I see no problem with three companies having patents for location aware reminders, remember patents are supposed to protect an implementation. To use a car analogy, how many patents are their for carburetors.
The problem stems from overly broad patents. It breaks down to "I have a patent for location aware reminders now no one else can do it." is bad, while "I have a patent for doing location aware reminders in this way." is good;.
I think your talking about Ricochet. I used it for awhile and the major problem was using it while moving, you would keep dropping the connection if you moved too fast. Cars were definitely out. I believe they fixed that issue before they went away.
Now that it has extended beyond air travel and will actually effect your right to travel. The Supreme Court would have to back track on centuries of precedence to up hold this expansion of power.
As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association,... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Well it is not in the Constitution there is plenty of precedence regarding the right to travel freely through out the country. This is starting to look like a violation of the right to travel.
Though not in the Constitution, it is firmly established in precedent. In fact it was explicit in the Articles of Confederation, it is thought it was such a fundamental right that it was unnecessary to include in the Constitution, the sort of thin covered by the 9th amendment. One should not have to waive one right to exercise another.
See: U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) - "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) - Justice Stewart noted that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association,... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."
The important part there in case you missed it "against private interference as well as governmental action."
From what I have seen lately, MSE seems to be the best, everyone else seems to just want to add useless features. MSE is small and out of the way and it works. Take a hint do one thing and do it well.
If you could sell me a 20 year old DVD player I would buy it in an instant for $1000 especially since the first DVD player was introduced in 1997. Hell I would demand all of Phillips income for the past 14 years.
Slashdot Mirror
I see no problem with three companies having patents for location aware reminders, remember patents are supposed to protect an implementation. To use a car analogy, how many patents are their for carburetors.
The problem stems from overly broad patents. It breaks down to "I have a patent for location aware reminders now no one else can do it." is bad, while "I have a patent for doing location aware reminders in this way." is good;.
I think your talking about Ricochet. I used it for awhile and the major problem was using it while moving, you would keep dropping the connection if you moved too fast. Cars were definitely out. I believe they fixed that issue before they went away.
Now that it has extended beyond air travel and will actually effect your right to travel. The Supreme Court would have to back track on centuries of precedence to up hold this expansion of power.
As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Shamelessly stolen from http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel
Well it is not in the Constitution there is plenty of precedence regarding the right to travel freely through out the country. This is starting to look like a violation of the right to travel.
Though not in the Constitution, it is firmly established in precedent. In fact it was explicit in the Articles of Confederation, it is thought it was such a fundamental right that it was unnecessary to include in the Constitution, the sort of thin covered by the 9th amendment. One should not have to waive one right to exercise another.
See: ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."
U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) - "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized."
Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) - Justice Stewart noted that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association,
The important part there in case you missed it "against private interference as well as governmental action."
wouldn't that be cu***ber?
Sorry I just had to. ;)
As someone who lost his child at an extremely young age I have one thing to say to you sir or madam, and that's FUCK YOU.
I won't be having another as it cost me my marriage and many years of depression.
Didn't the Beast have a holo device that made him appear human for awhile?
Why waste your time with the market, go after the owner of the server.
From what I have seen lately, MSE seems to be the best, everyone else seems to just want to add useless features. MSE is small and out of the way and it works. Take a hint do one thing and do it well.
You mean that place that asked for my address to buy batteries?
But can you have a universe without consciousness?
No. So you answered the question.
Says who?
To elaborate, they could shut down your access but if they tried to actually take the device from you they would be arrested for theft.
They can say what ever they want, doesn't make it true.
Hey, I do that daily, granted it's not fake...
Lets just admit I should never post on slashdot after going to a 5 hour wine tasting
If you could sell me a 20 year old DVD player I would buy it in an instant for $1000 especially since the first DVD player was introduced in 1997. Hell I would demand all of Phillips income for the past 14 years.
DVD was launched in 1997.
Ahh but the days of bindery hacking were fun.
Wooooooosh.
A CNE is a certification for Novell (Certified Novell Engineer.)
and you have know idea how many I knew that couldn't do squat.
Wake me when they have an ansible.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa
Reallyy heheheh No wait really????
Yeah I can see that flying over really well here (USA incase yer wondering)
Hilarious
thats gonna go by really well with the 2nd amendment club
But go ahead and get your INTERPOL card. we'll still want your passport,
The iPad is just TV 2.0. Mobile and with added features.
Violating ToS is not breaking the law, I don't know what world you live in, but in mine corporations don't get to dictate laws.... yet.
It's not the phone capability, it' the cell data network. Adding voice capabilities is easy and limits the number of devices you have to carry.