This article gives a good explanation of how patent laws in the US are being used to stifle innovation.
In no way does this article say any such thing.
How does a competitive advantage translate into stifling innovation? Shouldn't the reward for development of an innovation be in fact a competitive advantage? Isn't the very purpose of industrial research and development to create this advantage. If companies are managing their IP portfolios to achieve this, more power to them, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!!!
Creating a competitive advantage is NOT the same thing as stifling innovation. The entire purpose of a patent is in fact to allow a company to use innovation to gain a competitive advantage. With IP, there would be no reward for the large investments that are often required to develop new technologies. Why would a company like IBM sink a billion dollars per year into it's world class R&D if as soon as they start manufacturing something Ziao-Chin Electronic could copy it and start selling it in competition to IBM??
Folks, hate to throw a damper on your anti-patnet fest here, but the fact of the matter is that anyone with a few bucks in their pocket can file a patent. It's totally different from being granted a patent. When VOS has some granted patents THEN we can start to complain with some real justification.
Also, where does all this stuff about patents hindering innovation come from? Innovation is all about hte development of new ideas, NOT the copying of stuff that has already been done (patented or not). It seems to me that patents in fact encourage innovation by forcing people wanting to compete to develop new original technologies rather than just copying work that has already been done (and paid for in terms of support for R&D and a lot of hard work). Whithout patents all you would have is endless copying as soon as a new idea hit the market, with the inventors getting nothing for their original work.
In open source, who do you sue when the bug loses you money?
I would be very interested to see a documented case of Microsoft or Sun being sued and having to pay consequential damages for a bug in their software. Every license and contract I have seen from these folks SPECIFICALLY excludes responsibility for such.
I do alot of client-side javascript programming for both IE and NetScape. I've always found IE to be MUCH easier and powerful with respect to its implementation of the DOM and what I can do with it. Now I find it is actually more secure too. Why am I using Netscape again? Maybe I don't have any good reasons left.
This is a Java applet, not a Javascript exploit. The fact is that just about any client side scripting has to be implemented perfectly to avoid security problems. This being an imperfect world, I browse with Java and Javascript OFF.
The original purpose of copyright law was not to allow authors to profit from their works, but to protect their right to be identified as the author of their works.
The original purpose was to prevent large publishing houses from publishing the works of authors without renumeration. If there were no copyright laws, do you think Metallica would get paid by Sony Records?
The scientist you described would, in the context of this discussion, be described as technically challenged
Not really. He may well understand the workings and uses of a computer far better than you or I. The issue is that he has no desire to engage the computer on that level in order to send an email message.
I used to lock lots of various files to ensure they didn't get changed, like icon holding files since the icon handling system is somehwhat primitive and easy to mess up (select cut instead of copy and your icon is gone). But when I wanted to delete these it refused to delete them because they were locked, so I had to go through and individually unlock each one.
Extraodinary! On a Mac it is easy to delete locked files, there are a number of ways of doing it, including holding down the option key when emptying the trash. And of course if you cut an icon instead of copying it, you can just paste it right back, or use undo.
This is a perfect example of how even the easiest to use interface still presents challenges. And people are talking about 3D interfaces and all that. What is really needed is adaptive interfaces; interfaces that recognize what the use is TRYING to do, and adapt themselves effectively to even simple tasks. What we don't need is complexity, rather adaptability.
The pro-Mac principles target the wretched masses who are so technically challenged, no?
NO.
The purpose of the Mac user interface is to enable the user who is not inclined to spend time needlessly learning technical minutia when he could be using the computer as a tool towards other ends. The point of computers is not computers, but as tools to be used to accomplish a wide variety of tasks.
It has nothing to do with whether or not you are technically challenged; I have worked with brilliant scientists who have no use for computers other than simple tasks like email and writing papers. It is about whether you see the computer as an end or as a means.
Sure, you can find a lot more sucky PC cases then you can find sucky Mac cases, but you'll find a lot more PC cases period, too.
The problem, like you say, is finding a good PC case. It's easy to find a good Mac case, while no more than 5-10% of PC's sold have anything that is close to acceptable. I am saddled with a Compaq Presario at work, and that thing SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS compared to the Mac that sits next door to me.
