overridden by the 4th Amendment (praise the Founders!) because this request asks for 113 days of cell tower location data. That's broad enough to be considered a search.
I hope it sticks. This crap regarding any electronic data being fair game has to stop.
Nonsense. The US is home to 80% of the Nobel Prize winners since 1940. It makes easily the largest research investment in the world today, almost 3 times that of the next nation, China. A measure of scientific productivity is how often articles are cited by other scientists in the field. The US holds a 30% share of citations which is much larger than it's share of world GDP.
This is an application, not a patent.
You can't just throw out some outlandish statement like this without providing evidence.
So I call bullshit.
The market is stupid easy to beat, and there are lots of well established methods to beat it. One of the easy ways to do it is to buy a a distribution of index based mutual funds and bonds, and readjust every year to maintain that distribution.
That will not only beat the market, but also beat 90% of all the other mutual funds.
I would assume that patents are in some way related to the commercial value of technology. Otherwise there wouldn't be the money to do all this patenting.
Thus this report is a good thing.
What to do about it?
1. Monetize it. Increase fees of all sorts.
2. Use the income to improve the system. Better prior art searching for example. Better examiners.
I don't believe in banning something if a few people abuse it, either. Even if the person abusing that something dies from it. To me that sort of thing is a reasonable context to bring up the term 'nanny state' as well as ideas like we are tampering with natural selection to the detriment of the species.
However if innocent bystanders are dying because of the abuse then I'd say it is time to start looking at the wisdom of making the abuse illegal. The concept of negligent homicide is pretty well established and I don't think it should go away.
There are plenty of other examples involving death that could be used if you find this one objectionable.
http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2011/Apr/310059.html
To me anyway the term nanny state should be reserved for use in cases where innocent bystanders are not dying.
I'd suggest that you investigate the Stanford Prison Experiment. It will give you a good idea of what is going on here.
Hint: It's not because cops are bad people.
Here's the data.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.full
It's not the driller who want to keep the chemical composition confidential, it's the chemical suppliers. These are usually small, relatively low margin companies for whom the technology differentiation is critical to their business. If the formulations were not secret the drilling companies would just go out and make the stuff themselves and cut out the suppliers.
Of course nobody mentions that this explosion had nothing to do with fracking.
Water Supply? How does this have any technical relation to the field of petroleum geology. Answer: It doesn't.
This is malarkey. Horizontal drilling directly below a water supply tunnel? Come on, that's an absurd scenario as any geologist would realize. These formations are far below any water supply infrastructure. Likewise the idea of methane permeating rock formations for miles. Any such permeation would a) be miniscule and b) would occur naturally too.
The oil drilling industry has been using fracking to improve oil recovery for 75 years without any of the problems that the anti-frackers have brought up. While sound regulation is needed, what is NOT needed is bureaucrats writing opinion pieces in a journal that as no technical connection to the field.
Hogwash. I didn't start working as a software developer until I was 50. I learned Java, Perl and PHP in a year or so. I already knew C and FORTRAN at that time. Since then I've taught myself Python, Javascript, Scala and Ruby. I've recently started Erlang.
A year later I taught my father C; he was in his mid 70's and wanted to right some software to do some statistical analysis of stock data.
Don't let these whippersnappers tell you you can't do it. The fact is that is they know it, it's easy. The stuff that is actually hard is the math, and since you went to school more 20-30 years ago you have a far better education in the fundamentals that count than they do.
NOW GET OFF MY LAWN.
From the Death Penalty Information Center:
Accuracy of DNA "Matches" to Definitively Identify Suspects Questioned
New research has called into question the reliability of some use of DNA tests to definitively identify suspects in criminal investigations. After recent evidence of chromosomal "matches" based on DNA testing turned out to belong to unrelated individuals, some scientists wonder whether there are flaws in the assumptions that underlie the FBIâ(TM)s statistical estimates of DNA accuracy. In 2001, Arizona state crime lab analyst Kathryn Troyer was running tests on the stateâ(TM)s database when she came across two felons with remarkably similar genetic profiles. They matched at 9 of the 13 locations on chromosomes, or loci, commonly used to distinguish people. While the FBI estimated the odds of finding unrelated people sharing those genetic markers to be 1 in 113 billion, Troyer found the men to be unrelated and of different races--one was black and the other white.
Since that initial discovery, Troyer has found dozens of similar "matches," sparking a legal fight over whether the nationâ(TM)s genetic databases should be more closely scrutinized. At the time of her discovery, many states looked at only nine or fewer loci when searching for suspects (most attempt to compare 13 loci when evidence is available). Because of her results, Troyer and her colleagues believed that a 9-locus match could lead investigators to the wrong person. âoeWe felt it was interesting and just wanted people to understand it could happen,â Troyer explained. âoeIf youâ(TM)re going to search at nine loci, you need to be aware of what it means. Itâ(TM)s not necessarily absolutely the guy,â added Troyerâ(TM)s colleague Phoenix Lab Director Todd Griffith.
Inspired by these findings, defense attorney Bicka Barlow investigated if there might be similar matches in DNA databases to challenge prosecutorsâ(TM) assertions that the odds of a coincidental match were as remote as 1 in 1 trillion. She subpoenaed a new search of the Arizona database and found that there were 122 pairs of individuals that matched at 9 of 13 loci and 20 pairs that matched 10 out of about 65,000 felons. For years, courtrooms have treated DNA results as the gold standard in evidence, finding it hard to argue with odds like 1 in 100 billion. âoeTroyerâ(TM)s discovery threatened to turn the tables on prosecutors. At first blush, the Arizona matches appeared to contradict those statistics and the popular notion that DNA profiles, like DNA, were essentially unique.â
The FBIâ(TM)s estimates originated from a sample population of a few hundred people in the 1990â(TM)s. The FBI sent out a nationwide alert to crime labs warning of defense requests after Barlowâ(TM)s subpoena. Illinois did a similar search of their database in 2006 and found 903 pairs of profiles matching at 9 or more loci in a database of about 220,000. Maryland searched their database for matches in 2007 and found 32 pairs matched at 9 or more loci among fewer than 30,000 profiles.
(J. Felch, M. Dolan, "How reliable is DNA in identifying suspects," L.A. Times, July 20, 2008). See Studies and Innocence.
That was a real MP3 player.
And no, I am not going to vote for anyone who believes the Earth is less than a billion years old.