Funny you should mention Ford, since Way Back When, a troll was threatening owners of Ford automobiles with lawsuits. In the end, it turned out that the troll's patent didn't apply.
Mod parent up, patent infringement has a statute of limitations of six years. If the patent holder can show you were violating the patent while it was active they have six years to do something about it, assuming that they don't wait years after finding out you violated their patent and triggering laches.
I don't think you should be discussing a legal threat in a public forum.
Why, at least as long as he doesn't say "i'm guilty as hell, what can I do to get away with it?"
Personally, I'm interested in knowing if his company actually has anything to do with WiFi, though the answer to that might be dangerously close to "I'm guilty as hell, what can I do to get away with it?" Just reading the submission makes it sound like he got hit by one of those little shits that was going around sending threatening letters to companies about sharing scanned documents, whether they did or not.
Wow, you mean he's wrong and the Cessna would fly awesome and not just fall to the ground?
Our Cessna 172 isn’t up to the challenge. Launched from 1 km, it doesn’t build up enough speed to pull out of a dive, and plows into the Martian terrain at over 60 m/s (135 mph). If dropped from four or five kilometers, it could gain enough speed to pull up into a glide—at over half the speed of sound. The landing would not be survivable.
Glad we had you here to set things right. I'm going to get started on my plan to fly to Mars!
when you use up an item, have it synch to the cloud, and be able to see the list on your phone when you shop.
This is an awesome idea. I can't count the number of times I get back from the store only to discover that I have a quarter cup of milk left in the jug.
Too bad nobody invents anything anymore. We'll never be able to have a fridge that can tell whats in it without someone having to scan bar codes all the time.
If I create super-smart software emulating protein folding using some new concepts, allowing it to quickly solve all current problems, should it be non-patentable just based on grounds that that concept exists in physical reality for billion+ years?
Personally I think a lot of the software patents (like this one) should be killed, but not because they're software patents. If someone can read your patent and create the software that emulates protein folding using those new concepts, then you've advanced the arts and sciences and the Constitution says that to promote that, we should give you a monopoly on it.
Now, read the patent in question and tell me where it explains how to detect that a geometric shape has been drawn in a certain direction, and whether the geometric shape is the one stored in memory. The "how to" part is completely absent from the patent. It fails to advance the arts and sciences, and therefore society should owe its author nothing.
Not only that, Claim 1 doesn't even claim it has to be a certain geometric pattern, it's not until Claim 2 that it checks to see if the pattern is the "right" pattern.
The patent has no informative properties at all. It does not explain any process or algorithms used to ie detect that a finger is moving on the screen, which direction its moving in, what shape it draws, whether the shape is "close enough" to the shape in memory etc (though to be fair claim #1 doesn't even check the shape, only that a shape was drawn, claim #2 is to check the shape and deny access if it's wrong). If all of the above is obvious to someone of regular skill in the art, then the claims should be invalid as obvious. If it is not obvious to someone of regular skill in the art, then the patent fails to live up to the Constitutional mandate to advance the sciences and arts by not disclosing how these claims are to be achieved, and if current patent law does not make the patent invalid on this basis, then patent law should be changed to comply with the Consitution.
I tried it in chrome, and if you click the map/satellite icon to toggle back and forth, the river quite clearly moves back and forth by about the width of the river. Its easier to see the problem if you go west a tiny bit from China's side of the border where there's visible roads and buildings on the satellite image and the map image shows the same roads but farther east. The landmass on the NK side of the line looks more like a sandbar than an island so its probably less defined at high tide (the map version is a lot smaller than the satellite version, especially on the south side of the island.
The country border marking lines up nicely with the canals dug in the satellite map and doesn't move between the two maps (the canals themselves move), so I'm thinking that the "map" version is off.
I'm tempted to say that what will happen is that emissions will be cut through heavy-handed government interference, global warming won't be so bad after the cuts, and we'll have people saying that there was never a problem in the first place. Much like how in 2000 the y2k deniers were claiming that there was never a y2k problem despite the millions of dollars and man-hours going into making sure there wasn't a y2k problem (and yet I was still getting groceries marked "Best By 19100")
After all, if all else were equal, you'd need twice as many people to support twice as many people.