Maybe these folks will have a great product, but if their product is anything like thier web site, they are going to be a great company to avoid like the plague. No place to send in questions, no comment forms, sitty design with loads of slow loading graphics and no actual content.
Not only that, if you cor to their home page without flash all you get is a blue screen of death. Cretins.
In any case, nanotechnology means exactly that - manipulation on the scale of a nanometer. This is manipulation on the scale of a millimeter, with the objects being handled actually visible to the naked eye. Not even close.
These things are FAR from being nanotechnology. Cells are on the order of 1 micron; these robots are nearly 1000 times the size of a cell. In terms of volume, 10^6 times larger. The 200 micrometer glass beads are HUGE compared to the size of cell.
Nano technology implies manufacturing on the scale of the nanometer; these are performing tasks on the MILLIMETER scale, six orders of magnitude larger. Hell, if you looked closely I bet you could see these guys at work with the naked eye.
Since when did terrorism and vandalism become American values?
Since April 19, 1775.
Don't they teach American history in schools? What was the Boston Tea Party but an act of vanadalism??
In obedience to your Excellency's orders, I marched yesterday morning at 9 o'clock with the 1st brigade and two field pieces in order to cover the retreat of the grenadiers and light infantry in their return from their expedition to Concord.
As all the houses were shut up, and there was not the appearance of a single inhabitant, I could get no intelligence concerning them till I had passed Menotomy when I was informed that the rebels had attacked his Majesty's troops who were retiring, overpowered by numbers, greatly exhausted and fatigued, and having expended almost all their ammunition - and at about 2 o'clock I met them retiring rough the town of Lexington - I immediately ordered the 2 field pieces to fire at the rebels, and drew up the brigade on a height.
The shot from the cannon had the desired effect, and stopped the rebels for a little time, who immediately dispersed, and endeavored to surround us being very numerous. As it began now to grow pretty late and we had 15 miles to retire, and only 36 rounds, I ordered the grenadiers and light infantry to move of first; and covered them with my brigade sending out very strong flanking parties which were absolutely very necessary, as there was not a stone wall, or house, though before in appearance evacuated, from whence the rebels did not fire upon us. As soon as they saw us begin to retire, they pressed very much upon our rear guard, which for that reason, I relieved every now and then.
In this manner we retired for 15 miles under incessant fire all round us, till we arrived at Charlestown, between 7 and 8 in the evening and having expended almost all our ammunition. We had the misfortune of losing a good many men in the retreat, though nothing like the number which from many circumstances I have reason to believe were killed of the rebels. His Majesty's troops during the whole of the affair behaved with their usual intrepidity and spirit nor were they a little exasperated at the cruelty and barbarity of the rebels, who scalped and cut off the ears of some of the wounded men who fell into their hands.
While I think that Mr. Katz's writings are crap, the fact of the matter is that the US was founded by a violent revolution, one of the few (if not only) British colonies to engage in such.
The problem with holding Mr. Bove up as a hero is that he is not the victim of 'corporatism' that Mr. Katz would have us believe. He is the victim of a government bureacracy acting to restrain free trade - some thing that multinationals hold abhorent, and the very thing that the anti-corporatists propose in order to protect their petty national self-interests.
Face it folks, globalization is the natural evolution of human society on it's way from tribe, village, city-state, nation towards a real world society. Anything or anyone that tries to fight this is simply a socio-luddite, and is in fact opposing the progress of the human spirit towards a world where the tragic consequences (holocausts, ethnic cleansings, nuclear proliferation) of adherance to petty social groups (i.e. nations) are no longer tenable.
Provisional applications are not examined on their merits. A provisional application will become abandoned by the operation of law twelve months from its filing date.
A provisional application is just that - an application. It is not a patent, and never will become a patent. Most patent attorneys see no use for them at all.
It's interesting to note that with continuations, office actions, and the like, you can extend patent protection well beyond the intended item.
I don't think that is correct. The patent is still only good for 20 years - if you do a continuation of an issued patent you have to disclaim any term that will run beyond the expiration date of the original patent. Nor does it really matter in a case like this. I am sure that there will be newer memory technologies on the market well before these patents expire.
A retrofit from the shuttle could be an answer on an as needed basis. Either fic it or strap on some Wiley Coyote rockets and send it on it's way like "Veger".
