Yes, well, except that GPS signals don't even penetrate into simple wood-frame houses, much less office buildings and tunnels. Even lightly forested areas can be problematic.
You can't make any assumptions based on the receiver not receiving a signal.
I also doubt you're required to keep it on in the shower, that's medically inadvisable and expensive to engineer.
Commercial organizations are rabidly afraid of anything that will make it harder to get customers.
The nice thing about passwords is that *everyone* has access to them, and they are *immediately* available.
Biometric readers, smart cards, and even "suspicion engines" (which take time to build up a profile) won't ever take off unless they somehow solve this fundamental problem. And there's a huge chicken-and-egg problem there.
...you realize that anyone can sue anyone for anything at the drop of a hat (obviously you have to have some stated grounds for the suit but asserting, however speciously, that you were fired because of your gender, say, would be such grounds).
Also, I'm sure you're aware that juries are often sympathetic to individuals over corporations.
So... while companies don't have to document things in order for it to *actually* be a legal firing, they almost always do in order to preserve the *appearance* of it being a legal filing.
People are quite suspicious of random, "no reason" firings (rightfully so), and tend to think the company must have a hidden agenda. In the presence of "at will" employment, ironically, the obvious suspicion is that the employee was fired for one of the illegal reasons.
Software, in the abstract, is still not patentable. I.e. the algorithm *as an algorithm* can't be patented.
It's only once that algorithm becomes functional by being run on a computer and generating actual physical operations beyond just the pure calculations that it becomes patentable. And yes, running an algorithm on a computer does generate physical operations (movement of electrons in particular pathways if nothing else), even if we usually abstract those away when we discuss how computers work. So do human brains but, so far, we as a species have decided to consider ourselves special in this regard.
You are welcome to think about whatever you want (don't you feel *special*?). You're welcome to write it down. You're welcome to talk about it, and improve on it as a thought experiment. All you're not welcome to do is stick it into a machine (itself a separate invention) and have that machine perform useful functional and physical operations based on that algorithm.
The problem with software patents can't be attacked on this basis. *All* inventions are essentially pure thought until you instantiate them in a physical object and have it do something useful. *All* inventions are pure thought. *All* inventions are algorithms. Ultimately, depending on your personal metaphysics, all inventions may even be pure mathematics.
Pick a better argument. Personally, I think the best argument would be one based on the non-novelty and obviousness of most of the existing patented algorithmic inventions.
Trying to fight software patents on the basis that they are mathematical algorithms will only get you laughed at. You're essentially trying to fight the entire notion of patents on anything. Only ivory-tower acedemic CS profs think that software is nothing more than math.
Regardless that it's a theft of services just as much as staying in a hotel room without paying for it, it's theft in another way.
By making a copy of the copyrighted material, the infringer incurs a lawful debt to the copyright holder. Another way of saying that is that the copyright holder has a legal right to charge money for the privilege of making a copy.
The copying of the material itself might not be "theft" per se, but that's irrelevent. It's the money you owe them that is stolen. It's legally theirs, you have it, they don't, what's the question?
One might argue that that's better described as fraud, but fraud typically requires at least *some* kind of untruthful or misleading communication with the defrauded, whereas theft is done by stealth (robbery being the term for stealing by threat or violence).
So on balance, I think "theft" is probably the closest English word applicable. That's just a plain English usage, of course, and not legal jargon... but legal terms are almost irrelevant to discussions on Slashdot or in the media, and even if they were, "theft" isn't really a legal term for a particular crime anyway (check it out in a legal dictionary some time... it's a generic term for a bunch of actual specific crimes).
Ummm... A corporation, when you come right down to it, is nothing more nor anything less than a bunch of people (investors, employees, etc.).
A bunch of people can certainly invent something, and I see no reason why they shouldn't collectively own it.
A corporations legal status as a "person" is an interesting choice for the government to make, but it's not completely out of line. It's basically a "crowd". Treating a crowd as an entity in itself has considerable scientific and practical evidence in its favor.