All else isn't equal. Productivity increases in the last few decades completely put the lie to this, with productivity increasing the most during labor gluts (after all, if the boss comes to you and tells you to do twice the work or they'll find someone else in all those twice as many people, what are you going to do?)
is because Verizon agreed to the $200 price SO LONG AS you signed a 2 year agreement
And the contract has clear and voluntary termination terms, which include paying the remaining $400 to Verizon if you decide to quit early. Once someone chooses to terminate the contract and fulfills the termination terms, why should they be beholden to Verizon?
Most true conservatives would prefer lower taxes and the fewer services that comes with it.
The problem is that most "true conservatives" are too scared of the gays to actually do anything about it. The tea party might have gotten somewhere if they had stood on their own but it lasted just a few months before running back to the social conservatives to comfort them by telling them how gays caused all of America's problems. Apparently all deficits are caused by "Moral Decay" and as long as at least two guys are getting it on with each other, Medicare spending will continue to spiral out of control.
Gays aside, here in Texas the Republicans thump their chest about free markets and little government, but despite their unity they just can't find time to stop the government from coming in and making sure you can't buy a car on Sunday.
I'm not talking about the lip service. I'm talking about what people actually do.
What the fuck does "what people actually do" have to do with anything? It's already been shown that "reasonable expectation of privacy" has absolutely nothing to do with what human beings actually expect in any given situation, so why does it matter what we do when the government will decide that privacy means whatever is convenient for them.
To be honest, people who called themselves "the cloud" were the pets.com of the post-dot-bomb era. "The cloud" existed before it became a buzzword, and it will continue to exist afterwards for the use cases where it makes sense.
Slashdot Mirror
If Ford were infringing on a Toyota hubcap patent
Funny you should mention Ford, since Way Back When, a troll was threatening owners of Ford automobiles with lawsuits. In the end, it turned out that the troll's patent didn't apply.
Mod parent up, patent infringement has a statute of limitations of six years. If the patent holder can show you were violating the patent while it was active they have six years to do something about it, assuming that they don't wait years after finding out you violated their patent and triggering laches.
Let's just broadcast hundreds of gigs of known cleartext through our encryption stream
No problems, the drone video streams are unencrypted.
I don't think you should be discussing a legal threat in a public forum.
Why, at least as long as he doesn't say "i'm guilty as hell, what can I do to get away with it?"
Personally, I'm interested in knowing if his company actually has anything to do with WiFi, though the answer to that might be dangerously close to "I'm guilty as hell, what can I do to get away with it?" Just reading the submission makes it sound like he got hit by one of those little shits that was going around sending threatening letters to companies about sharing scanned documents, whether they did or not.
Wow, you mean he's wrong and the Cessna would fly awesome and not just fall to the ground?
Glad we had you here to set things right. I'm going to get started on my plan to fly to Mars!
scan a bar code when you use up an item
Scanning is a pain in the ass.
when you use up an item, have it synch to the cloud, and be able to see the list on your phone when you shop.
This is an awesome idea. I can't count the number of times I get back from the store only to discover that I have a quarter cup of milk left in the jug.
Too bad nobody invents anything anymore. We'll never be able to have a fridge that can tell whats in it without someone having to scan bar codes all the time.
If I create super-smart software emulating protein folding using some new concepts, allowing it to quickly solve all current problems, should it be non-patentable just based on grounds that that concept exists in physical reality for billion+ years?
Personally I think a lot of the software patents (like this one) should be killed, but not because they're software patents. If someone can read your patent and create the software that emulates protein folding using those new concepts, then you've advanced the arts and sciences and the Constitution says that to promote that, we should give you a monopoly on it.
Now, read the patent in question and tell me where it explains how to detect that a geometric shape has been drawn in a certain direction, and whether the geometric shape is the one stored in memory. The "how to" part is completely absent from the patent. It fails to advance the arts and sciences, and therefore society should owe its author nothing.
Not only that, Claim 1 doesn't even claim it has to be a certain geometric pattern, it's not until Claim 2 that it checks to see if the pattern is the "right" pattern.
You've heard of the plagues right?
You mean the one that was caused by them witch cats, right?
Just send him an email and ask him what he knows about Lincoln, Abraham.
