. It's to identify which doors he should be able to unlock and which he shouldn't have access to. Millions of people were RFID name badges every day. Thousands of businesses require them.
Why would you use a technology designed to enable remote scanning to control physical access? What's wrong with a barcoded badge, or a magnetic strip swipe card? Such devices have been in use for access control for at least twenty years now, and work reliably and don't have sever privacy issues.
RFID can be read remotely by somebody you aren't aware of. It can be used automatically to cause actions based on the presence of named individuals, if you can get hold of their ID numbers. My concern? It could be used as an individually targeted bomb trigger. I don't think this is paranoia. Sooner or later, if we continue using RFID identity tags for people, particularly visitors to important diplomatic sites who are, I suspect, much more likely targets for terrorist attack than just about anyone else, this will happen.
People who hate the jerk play underhanded amazon tricks to sabotage book on Amazon.com
I don't see how filing a review of a book that contains what is self-evidently an unfounded argument that claims that the argument of the book is unfounded is underhanded. It's what the review system is there for, right?
The exclusive license will probably have a termination clause, after which all rights return to the owner. This would probably happen, for instance, if the site closed down.
The exclusive license probably doesn't cover other media (e.g. novels or movies of the same story) thus allowing the owner to sell such rights independently.
Exclusive licensing is definitely the better option for anyone who has it.
Try to prove it. Either you will be able to prove the falsehood, or you are guilty of a criminal offense.
Firstly, the GP post suggested that all falsehoods were unprovable. This is clearly false, and my proof by example proved it.
But more relevantly to this case, from the point of view of a court of law, an adequate way of proving this would be to get my wife to take the stand and tell the court that I had never beaten her. Then, unless the opposing litigant could provide evidence to the contrary, this would be believed.
Libel is a civil issue, and 'absolute proof' of the kind needed for criminal trials is not required. The rules of evidence are much more relaxed.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Sorry, it can't be done. If the statement "You beat your wife" were made, the person making the statement (in a libel case, the defendent) would have to prove it. It would not be your place to prove what may well be unprovable -- its opposite.
Note that the post I was replying to stated that it would be up to the plaintiff to prove it, which is clearly wrong (although that is, I understand, the US system). It was this apparent contradiction that was the main thrust of my post.
I also have no knowledge of the Canadian legal system, but I'll give you the benefit of my experience of a more enlightened one (British).
1. It is possible to represent yourself, and this isn't actively discouraged. You need to know the law reasonably well, but you could probably pick up what you need to handle a case like this in a couple of weeks.
2. Even if you decide this isn't for you, many lawyers would be prepared to defend you on a conditional fee arrangement (i.e., if they lose there is no charge, if they win they ask the court to make an award of costs against the claimant to cover their fees).
3. Even if you can't find a lawyer under this arrangment, most home contents insurance and life insurance packages have a 'legal costs' insurance cover attached to them, so a large majority of people are able to claim what they need to defend themselves like this.
Legal systems don't have to work the way the US one does.
"There is also evidence of construction workers drinking on the job at this location. A set of two beer bottles was found beside a home being built by Eastforest Homes."
Eastforest Homes could successfully sue her for libel over this comment, She has no proof that they were:
* consumed while the workers were "on the job". drinking after work isn't illegal!
* consumed by an employee of Eastforest Homes.
* consumed on the building site. a builder could of had a couple of empty bottles in his car from the weekend and removed them from his vehicle
While all those points are true, it doesn't make the comment libellous. Note that she doesn't say that Eastforest Homes employees were drinking on the job -- just that there is evidence that suggests they were.
Unless you can prove that she (1) didn't find the beer bottles she claims to have done, or (2) that it is unreasonable to believe this to be evidence of what she claims, then there is no way this is should be a libellous comment. She's just pointing out a fact and how she interprets it.
Since a falsehood cannot be proven, the burden must fall on the plaintiff.
Simple logic.
Huh?
