I can see a justification for fixed size packets though. Still, nice to have the flexibility. My other thought is that you should have a gateway with a short address and anything that uses it a longer address. E.g. find some way to have 123.45 as your gateway, and 123.45.1 through 123.45.256 as machines on the subnet. Maybe just zero terminate the addresses.
I thought it might have been possible to do some sort of nested packet idea. Something like 0-7FFFFFFF are global addresses, 80000000-FFFFFFFF are local subnets allocated as the administrator sees fit.
So either each can be an individual machine, or there could be a second, third or greater level of subnet. Each level only need to understand how the level below it works.
You encapsulate a local subnet packet as part o the packet. Top level then sends that to the right place. No idea how the "from" address would work though.
I see why I'm confused. Yes. You're right, because you're talking about whether a product infringes. I'm not talking about whether you're infringing. I'm talking about whether the claims are valid in the first place.
A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim.
The claims narrow the scope. Claim 1 is "A retail paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of white paper with at least 60% post-consumer content".
Claim 4 is the narrower claim of "A retail paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of white paper with at least 60% post-consumer content comprising a reinforcement insert adhered to an interior of the bag container"
Claim 5 is the even narrower claim of "A retail paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of white paper with at least 60% post-consumer content comprising a reinforcement insert adhered to an interior of the bag container, wherein the reinforcement insert is adhered across a fold of the bag container"
So while the broad claim may not be valid, a dependant claim of narrower scope may well be. This is not about whether a product infringes. In this case, a product can't infringe claim 5 without also infringing claims 4 and 1. But if claims 1 and 4 are shown to be invalid due to obviousness, 5 is not.
Why would they add an oxygen tank? There's oxygen in the air!
A hydrogen fuel tank exploding will be quite a fireball, for sure, but hydrogen tanks are pretty tough. And even if they do explode, there's only so much energy stored. Not enough to affect anything that hasn't already been affected by a train barelling into it.
It does strike me as inconvenient. Per MJ, methane at 250 bar takes up as much space as hydrogen at 700 bar, and many other hydrocarbons are liquid at room temperature. Plus natural gas already has a distribution network installed. Plus it already exists as a chemical in nature; so that's zero reactions.
I guess the inherent efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells makes up for all the other costs. Fuel cells do have excellent efficiency.
Diesel trains are diesel electric. There's the added inefficiency of diesel-electricity conversion. Fuel cells convert directly to electricity. Energy to wheel efficiency with power cells is pretty good.
Very little commercial hydrogen comes from water. It's cheaper to get it from natural gas. Problem remains (You'll be better off using the methane to power a power station), but I think it's important to be aware of this if we're discussing the relative benefits..
These trains are designed for low volume routes where catenary would be expensive. Still, I'd have thought there are more convenient fuel sources. Hydrogen has excellent energy density by mass, but it's terrible by volume. Presumably hydrogen is just best for fuel cells.
Yes you're right. It should probably be repealed or amended. But the amendment still remains, and I can't say it's a good idea for fundamental laws to be ignored in this way.
I think only the hardcore gamers will be upgrading from their existing PS4/XBOnes. Others may see this as a justification to own both systems. PS3 and XB360 owners don't have a huge justification for sticking to the same brand, except brand loyalty, since the new systems aren't compatible.
Claim 5 is "A retail paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of white paper with at least 60% post-consumer content comprising a reinforcement insert adhered to an interior of the bag container, wherein the reinforcement insert is adhered across a fold of the bag container"
If claims 1 to 4 are invalid, but you also have a reinforcement insert adhered across a fold of the bag container, then you are infringing claim 5. The only time claim 1 will come in here is if your product is not a bag formed of at least 60% post-consumer content.
For a patent to be valid, each and every independent claim must stand on its own, with no support.
Nope. Completely wrong. For a patent to be invalid, all of those claims must by invalid. Claim 2 is a completely different invention from claim 1. If an invention violated claim 17 and no other it infringes the patent
The paper bag in claim 1 is the paper bag as described in the description. The claim doesn't go into description because it is just explaining what the patent claims. That is; it claims the white paper bag described in the description.
They didn't patent a paper bag. They did patent a specific design to make a paper bag with increased strength. The patent is not on using paper to make a bag. This is not how patents work. Patents protect specific techniques. This is what the patent is protecting.