The Interstellar Highway Patrol tolerates occasional probes from backward civilizations like us, but wanton littering? NO WAY. First one of these and it's going to be a bad case of 'Klatuu Verada Nicto'.
Geeze, doesn't anyone remember the tortured screams last time gasoline prices went up.10 in the US?
Give me a break. Gas prices are DOUBLE what they were a year ago, and it hurst, not only at the pump, but when the home heating bill comes in, too, or when you see that fuel surcharge on the electric bill.
how would we afford our Ford Expeditions and GM Yukons
I have no sympathy for land yacht owners, of which I am not one.
While I am a firm in the belief that intellectual property rights must be protected to encourage and reward those whose labors result in expression, idea or other creation (in reality the only new things under the sun) because to do otherwise would greatly impoverish our society, I also think that Mr. Bronfman is wrong-headed in his approach towards the protection of these rights.
Privacy is the perhaps the greatest concern of the modern citizen. We already have the spectre of the social security number being used as a national id code, despite the original intent that it not be used as such. There are hearings before congress in progress as we sit considering the problem, and possible legislation that will control the way these numbers are used.
It seems that the greatest failing of the founding fathers was to anticipate the need for privacy in a modern society. But how could they have envisioned the computerized database. Clearly we need an 11th member of the bill of rights to solidify supreme court rulings that have merely given us an imputed right to privacy - one who's strength waxes and wanes depending on the composition of the court.
Without such Citizens have their privacy eroded by technological advances, and as such lose the privacy that the founders intended when they forbid government activities such as unreasonable search and seizure.
There is no more important political issue before us today.
Slashdot Mirror
This article gives a good explanation of how patent laws in the US are being used to stifle innovation.
In no way does this article say any such thing.
How does a competitive advantage translate into stifling innovation? Shouldn't the reward for development of an innovation be in fact a competitive advantage? Isn't the very purpose of industrial research and development to create this advantage. If companies are managing their IP portfolios to achieve this, more power to them, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!!!
Creating a competitive advantage is NOT the same thing as stifling innovation. The entire purpose of a patent is in fact to allow a company to use innovation to gain a competitive advantage. With IP, there would be no reward for the large investments that are often required to develop new technologies. Why would a company like IBM sink a billion dollars per year into it's world class R&D if as soon as they start manufacturing something Ziao-Chin Electronic could copy it and start selling it in competition to IBM??
Folks, hate to throw a damper on your anti-patnet fest here, but the fact of the matter is that anyone with a few bucks in their pocket can file a patent. It's totally different from being granted a patent. When VOS has some granted patents THEN we can start to complain with some real justification.
Also, where does all this stuff about patents hindering innovation come from? Innovation is all about hte development of new ideas, NOT the copying of stuff that has already been done (patented or not). It seems to me that patents in fact encourage innovation by forcing people wanting to compete to develop new original technologies rather than just copying work that has already been done (and paid for in terms of support for R&D and a lot of hard work). Whithout patents all you would have is endless copying as soon as a new idea hit the market, with the inventors getting nothing for their original work.
In open source, who do you sue when the bug loses you money?
I would be very interested to see a documented case of Microsoft or Sun being sued and having to pay consequential damages for a bug in their software. Every license and contract I have seen from these folks SPECIFICALLY excludes responsibility for such.
I do alot of client-side javascript programming for both IE and NetScape. I've always found IE to be MUCH easier and powerful with respect to its implementation of the DOM and what I can do with it. Now I find it is actually more secure too. Why am I using Netscape again? Maybe I don't have any good reasons left.
This is a Java applet, not a Javascript exploit. The fact is that just about any client side scripting has to be implemented perfectly to avoid security problems. This being an imperfect world, I browse with Java and Javascript OFF.
The original purpose of copyright law was not to allow authors to profit from their works, but to protect their right to be identified as the author of their works.
The original purpose was to prevent large publishing houses from publishing the works of authors without renumeration. If there were no copyright laws, do you think Metallica would get paid by Sony Records?
The scientist you described would, in the context of this discussion, be described as technically challenged
Not really. He may well understand the workings and uses of a computer far better than you or I. The issue is that he has no desire to engage the computer on that level in order to send an email message.