1. It is not impossible to prove a falsehood. For instance, I can say "2 == 3" and it is pretty easy to prove that statement false.
2. The plaintiff is the one who is claiming that the statement is false. By your logic, this would ensure that no libel case ever succeeded. Why is this even desirable?
This barrier makes it very difficult and expensive for citizens and reporters in other countries to report on anything.
Funny. I've not noticed that this has stopped the UK press from reporting controversial stories. Here's the important bit: it just stops groundless speculations, but as soon as somebody has a firm source for a story, then it can be successfully published.
I don't want to read groundless speculation reported as if it were news. The truth is not hard to establish in court. In fact, all you need to do is present your story in the following fashion:
"Sources close to [person you are talking about] informed us today that [potentially libellous statement about the person]."
This is trivially easy to defend in court, because all you have to do is provide reasonable evidence that suggests that those sources might have said so. Usually, you can even get away without naming the sources, but just providing credible evidence that they exist.
Disclaimer: IANAL, nor am I a journalist; just someone who pays close attention to UK free speech issues.
Yes, but AFAIK Canada is not one of them. From the article you cite: As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada also follows English law on defamation issues (although the law in the province of Quebec has different roots).
There is one more thing to worry about - the particular patent abounds with junk terms like "vacuum pressure".
This would be a problem if this particular term were "junk", but it isn't. It's a well known term in the field of quantum electrodynamics. See, for instance, this document which provides a defintion.
You know, a few moments with google would have told you this.
That quote doesn't address what the GP post was about, I'm afraid. It basically states that a patent applicant can provide definitions in his application for words that he uses there. GP was talking about the use of the phrase "vacuum pressure" without any definition provided.
When you cover a song, you owe ASCAP, BMI and other fees
The interesting question is, when you cover a cover and pay the appropriate fees to ASCAP et al, how do they determine who to pay royalties to?
E.g., consider the recent cover of the song "Light My Fire" by Will Young, which was a cover not of the original version by the Doors, but of another cover by Jose Feliciano.
I think the problem there is that a lot of us read your phrasing "Star Wars movie-specific game titles" and parsed it as if it were "Star Wars franchise game titles". I know I did, and suspect the AC and those who modded him up all did. The distinction's a subtle one, and I think the way you phrased it understated it. Perhaps "Star Wars game titles based on a single movie" would be a clearer way of putting it.
Stoning isn't required. The only thing is that they shall be "put to death".
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
I'd recommend reading Leviticus. It's very enlightening.:)
Replying to myself to point out a movie that uses a plot that would definitely be covered by the patent if granted: 13 Going on 30.
If the patent were granted, the producer of that movie would likely have to pay royalties each time it was shown, and for each DVD of it distributed. I don't think it would qualify as prior art, though, because its date of release is after the patent filing date.
The plot in question is quite specific (if you want details look for my post entitled 'link to application and analysis'), and requires a character to want to sleep until some event has occurred, for this to happen, and for the character to then realise he was awake but doesn't remember the intervening period.
Still, I think the notion that this would be disasterous for literature if granted is quite accurate, as it would discourage people from writing stories[1], except those that are specifically requested by publishers. This would probably reduce the total number of novels published substantially, and the number of active authors even further.
[1]: Would you want to spend several hours a day for months on end writing a story, only to find it isn't publishable because some key concept you used in it is patented? Most authors would not be able to afford a patent search, which are quite expensive if done properly.
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR THE INDUCEMENT OF LAUGHTER USING POULTRY/THOROUGHFARE ANECDOTES
I claim:
1. A method used to induce by relaying a narrative to one or a plurality of listeners, said narrative involving a chicken and its reason for crossing the road.
2. Method of claim 1, wherein said reason for crossing said road is in order to carry out some business that would require said chicken to be on the opposite side of said road.
3. Method of claim 2, wherein said reason is not stated
4. Method of claim 1, wherein said narrative is in written form, and said listeners are replaced with readers
No, the good argument against software patents, business method patents, etc. is that they're simply unnecessary.