The patent is on the idea of making a bag out of paper. It is about a specific method of constructing the bag to allow for sufficient strength.
The current design of paper bag solves this by not using recycled paper. Apple have developed a different method that allows the use of recycled paper.
Those laws are a nice idea for fiction, but for reality they're wrong.
The first law has the "or through inaction" rule which means that the robot would rarely do what you want it to do because it would be constantly rushing around saving lives.
The second and third law are the wrong way round. If I instruct my expensive robot car to jump off a cliff, I prefer it to get to the edge of the cliff and stop. Most hardware has built in limitations of this type. For example, my car has a rev limiter which allows it to ignore my instruction to the engine to potentially damage itself.
It should only obey orders given to it by a specific subset of humans. If I send my robot out to the shops, I don't want everyone else borrowing it to do their odd jobs.
SLAPP laws only exist in 28 states. so they could probably find justification to sue in one of the non-SLAPP states. Although at this point I'd say this is way too speculative. There's no way to know if Mylan would do any of this.
First of all, the EpiPen is certainly covered by some sort of patent, so Mylan is going to sue them into the middle ages for infringing on their patents.
Epi-pens have been around long enough that it's possible to make one based on expired patents. I guess this doesn't necessarily mean Mylan won't sue. It wouldn't be the first time a company files a frivolous lawsuit for harassment purposes.
The other two points I agree with, especially the regulation one. Litigation can perhaps be insured against although that adds even more regulation cost. Loads of companies could easily do this, but they need to be sure to sell enough to cover the fixed costs. The reason they don't is that Mylan has way too much competitive advantage (regulation costs are already paid) to make it worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess the disk is never removed. The grime has to penetrate about 3 inches into a narrow slot to cause problems.
A post from a long long time ago.
When men were real men. Women were real women and Trolls were real trolls!
SQL and any reasonably modern programming language (or even some of the older ones) is pretty useful, a long as you know your database stuff.
I can see a justification for fixed size packets though. Still, nice to have the flexibility. My other thought is that you should have a gateway with a short address and anything that uses it a longer address. E.g. find some way to have 123.45 as your gateway, and 123.45.1 through 123.45.256 as machines on the subnet. Maybe just zero terminate the addresses.
I thought it might have been possible to do some sort of nested packet idea. Something like 0-7FFFFFFF are global addresses, 80000000-FFFFFFFF are local subnets allocated as the administrator sees fit. So either each can be an individual machine, or there could be a second, third or greater level of subnet. Each level only need to understand how the level below it works.
You encapsulate a local subnet packet as part o the packet. Top level then sends that to the right place. No idea how the "from" address would work though.
So, if he is, you have the right to destroy the truck?
Sorry. Reread what you said in previous comment.
I see why I'm confused. Yes. You're right, because you're talking about whether a product infringes. I'm not talking about whether you're infringing. I'm talking about whether the claims are valid in the first place.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/282
The claims narrow the scope. Claim 1 is "A retail paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of white paper with at least 60% post-consumer content".
Claim 4 is the narrower claim of "A retail paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of white paper with at least 60% post-consumer content comprising a reinforcement insert adhered to an interior of the bag container"
Claim 5 is the even narrower claim of "A retail paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of white paper with at least 60% post-consumer content comprising a reinforcement insert adhered to an interior of the bag container, wherein the reinforcement insert is adhered across a fold of the bag container"
So while the broad claim may not be valid, a dependant claim of narrower scope may well be. This is not about whether a product infringes. In this case, a product can't infringe claim 5 without also infringing claims 4 and 1. But if claims 1 and 4 are shown to be invalid due to obviousness, 5 is not.
Why would they add an oxygen tank? There's oxygen in the air!
A hydrogen fuel tank exploding will be quite a fireball, for sure, but hydrogen tanks are pretty tough. And even if they do explode, there's only so much energy stored. Not enough to affect anything that hasn't already been affected by a train barelling into it.
It does strike me as inconvenient. Per MJ, methane at 250 bar takes up as much space as hydrogen at 700 bar, and many other hydrocarbons are liquid at room temperature. Plus natural gas already has a distribution network installed. Plus it already exists as a chemical in nature; so that's zero reactions.
