If it exists in the world outside of computing, and it's just a computer-implemented way to doing the same thing (think eBay): No patent. Actually, no patent on software period.
Also, I think that granted patents should have a 1-year "probation"; if someone discovers prior-art, the patent gets disqualified quickly and effectively - none of that going to courts crap.
Failing that "probation period", I think that the actual examiners should be held directly accountable if an "obvious" patent is issued, especially if it causes someone damages to defend themselves against it; that ought to make the examiners actually do the work they're supposed to.
Well, it's a lot better than: patent the most obvious thing on earth, make the definition so broad that anything under the sun qualifies, extort money from everyone else with broad patent, and cripple innovation.
Possibly. Research has shown tiles have been weakened by the chemicals from the launch tower's paint leaching onto the tiles during rain. Who knows what effect this and the vibration of the launch itself had on the tiles.
There's something that was said about the piece's tumbling adding to the force of impact; furthermore, there's the chance that ice added to the weight.
I don't know if the ice factor was considered in the size/weight of the test piece here, but the tumbling effect can't be easily reproduced. Maybe the actual speed was lower, and they increased it for the test to simulate the effect of the tumbling of the piece.
Challenge reponse systems only work when there's a human at both ends; there's plenty of people I know that complain about not being able to get onto a mailing list because they/their service use such a system.
...but I don't think Hormel's trademark applies to the computer field, and as such, can't be considered as being infringed upon here (but I could be wrong)
I'm basing this on the fact that the company a friend works for obtained a trademark for 'Microsoft', but in the contact lenses field (this was well after MS was created); they were approched by Microsoft (Billy G's) so that MS could buy it from them, which they did, since they couldn't sue since it didn't apply to the 'computer' field. This company was in Canada, btw
""Apple accurately uses the generic term Unix merely to identify or describe an aspect or feature of Apple's Mac OS X operating system. This is consistent with past and current industry standards."
I didn't know ignoring trademarks was now 'industry standard'
I'll go make a computer of my own and call it 'AppleMac'
Slashdot Mirror
Also, I think that granted patents should have a 1-year "probation"; if someone discovers prior-art, the patent gets disqualified quickly and effectively - none of that going to courts crap.
Failing that "probation period", I think that the actual examiners should be held directly accountable if an "obvious" patent is issued, especially if it causes someone damages to defend themselves against it; that ought to make the examiners actually do the work they're supposed to.
I can see a lot of businesses moving their site 'off-country' or making them "international" if that doesn't cut it....
Oh, poor little American can't handle the truth?
Definitely one of the places you want to visit.
well, it's still better than the 'paid-to-be-first' results of all the other engines...
... since most searches are full of irrelevant crap now.
Makes me wonder if DMOZ should even permit these type of companies from using their system.
Possibly. Research has shown tiles have been weakened by the chemicals from the launch tower's paint leaching onto the tiles during rain. Who knows what effect this and the vibration of the launch itself had on the tiles.
I read somewhere else that the piece's tumbling could've added to the force of impact; furthermore, there's the chance that ice added to the weight.
I don't know if the ice factor was considered in the size/weight of the test piece here, but the tumbling effect can't be easily reproduced.
The actual speed might have been lower, and they increased it for the test to simulate the effect of the tumbling.
There's something that was said about the piece's tumbling adding to the force of impact; furthermore, there's the chance that ice added to the weight.
I don't know if the ice factor was considered in the size/weight of the test piece here, but the tumbling effect can't be easily reproduced. Maybe the actual speed was lower, and they increased it for the test to simulate the effect of the tumbling of the piece.
Challenge reponse systems only work when there's a human at both ends; there's plenty of people I know that complain about not being able to get onto a mailing list because they/their service use such a system.
I'm basing this on the fact that the company a friend works for obtained a trademark for 'Microsoft', but in the contact lenses field (this was well after MS was created); they were approched by Microsoft (Billy G's) so that MS could buy it from them, which they did, since they couldn't sue since it didn't apply to the 'computer' field. This company was in Canada, btw
Couldn't this apply in this case too?
Can anyone confirm this?
Thanks! That works perfectly, and makes it bahave like IE and Mozilla.
the tags finally stopped being ridiculously large, though they still insist on appearing alone on a line (still can't have more than 1 side by side).
"everywhere" meaning what? In general discussions in newsgroups? In the commercial world?
I'm pretty sure any commercial products that use it have a license to.
'Everyone else' using it in general discussions is like using the term 'Kleenex'. I certainly don't say 'star-nix' when I speak of Unix in general.
And where, exactly, did I even IMPLY that Apple had 'generic' trademarks of its own?
How about you get a cup of LEARN TO FUCKING READ - I hear it doesn't taste too bad.
Also, by their own statement:
I didn't know ignoring trademarks was now 'industry standard'
I'll go make a computer of my own and call it 'AppleMac'
After all, Apple has trademarks of their own, how would they like it if MS or some other company started using them without a license?
This makes it seems like they're treating them as terrorists (as opposed to simple 'criminals').
Of course I'll leave it up to you to define the term for yourself, but the way I see it, it's spammers today, hobbyists tomorrow.