There is another argument. The way the patent system is supposed to work is that an inventor determines that a problem exists, invents a non-obvious solution to the problem, and then the patent covers that invention. Software and business method patents tend to skip this stage and simply patent all possible solutions to the problem, and this is the problem with them.
1. A process of relaying a story having a timeline and a unique plot involving characters, comprising: indicating a character's desire at a first time in said timeline for at least one of the following: a) to remain asleep or unconscious until a particular event occurs; and b) to forget or be substantially unable to recall substantially all events during the time period from said first time until a particular event occurs; indicating said character's substantial inability at a time after said occurrence of said particular event to recall substantially all events during the time period from said first time to said occurrence of said particular event; and indicating that during said time period said character was an active participant in a plurality of events.
OK, so this claim covers all stories which involve characters that wish to sleep until something happens, apparently achieving this wish, and then discovering that they were awake but don't remember everything that happened in the meantime.
Typical practice in patent applications is to put something very broad in the first claim in the hopes that it will be granted, but not to actually expect it to be enforceable because the chances are somebody has done something similar before. (If anybody can name stories that follow this structure, published before Nov 28, 2003, now is the time to tell the USPTO about it).
2. A process of relaying a story as in claim 1, comprising: indicating that said particular event has occurred at a second time in said timeline at least one week after said first time; and indicating said character's substantial inability at a time after said second time to recall substantially all events during the time period from said first time to said second time.
Claim 2 is the same story where the event waited for takes at least a week to occur, and everything that happened is forgotten about.
3. A process of relaying a story as in claim 2, wherein said second time is at least one year after said first time.
The same, except a year or more elapses.
4. A process of relaying a story as in claim 1, wherein said particular event is at least one of: a passing of a particular amount of time; a notification of a decision; and a relief of a pain.
5. A process of relaying a story as in claim 1, wherein said plurality of events comprises at least one of said character's wedding, a birth of a child of said character, and performance of said character's occupation for a substantial portion of said time period.
Things a character might wait for and things that might happen during the wait.
6. A process of relaying a story as in claim 1, further comprising indicating a belief held by at least three other characters that said character was conscious during said active participation in said plurality of events.
Something that's likely to happen after the character 'wakes up'.
7. A process of relaying a story as in claim 1, wherein each of said steps of indicating comprises indicating in a written form.
8. A process of relaying a story as in claim 1, wherein each of said steps of indicating comprises indicating in a video form.
Books, TV series and films are covered.
9. A process of relaying a story as in claim 8, wherein said process is a process of displaying a motion picture having a timeline and a unique plot, comprising: displaying a video representation of an actor acting as said character; displaying a video representation of said actor indicating at said first time in said timeline a desire for said at l
I'm not going to pretend to know what the US law on this is, because I don't know US law well enough to be certain of it. All I can tell you is that some countries have a law that works as follows:
While it is perfectly legal for somebody to ask you for you social security number (or local equivalent), and to not do business with you if you refuse, it is legal for you to provide any number you wish. No contractual obligation (e.g. by text in an application form that states 'all information on this form is true and correct' or similar) can require you to provide a correct SSN. Therefore, even if the business does discover that you lied about your SSN, there is little they can do about it, beyond refusing to do business with you in future.
I assumed that the GP poster was talking about a law along these lines, not one that means you can refuse to give your number without any consequences, as such a law would be impossible to enforce.
Slashdot Mirror
. It's to identify which doors he should be able to unlock and which he shouldn't have access to. Millions of people were RFID name badges every day. Thousands of businesses require them.
Why would you use a technology designed to enable remote scanning to control physical access? What's wrong with a barcoded badge, or a magnetic strip swipe card? Such devices have been in use for access control for at least twenty years now, and work reliably and don't have sever privacy issues.