I used to lock lots of various files to ensure they didn't get changed, like icon holding files since the icon handling system is somehwhat primitive and easy to mess up (select cut instead of copy and your icon is gone). But when I wanted to delete these it refused to delete them because they were locked, so I had to go through and individually unlock each one.
Extraodinary! On a Mac it is easy to delete locked files, there are a number of ways of doing it, including holding down the option key when emptying the trash. And of course if you cut an icon instead of copying it, you can just paste it right back, or use undo.
This is a perfect example of how even the easiest to use interface still presents challenges. And people are talking about 3D interfaces and all that. What is really needed is adaptive interfaces; interfaces that recognize what the use is TRYING to do, and adapt themselves effectively to even simple tasks. What we don't need is complexity, rather adaptability.
The pro-Mac principles target the wretched masses who are so technically challenged, no?
NO.
The purpose of the Mac user interface is to enable the user who is not inclined to spend time needlessly learning technical minutia when he could be using the computer as a tool towards other ends. The point of computers is not computers, but as tools to be used to accomplish a wide variety of tasks.
It has nothing to do with whether or not you are technically challenged; I have worked with brilliant scientists who have no use for computers other than simple tasks like email and writing papers. It is about whether you see the computer as an end or as a means.
Sure, you can find a lot more sucky PC cases then you can find sucky Mac cases, but you'll find a lot more PC cases period, too.
The problem, like you say, is finding a good PC case. It's easy to find a good Mac case, while no more than 5-10% of PC's sold have anything that is close to acceptable. I am saddled with a Compaq Presario at work, and that thing SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS compared to the Mac that sits next door to me.
rather than the perpetual also ran they've become.
Don't confuse market share with influence. They are two very different things.
Maybe you want to look at imap servers like Cyrus.
Maybe these folks will have a great product, but if their product is anything like thier web site, they are going to be a great company to avoid like the plague. No place to send in questions, no comment forms, sitty design with loads of slow loading graphics and no actual content.
Not only that, if you cor to their home page without flash all you get is a blue screen of death. Cretins.
Whoever put this web site together is definitely in search of their first clue.
Blood cells, T-cells and similar are 5 microns. Most animal cells are about 10 microns.
l s/cells/cells2.html
See:
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutoria
In any case, nanotechnology means exactly that - manipulation on the scale of a nanometer. This is manipulation on the scale of a millimeter, with the objects being handled actually visible to the naked eye. Not even close.
McDonald's isn't going door-to-door confiscating guns, nor are they placing people in prison for refusing to pay taxes.
Neither was the poor merchant whose tea was thrown in the harbor.
These things are FAR from being nanotechnology. Cells are on the order of 1 micron; these robots are nearly 1000 times the size of a cell. In terms of volume, 10^6 times larger. The 200 micrometer glass beads are HUGE compared to the size of cell.
Nano technology implies manufacturing on the scale of the nanometer; these are performing tasks on the MILLIMETER scale, six orders of magnitude larger. Hell, if you looked closely I bet you could see these guys at work with the naked eye.
Since when did terrorism and vandalism become American values?
Since April 19, 1775.
Don't they teach American history in schools? What was the Boston Tea Party but an act of vanadalism??
In obedience to your Excellency's orders, I marched yesterday morning at 9 o'clock with the 1st brigade and two field pieces in order to cover the retreat of the grenadiers and light infantry in their return from their expedition to Concord.
As all the houses were shut up, and there was not the appearance of a single inhabitant, I could get no intelligence concerning them till I had passed Menotomy when I was informed that the rebels had attacked his Majesty's troops who were retiring, overpowered by numbers, greatly exhausted and fatigued, and having expended almost all their ammunition - and at about 2 o'clock I met them retiring rough the town of Lexington - I immediately ordered the 2 field pieces to fire at the rebels, and drew up the brigade on a height.
The shot from the cannon had the desired effect, and stopped the rebels for a little time, who immediately dispersed, and endeavored to surround us being very numerous. As it began now to grow pretty late and we had 15 miles to retire, and only 36 rounds, I ordered the grenadiers and light infantry to move of first; and covered them with my brigade sending out very strong flanking parties which were absolutely very necessary, as there was not a stone wall, or house, though before in appearance evacuated, from whence the rebels did not fire upon us. As soon as they saw us begin to retire, they pressed very much upon our rear guard, which for that reason, I relieved
every now and then.