Interesting theory, but in fact software isn't literary in nature, it is functional. In fact, it's copyright that more accurately could be said to not apply by this kind of reasoning. In any event, whether or not copyright or patents for software are statutory or not depends on the entire body of statutes, not just the ones you happen to want to read. These other statutes state that it is both (which is odd... functional inventions are supposed to only be patentable).
Umm, "might makes right" is even more foundational to many of the most common religions. What exactly about "God is all powerful and will torture you for eternity if you don't do what he says" isn't "might makes right"?
I hate to pick nits, but there's actually either a nearly 100% chance of a disaster or a nearly 0% chance of a disaster. It's our limited ability to measure accurately that makes us unsure which is the case.
Problem 1) The dilutive effect of the options was incurred at the time that the stock option plan was approved by the board. The only thing that actually granting those options does is slightly increase the chance that the dilution will come to pass sooner, but unless the plan is rescinded, it will come to pass eventually. So exactly *when* is the expense really incurred, and why should the company have to report it at some other mostly irrelevant time?
Problem 2) The kind of options granted by companies to their employees are not, *not*, *Not*, *NOT*!!!!, the same kinds of options as are traded in the options markets. Any pricing scheme would have to account for this in order to be fair.
How many market-style options have vesting? How many have 10 year exercise periods? How many of them are forfeited if the purchaser severs a contractual relationship with the company (i.e. by quitting)? More importantly, how many market-style options can the company turn around and right-out *invalidate* any time they feel like it (by firing your ass)?
Personally, I don't know *anyone* that would purchase options on these terms on the open market, so I will boldly claim that the market value of these style of options is 0. Hmmm.
Question 1) If companies have to expense options when granted, do they get to record a profit if the options are taken back when employees leave (or when the exercise period expires and the employee doesn't exercise them)? Do they get to depreciate them if they start to head underwater? If not, why not? Exactly what kind of "fairness" are we gaining here?
Question 2) If options are a (theoretical) liability that can be estimated, shouldn't companies also be able to claim an asset for the (theoretical) estimated value they *gain* by granting them to their employees?
If a company didn't think they were gaining a value higher than the cost of the options, why would they grant them in the first place? If they don't get to do this, why not? What "fairness" exactly, are we gaining here?
Did you even read the claims? It's a necessary element that there be a second foodstuff encapsulated inside two layers of a first foodstuff, and then surrounded by bread and crimped.
I'm not going to argue about whether it was novel or not at the time of filing (nor about whether *you* did it or not, unless you published your procedure). I don't have enough information to know that.
I notice that her moral outrage didn't stop her from recording an "exlusive interview with the author" for SciFi.com. In which she doesn't, of course, mention any of her misgivings about the miniseries.
Re:Patent opposition procedures are no silver bull
on
How to Fix U.S. Patents
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You also have to deal with the problem that if the PTO is made aware of a bit of prior art and *goes ahead and stupidly grants the patent anyway*, then you're totally screwed, because that prior art is presumed to have been validly considered and rejected.
Even if it does have an effect, all it does is give the patenter an opportunity to craft their claims to carefully avoid the prior art while still being annoying.
For this reason, patent lawyers will often tell you *not* to challenge a patent application until after it's granted.
So let's see... how would we do this. If you know your patent is being infringed, you are required to spend $4 million to sue every 4 year old who comes up to you and eats a crustless PB&J in front of you or you lose your patent forever?
Right...
The reason Unisys didn't sue until it was no longer small potatoes is that it wasn't *worth it* until it was worth it.
BTW, that PB&J patent everyone complains about is actually for a pretty cool invention. It has nothing to do with pasties. It involves application of layers of permeable and impermeable foodstuffs (such as J and PB) in a rather clever way that keeps the bread from getting soggy while it sits on a shelf for a month.