RFID can be read remotely by somebody you aren't aware of. It can be used automatically to cause actions based on the presence of named individuals, if you can get hold of their ID numbers. My concern? It could be used as an individually targeted bomb trigger. I don't think this is paranoia. Sooner or later, if we continue using RFID identity tags for people, particularly visitors to important diplomatic sites who are, I suspect, much more likely targets for terrorist attack than just about anyone else, this will happen.
People who hate the jerk play underhanded amazon tricks to sabotage book on Amazon.com
I don't see how filing a review of a book that contains what is self-evidently an unfounded argument that claims that the argument of the book is unfounded is underhanded. It's what the review system is there for, right?
Now this was about 4 years ago, maybe they've changed since then, but we've found amazon to be pro-author.
Well, sure. If you deal with them politely. But Jack Thompson...?
What ReformedExCon said, plus:
The exclusive license will probably have a termination clause, after which all rights return to the owner. This would probably happen, for instance, if the site closed down.
The exclusive license probably doesn't cover other media (e.g. novels or movies of the same story) thus allowing the owner to sell such rights independently.
Exclusive licensing is definitely the better option for anyone who has it.
Ah, sorry, I thought you were trying to argue the opposite position of what you were. My mistake. :)
"You have never beaten you wife".
Try to prove it. Either you will be able to prove the falsehood, or you are guilty of a criminal offense.
Firstly, the GP post suggested that all falsehoods were unprovable. This is clearly false, and my proof by example proved it.
But more relevantly to this case, from the point of view of a court of law, an adequate way of proving this would be to get my wife to take the stand and tell the court that I had never beaten her. Then, unless the opposing litigant could provide evidence to the contrary, this would be believed.
Libel is a civil issue, and 'absolute proof' of the kind needed for criminal trials is not required. The rules of evidence are much more relaxed.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Sorry, it can't be done. If the statement "You beat your wife" were made, the person making the statement (in a libel case, the defendent) would have to prove it. It would not be your place to prove what may well be unprovable -- its opposite.
Note that the post I was replying to stated that it would be up to the plaintiff to prove it, which is clearly wrong (although that is, I understand, the US system). It was this apparent contradiction that was the main thrust of my post.
I also have no knowledge of the Canadian legal system, but I'll give you the benefit of my experience of a more enlightened one (British).
1. It is possible to represent yourself, and this isn't actively discouraged. You need to know the law reasonably well, but you could probably pick up what you need to handle a case like this in a couple of weeks.
2. Even if you decide this isn't for you, many lawyers would be prepared to defend you on a conditional fee arrangement (i.e., if they lose there is no charge, if they win they ask the court to make an award of costs against the claimant to cover their fees).
3. Even if you can't find a lawyer under this arrangment, most home contents insurance and life insurance packages have a 'legal costs' insurance cover attached to them, so a large majority of people are able to claim what they need to defend themselves like this.
Legal systems don't have to work the way the US one does.
"There is also evidence of construction workers drinking on the job at this location. A set of two beer bottles was found beside a home being built by Eastforest Homes."
Eastforest Homes could successfully sue her for libel over this comment, She has no proof that they were:
* consumed while the workers were "on the job". drinking after work isn't illegal!
* consumed by an employee of Eastforest Homes.
* consumed on the building site. a builder could of had a couple of empty bottles in his car from the weekend and removed them from his vehicle
While all those points are true, it doesn't make the comment libellous. Note that she doesn't say that Eastforest Homes employees were drinking on the job -- just that there is evidence that suggests they were.
Unless you can prove that she (1) didn't find the beer bottles she claims to have done, or (2) that it is unreasonable to believe this to be evidence of what she claims, then there is no way this is should be a libellous comment. She's just pointing out a fact and how she interprets it.
Since a falsehood cannot be proven, the burden must fall on the plaintiff.
Simple logic.
Huh?
1. It is not impossible to prove a falsehood. For instance, I can say "2 == 3" and it is pretty easy to prove that statement false.
2. The plaintiff is the one who is claiming that the statement is false. By your logic, this would ensure that no libel case ever succeeded. Why is this even desirable?