In this manner we retired for 15 miles under incessant fire all round us, till we arrived at Charlestown, between 7 and 8 in the evening and having expended almost all our ammunition. We had the misfortune of losing a good many men in the retreat, though nothing like the number which from many circumstances I have reason to believe were killed of the rebels. His Majesty's troops during the whole of the affair behaved with their usual intrepidity and spirit nor were they a little exasperated at the cruelty and barbarity of the rebels, who scalped and cut off the ears of some of the wounded men who fell into their hands.
While I think that Mr. Katz's writings are crap, the fact of the matter is that the US was founded by a violent revolution, one of the few (if not only) British colonies to engage in such.
The problem with holding Mr. Bove up as a hero is that he is not the victim of 'corporatism' that Mr. Katz would have us believe. He is the victim of a government bureacracy acting to restrain free trade - some thing that multinationals hold abhorent, and the very thing that the anti-corporatists propose in order to protect their petty national self-interests.
Face it folks, globalization is the natural evolution of human society on it's way from tribe, village, city-state, nation towards a real world society. Anything or anyone that tries to fight this is simply a socio-luddite, and is in fact opposing the progress of the human spirit towards a world where the tragic consequences (holocausts, ethnic cleansings, nuclear proliferation) of adherance to petty social groups (i.e. nations)
are no longer tenable.
THINK, DAMMIT!
granted on a subsequently filed non-provisional application which relies on the filing date of the provisional application.
These things are renewable, too, I think. Me no lawyer.
Patents are NOT renewable
Provisional applications are not examined on their merits. A provisional application will become abandoned by the operation of law twelve months from its filing date.
A provisional application is just that - an application. It is not a patent, and never will become a patent. Most patent attorneys see no use for them at all.
It's interesting to note that with continuations, office actions, and the like, you can extend patent protection well beyond the intended item.
I don't think that is correct. The patent is still only good for 20 years - if you do a continuation of an issued patent you have to disclaim any term that will run beyond the expiration date of the original patent. Nor does it really matter in a case like this. I am sure that there will be newer memory technologies on the market well before these patents expire.
A retrofit from the shuttle could be an answer on an as needed basis. Either fic it or strap on some Wiley Coyote rockets and send it on it's way like "Veger".
The Interstellar Highway Patrol tolerates occasional probes from backward civilizations like us, but wanton littering? NO WAY. First one of these and it's going to be a bad case of 'Klatuu Verada Nicto'.
The rumor got started because there is a mention of Althon motherboard problems in RedHat's hardware compatability list.
Geeze, doesn't anyone remember the tortured screams last time gasoline prices went up .10 in the US?
Give me a break. Gas prices are DOUBLE what they were a year ago, and it hurst, not only at the pump, but when the home heating bill comes in, too, or when you see that fuel surcharge on the electric bill.
how would we afford our Ford Expeditions and GM Yukons
I have no sympathy for land yacht owners, of which I am not one.
If the contract price for a stick of 64M PC100 SDRAM is $6,
The article said 64 MB chip; I am sure they meant a 64 Mb chip, of which it takes 8 to make a 64 MB DIMM.
While I am a firm in the belief that intellectual property rights must be protected to encourage and reward those whose labors result in expression, idea or other creation (in reality the only new things under the sun) because to do otherwise would greatly impoverish our society, I also think that Mr. Bronfman is wrong-headed in his approach towards the protection of these rights.
Privacy is the perhaps the greatest concern of the modern citizen. We already have the spectre of the social security number being used as a national id code, despite the original intent that it not be used as such. There are hearings before congress in progress as we sit considering the problem, and possible legislation that will control the way these numbers are used.
It seems that the greatest failing of the founding fathers was to anticipate the need for privacy in a modern society. But how could they have envisioned the computerized database. Clearly we need an 11th member of the bill of rights to solidify supreme court rulings that have merely given us an imputed right to privacy - one who's strength waxes and wanes depending on the composition of the court.
Without such Citizens have their privacy eroded by technological advances, and as such lose the privacy that the founders intended when they forbid government activities such as unreasonable search and seizure.
There is no more important political issue before us today.