Re: the Mapopolis problem, I don't have a 650, but on my hi-res Sony Clie, I had the same problem until I switched it into compatibility mode. There should be a preference page for apps called something like "HiRes". Try turning off the HiRes assistance feature for Mapopolis.
Anyway, I'm guessing it's not the Treo, but the app.
If you have to declare any patented content, you have to know whether your content is patented. Not a good idea in general. Now, if *you yourself* have patented the content, this license doesn't require you to disclose it, but it does require to license it royalty-free, so what's the big diff?
Slashdot Mirror
You can't make any assumptions based on the receiver not receiving a signal.
I also doubt you're required to keep it on in the shower, that's medically inadvisable and expensive to engineer.
The nice thing about passwords is that *everyone* has access to them, and they are *immediately* available.
Biometric readers, smart cards, and even "suspicion engines" (which take time to build up a profile) won't ever take off unless they somehow solve this fundamental problem. And there's a huge chicken-and-egg problem there.
Also, I'm sure you're aware that juries are often sympathetic to individuals over corporations.
So... while companies don't have to document things in order for it to *actually* be a legal firing, they almost always do in order to preserve the *appearance* of it being a legal filing.
People are quite suspicious of random, "no reason" firings (rightfully so), and tend to think the company must have a hidden agenda. In the presence of "at will" employment, ironically, the obvious suspicion is that the employee was fired for one of the illegal reasons.
Let me be the twelve thousand, three hundred and forty second to say that I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.
But then, it's pretty unclear what was being attempted, so analyzing its success is rather problematic.
And make sure to pay in cash, because otherwise they'll have your credit/debit info to link to your identity.
It's only once that algorithm becomes functional by being run on a computer and generating actual physical operations beyond just the pure calculations that it becomes patentable. And yes, running an algorithm on a computer does generate physical operations (movement of electrons in particular pathways if nothing else), even if we usually abstract those away when we discuss how computers work. So do human brains but, so far, we as a species have decided to consider ourselves special in this regard.
You are welcome to think about whatever you want (don't you feel *special*?). You're welcome to write it down. You're welcome to talk about it, and improve on it as a thought experiment. All you're not welcome to do is stick it into a machine (itself a separate invention) and have that machine perform useful functional and physical operations based on that algorithm.
The problem with software patents can't be attacked on this basis. *All* inventions are essentially pure thought until you instantiate them in a physical object and have it do something useful. *All* inventions are pure thought. *All* inventions are algorithms. Ultimately, depending on your personal metaphysics, all inventions may even be pure mathematics.
Pick a better argument. Personally, I think the best argument would be one based on the non-novelty and obviousness of most of the existing patented algorithmic inventions.
Trying to fight software patents on the basis that they are mathematical algorithms will only get you laughed at. You're essentially trying to fight the entire notion of patents on anything. Only ivory-tower acedemic CS profs think that software is nothing more than math.
Congratulations, you're a journalist!
By making a copy of the copyrighted material, the infringer incurs a lawful debt to the copyright holder. Another way of saying that is that the copyright holder has a legal right to charge money for the privilege of making a copy.
The copying of the material itself might not be "theft" per se, but that's irrelevent. It's the money you owe them that is stolen. It's legally theirs, you have it, they don't, what's the question?
One might argue that that's better described as fraud, but fraud typically requires at least *some* kind of untruthful or misleading communication with the defrauded, whereas theft is done by stealth (robbery being the term for stealing by threat or violence).
So on balance, I think "theft" is probably the closest English word applicable. That's just a plain English usage, of course, and not legal jargon... but legal terms are almost irrelevant to discussions on Slashdot or in the media, and even if they were, "theft" isn't really a legal term for a particular crime anyway (check it out in a legal dictionary some time... it's a generic term for a bunch of actual specific crimes).
A bunch of people can certainly invent something, and I see no reason why they shouldn't collectively own it.
A corporations legal status as a "person" is an interesting choice for the government to make, but it's not completely out of line. It's basically a "crowd". Treating a crowd as an entity in itself has considerable scientific and practical evidence in its favor.