This barrier makes it very difficult and expensive for citizens and reporters in other countries to report on anything.
Funny. I've not noticed that this has stopped the UK press from reporting controversial stories. Here's the important bit: it just stops groundless speculations, but as soon as somebody has a firm source for a story, then it can be successfully published.
I don't want to read groundless speculation reported as if it were news. The truth is not hard to establish in court. In fact, all you need to do is present your story in the following fashion:
"Sources close to [person you are talking about] informed us today that [potentially libellous statement about the person]."
This is trivially easy to defend in court, because all you have to do is provide reasonable evidence that suggests that those sources might have said so. Usually, you can even get away without naming the sources, but just providing credible evidence that they exist.
Disclaimer: IANAL, nor am I a journalist; just someone who pays close attention to UK free speech issues.
In some countries, truth is NOT a defence.
Yes, but AFAIK Canada is not one of them. From the article you cite: As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada also follows English law on defamation issues (although the law in the province of Quebec has different roots).
English law definitely has truth as a defence.
There is one more thing to worry about - the particular patent abounds with junk terms like "vacuum pressure".
This would be a problem if this particular term were "junk", but it isn't. It's a well known term in the field of quantum electrodynamics. See, for instance, this document which provides a defintion.
You know, a few moments with google would have told you this.
That quote doesn't address what the GP post was about, I'm afraid. It basically states that a patent applicant can provide definitions in his application for words that he uses there. GP was talking about the use of the phrase "vacuum pressure" without any definition provided.
When you cover a song, you owe ASCAP, BMI and other fees
The interesting question is, when you cover a cover and pay the appropriate fees to ASCAP et al, how do they determine who to pay royalties to?
E.g., consider the recent cover of the song "Light My Fire" by Will Young, which was a cover not of the original version by the Doors, but of another cover by Jose Feliciano.
I think the problem there is that a lot of us read your phrasing "Star Wars movie-specific game titles" and parsed it as if it were "Star Wars franchise game titles". I know I did, and suspect the AC and those who modded him up all did. The distinction's a subtle one, and I think the way you phrased it understated it. Perhaps "Star Wars game titles based on a single movie" would be a clearer way of putting it.
Stoning isn't required. The only thing is that they shall be "put to death".
:)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
I'd recommend reading Leviticus. It's very enlightening.
Replying to myself to point out a movie that uses a plot that would definitely be covered by the patent if granted: 13 Going on 30.
If the patent were granted, the producer of that movie would likely have to pay royalties each time it was shown, and for each DVD of it distributed. I don't think it would qualify as prior art, though, because its date of release is after the patent filing date.
The plot in question is quite specific (if you want details look for my post entitled 'link to application and analysis'), and requires a character to want to sleep until some event has occurred, for this to happen, and for the character to then realise he was awake but doesn't remember the intervening period.
Still, I think the notion that this would be disasterous for literature if granted is quite accurate, as it would discourage people from writing stories[1], except those that are specifically requested by publishers. This would probably reduce the total number of novels published substantially, and the number of active authors even further.
[1]: Would you want to spend several hours a day for months on end writing a story, only to find it isn't publishable because some key concept you used in it is patented? Most authors would not be able to afford a patent search, which are quite expensive if done properly.
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR THE INDUCEMENT OF LAUGHTER USING POULTRY/THOROUGHFARE ANECDOTES
I claim:
1. A method used to induce by relaying a narrative to one or a plurality of listeners, said narrative involving a chicken and its reason for crossing the road.
2. Method of claim 1, wherein said reason for crossing said road is in order to carry out some business that would require said chicken to be on the opposite side of said road.
3. Method of claim 2, wherein said reason is not stated
4. Method of claim 1, wherein said narrative is in written form, and said listeners are replaced with readers
5. [...]
No, the good argument against software patents, business method patents, etc. is that they're simply unnecessary.