I saw that movie about him! He was a pretty kick-ass vampire hunter!
The patent has no informative properties at all. It does not explain any process or algorithms used to ie detect that a finger is moving on the screen, which direction its moving in, what shape it draws, whether the shape is "close enough" to the shape in memory etc (though to be fair claim #1 doesn't even check the shape, only that a shape was drawn, claim #2 is to check the shape and deny access if it's wrong). If all of the above is obvious to someone of regular skill in the art, then the claims should be invalid as obvious. If it is not obvious to someone of regular skill in the art, then the patent fails to live up to the Constitutional mandate to advance the sciences and arts by not disclosing how these claims are to be achieved, and if current patent law does not make the patent invalid on this basis, then patent law should be changed to comply with the Consitution.
Nothing screams "affluence" like stretch Hummers.
I tried it in chrome, and if you click the map/satellite icon to toggle back and forth, the river quite clearly moves back and forth by about the width of the river. Its easier to see the problem if you go west a tiny bit from China's side of the border where there's visible roads and buildings on the satellite image and the map image shows the same roads but farther east. The landmass on the NK side of the line looks more like a sandbar than an island so its probably less defined at high tide (the map version is a lot smaller than the satellite version, especially on the south side of the island.
The country border marking lines up nicely with the canals dug in the satellite map and doesn't move between the two maps (the canals themselves move), so I'm thinking that the "map" version is off.
it's a question of "how bad will it become".
The answer is "it depends on what we do now".
I'm tempted to say that what will happen is that emissions will be cut through heavy-handed government interference, global warming won't be so bad after the cuts, and we'll have people saying that there was never a problem in the first place. Much like how in 2000 the y2k deniers were claiming that there was never a y2k problem despite the millions of dollars and man-hours going into making sure there wasn't a y2k problem (and yet I was still getting groceries marked "Best By 19100")
After all, if all else were equal, you'd need twice as many people to support twice as many people.
All else isn't equal. Productivity increases in the last few decades completely put the lie to this, with productivity increasing the most during labor gluts (after all, if the boss comes to you and tells you to do twice the work or they'll find someone else in all those twice as many people, what are you going to do?)
is because Verizon agreed to the $200 price SO LONG AS you signed a 2 year agreement
And the contract has clear and voluntary termination terms, which include paying the remaining $400 to Verizon if you decide to quit early. Once someone chooses to terminate the contract and fulfills the termination terms, why should they be beholden to Verizon?
Do I want to live in a nanny-state where people try to ban toys in happy meals?
Good point! You should come to Texas where we have a sky-daddy state where the government keeps you from buying cars on Sunday.
I think it begs the question of whether we should care what the technical terms mean.
If you believe in progressive taxes, then states with citizens that earn more than average will pay more taxes. Quit complaining.
If I don't, then states with citizens that earn more than average will pay less taxes?
What happens if I change my mind, repeatedly, while they're trying to fill out their tax paperwork?
Most true conservatives would prefer lower taxes and the fewer services that comes with it.
The problem is that most "true conservatives" are too scared of the gays to actually do anything about it. The tea party might have gotten somewhere if they had stood on their own but it lasted just a few months before running back to the social conservatives to comfort them by telling them how gays caused all of America's problems. Apparently all deficits are caused by "Moral Decay" and as long as at least two guys are getting it on with each other, Medicare spending will continue to spiral out of control.
Gays aside, here in Texas the Republicans thump their chest about free markets and little government, but despite their unity they just can't find time to stop the government from coming in and making sure you can't buy a car on Sunday.
What the fuck does "what people actually do" have to do with anything? It's already been shown that "reasonable expectation of privacy" has absolutely nothing to do with what human beings actually expect in any given situation, so why does it matter what we do when the government will decide that privacy means whatever is convenient for them.
A virus would just be statically linked.
You'd think that, but for a long time the first sign that you've been hacked is that when you run "ls" it segfaults.
I guess this barrier was just for flexible cells?
To be honest, people who called themselves "the cloud" were the pets.com of the post-dot-bomb era. "The cloud" existed before it became a buzzword, and it will continue to exist afterwards for the use cases where it makes sense.
Get out! Get out now! This post is coming from inside The Cloud!
It would be interesting to compare that to, say