What's your point?
Interesting theory, but in fact software isn't literary in nature, it is functional. In fact, it's copyright that more accurately could be said to not apply by this kind of reasoning. In any event, whether or not copyright or patents for software are statutory or not depends on the entire body of statutes, not just the ones you happen to want to read. These other statutes state that it is both (which is odd... functional inventions are supposed to only be patentable).
Fair enough, but that's consistent with the Atheist position too.
You know how dumb the average guy on the street is?
Statistically speaking, half of them are stupider than that.
There's a heck of a lot of that kind of evidence.
What evidence is there that it's ok to believe in something *without* evidence (in case you're looking for an *actual* paradox-inducing question)?
Just pointing out one of the 10 trillion logical inconsistencies in modern religious belief...
Umm, "might makes right" is even more foundational to many of the most common religions. What exactly about "God is all powerful and will torture you for eternity if you don't do what he says" isn't "might makes right"?
I hate to pick nits, but there's actually either a nearly 100% chance of a disaster or a nearly 0% chance of a disaster. It's our limited ability to measure accurately that makes us unsure which is the case.
Problem 1) The dilutive effect of the options was incurred at the time that the stock option plan was approved by the board. The only thing that actually granting those options does is slightly increase the chance that the dilution will come to pass sooner, but unless the plan is rescinded, it will come to pass eventually. So exactly *when* is the expense really incurred, and why should the company have to report it at some other mostly irrelevant time?
Problem 2) The kind of options granted by companies to their employees are not, *not*, *Not*, *NOT*!!!!, the same kinds of options as are traded in the options markets. Any pricing scheme would have to account for this in order to be fair.
How many market-style options have vesting? How many have 10 year exercise periods? How many of them are forfeited if the purchaser severs a contractual relationship with the company (i.e. by quitting)? More importantly, how many market-style options can the company turn around and right-out *invalidate* any time they feel like it (by firing your ass)?
Personally, I don't know *anyone* that would purchase options on these terms on the open market, so I will boldly claim that the market value of these style of options is 0. Hmmm.
Question 1) If companies have to expense options when granted, do they get to record a profit if the options are taken back when employees leave (or when the exercise period expires and the employee doesn't exercise them)? Do they get to depreciate them if they start to head underwater? If not, why not? Exactly what kind of "fairness" are we gaining here?
Question 2) If options are a (theoretical) liability that can be estimated, shouldn't companies also be able to claim an asset for the (theoretical) estimated value they *gain* by granting them to their employees?
If a company didn't think they were gaining a value higher than the cost of the options, why would they grant them in the first place? If they don't get to do this, why not? What "fairness" exactly, are we gaining here?
I'm not going to argue about whether it was novel or not at the time of filing (nor about whether *you* did it or not, unless you published your procedure). I don't have enough information to know that.
I notice that her moral outrage didn't stop her from recording an "exlusive interview with the author" for SciFi.com. In which she doesn't, of course, mention any of her misgivings about the miniseries.
Even if it does have an effect, all it does is give the patenter an opportunity to craft their claims to carefully avoid the prior art while still being annoying.
For this reason, patent lawyers will often tell you *not* to challenge a patent application until after it's granted.
Right...
The reason Unisys didn't sue until it was no longer small potatoes is that it wasn't *worth it* until it was worth it.
BTW, that PB&J patent everyone complains about is actually for a pretty cool invention. It has nothing to do with pasties. It involves application of layers of permeable and impermeable foodstuffs (such as J and PB) in a rather clever way that keeps the bread from getting soggy while it sits on a shelf for a month.
Anyway, I'm guessing it's not the Treo, but the app.
If you have to declare any patented content, you have to know whether your content is patented. Not a good idea in general. Now, if *you yourself* have patented the content, this license doesn't require you to disclose it, but it does require to license it royalty-free, so what's the big diff?