There is another argument. The way the patent system is supposed to work is that an inventor determines that a problem exists, invents a non-obvious solution to the problem, and then the patent covers that invention. Software and business method patents tend to skip this stage and simply patent all possible solutions to the problem, and this is the problem with them.
Now to invent a solution. Hmmm.
Novelty essentially means that a applicaiton is not exactly the same as another (or a combination of) patent/reference.
;)
Well, of course novels are novel, so we can eliminate that from consideration!
(Just posted this on another site, but it should be here as well:)
And here's the patent application:
The relevant parts:
I claim:
1. A process of relaying a story having a timeline and a unique plot involving characters, comprising: indicating a character's desire at a first time in said timeline for at least one of the following: a) to remain asleep or unconscious until a particular event occurs; and b) to forget or be substantially unable to recall substantially all events during the time period from said first time until a particular event occurs; indicating said character's substantial inability at a time after said occurrence of said particular event to recall substantially all events during the time period from said first time to said occurrence of said particular event; and indicating that during said time period said character was an active participant in a plurality of events.
OK, so this claim covers all stories which involve characters that wish to sleep until something happens, apparently achieving this wish, and then discovering that they were awake but don't remember everything that happened in the meantime.
Typical practice in patent applications is to put something very broad in the first claim in the hopes that it will be granted, but not to actually expect it to be enforceable because the chances are somebody has done something similar before. (If anybody can name stories that follow this structure, published before Nov 28, 2003, now is the time to tell the USPTO about it).
2. A process of relaying a story as in claim 1, comprising: indicating that said particular event has occurred at a second time in said timeline at least one week after said first time; and indicating said character's substantial inability at a time after said second time to recall substantially all events during the time period from said first time to said second time.
Claim 2 is the same story where the event waited for takes at least a week to occur, and everything that happened is forgotten about.
3. A process of relaying a story as in claim 2, wherein said second time is at least one year after said first time.
The same, except a year or more elapses.
4. A process of relaying a story as in claim 1, wherein said particular event is at least one of: a passing of a particular amount of time; a notification of a decision; and a relief of a pain.
5. A process of relaying a story as in claim 1, wherein said plurality of events comprises at least one of said character's wedding, a birth of a child of said character, and performance of said character's occupation for a substantial portion of said time period.
Things a character might wait for and things that might happen during the wait.
6. A process of relaying a story as in claim 1, further comprising indicating a belief held by at least three other characters that said character was conscious during said active participation in said plurality of events.
Something that's likely to happen after the character 'wakes up'.
7. A process of relaying a story as in claim 1, wherein each of said steps of indicating comprises indicating in a written form.
8. A process of relaying a story as in claim 1, wherein each of said steps of indicating comprises indicating in a video form.
Books, TV series and films are covered.
9. A process of relaying a story as in claim 8, wherein said process is a process of displaying a motion picture having a timeline and a unique plot, comprising: displaying a video representation of an actor acting as said character; displaying a video representation of said actor indicating at said first time in said timeline a desire for said at l
Hopefully someone will patent reality TV shows. I am rather sick of those.
Uri Geller has already patented one of those.
Sorry, it didn't really help.
"To obtain the patent [on a wheel] the applicant must make a declaration that they are the inventor."
Haven't these guys ever heard of reinventing the wheel? Sheesh.
I'm not going to pretend to know what the US law on this is, because I don't know US law well enough to be certain of it. All I can tell you is that some countries have a law that works as follows:
While it is perfectly legal for somebody to ask you for you social security number (or local equivalent), and to not do business with you if you refuse, it is legal for you to provide any number you wish. No contractual obligation (e.g. by text in an application form that states 'all information on this form is true and correct' or similar) can require you to provide a correct SSN. Therefore, even if the business does discover that you lied about your SSN, there is little they can do about it, beyond refusing to do business with you in future.
I assumed that the GP poster was talking about a law along these lines, not one that means you can refuse to give your number without any consequences, as such a law would be impossible to enforce.