I guess the inherent efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells makes up for all the other costs. Fuel cells do have excellent efficiency.
I can't see a wire here. Electrifying a line is expensive. Unless the line gets enough use it's cheaper for trains to carry their own fuel.
Diesel trains are diesel electric. There's the added inefficiency of diesel-electricity conversion. Fuel cells convert directly to electricity. Energy to wheel efficiency with power cells is pretty good.
Very little commercial hydrogen comes from water. It's cheaper to get it from natural gas. Problem remains (You'll be better off using the methane to power a power station), but I think it's important to be aware of this if we're discussing the relative benefits. .
These trains are designed for low volume routes where catenary would be expensive. Still, I'd have thought there are more convenient fuel sources. Hydrogen has excellent energy density by mass, but it's terrible by volume. Presumably hydrogen is just best for fuel cells.
Yes you're right. It should probably be repealed or amended. But the amendment still remains, and I can't say it's a good idea for fundamental laws to be ignored in this way.
Doubt that will have much of an effect.
I think only the hardcore gamers will be upgrading from their existing PS4/XBOnes. Others may see this as a justification to own both systems. PS3 and XB360 owners don't have a huge justification for sticking to the same brand, except brand loyalty, since the new systems aren't compatible.
That's not how it works at all.
Claim 5 is "A retail paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of white paper with at least 60% post-consumer content comprising a reinforcement insert adhered to an interior of the bag container, wherein the reinforcement insert is adhered across a fold of the bag container"
If claims 1 to 4 are invalid, but you also have a reinforcement insert adhered across a fold of the bag container, then you are infringing claim 5. The only time claim 1 will come in here is if your product is not a bag formed of at least 60% post-consumer content.
Nope. Completely wrong. For a patent to be invalid, all of those claims must by invalid. Claim 2 is a completely different invention from claim 1. If an invention violated claim 17 and no other it infringes the patent
The paper bag in claim 1 is the paper bag as described in the description. The claim doesn't go into description because it is just explaining what the patent claims. That is; it claims the white paper bag described in the description.
They didn't patent a paper bag. They did patent a specific design to make a paper bag with increased strength. The patent is not on using paper to make a bag. This is not how patents work. Patents protect specific techniques. This is what the patent is protecting.
The patent is on the idea of making a bag out of paper. It is about a specific method of constructing the bag to allow for sufficient strength.
The current design of paper bag solves this by not using recycled paper. Apple have developed a different method that allows the use of recycled paper.
Those laws are a nice idea for fiction, but for reality they're wrong.
The first law has the "or through inaction" rule which means that the robot would rarely do what you want it to do because it would be constantly rushing around saving lives.
The second and third law are the wrong way round. If I instruct my expensive robot car to jump off a cliff, I prefer it to get to the edge of the cliff and stop. Most hardware has built in limitations of this type. For example, my car has a rev limiter which allows it to ignore my instruction to the engine to potentially damage itself.
It should only obey orders given to it by a specific subset of humans. If I send my robot out to the shops, I don't want everyone else borrowing it to do their odd jobs.
Usual disclaimer: IANAL...
SLAPP laws only exist in 28 states. so they could probably find justification to sue in one of the non-SLAPP states. Although at this point I'd say this is way too speculative. There's no way to know if Mylan would do any of this.
Epi-pens have been around long enough that it's possible to make one based on expired patents. I guess this doesn't necessarily mean Mylan won't sue. It wouldn't be the first time a company files a frivolous lawsuit for harassment purposes.
The other two points I agree with, especially the regulation one. Litigation can perhaps be insured against although that adds even more regulation cost. Loads of companies could easily do this, but they need to be sure to sell enough to cover the fixed costs. The reason they don't is that Mylan has way too much competitive advantage (regulation costs are already paid) to make it worthwhile.
Can't see "exclusive" anywhere in the article, except in an unrelated aspect regarding copyrights and patents, and in legislation over DC itself.
If the intent was to give congress this power exclusively, it seems remarkable careless of the normally proficient framers not to make this explict.
Surely that clause just grants Congress the right to do mint coins. It doesn't seem to outlaw other entities from doing so.
That's true. I was thinking more about distribution.
Since the whole point of this video is to format shift it, I think you're definitely right. Netflix wouldn't choose a licence that prevents that.