My wife had to get a special exemption to sit for the bar exam because the state police couldn't take her fingerprints, which were necessary for conducting the required criminal background check. She has no idea why her fingerprints are virtually nonexistent.
My immigration lawyer wife informs me that recent layoffs are not a factor when applying for *new* H1-B applications. HOWEVER, if and when a company decides to petition for permanent residency (aka, green card) for a H1-B holder, the company must prepare a declaration explaining why any recently laid-off employees would be unsuitable for the permanent position that will be filled by the person adjusting from H1-B to permanent resident status. Therefore, there is at least some protection for laid-off employees. I do agree that this protection should be strengthened to eliminate the possibility of abusive employment practices.
(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. A civil action for a violation of this section may be brought only if the conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of subsection (a)(5)(B). Damages for a violation involving only conduct described in subsection (a)(5)(B)(i) are limited to economic damages. No action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage. No action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware.
Also, there is claim to priority from three earlier provisional applications. If these applications provide supporting disclosure to the claims, it could bring the date back to an even earlier time.
[0001]This application claims priority to: (A) U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/879,469, filed Jan. 8, 2007, entitled "Portable Multifunction Device"; (B) U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/879,253, filed Jan. 7, 2007, entitled "Portable Multifunction Device"; and (C) U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/883,804, filed Jan. 7, 2007, entitled "System and Method for Displaying Communication Notifications." All of these applications are incorporated by referenced herein in their entirety.
The changes to U.S. patent law that introduced publication at 18 months also changed the duration of the patent to 20 years from the filing date of the earliest patent application in any chain of continuation patent applications. As a result there is little benefit in postponing the grant of the patent.
Accordingly, it is unlikely that this company sought to delay the issuance of the patent.
I don't think there's any point in simple (unregistered) trademarks. Since someone else can just register it at any time, having an (unregistered) trademark is effectively the same as having nothing at all. An unregistered trademark has the force of law behind it. You can sue someone for trademark infringement based on an unregistered mark. As stated earlier, registering simply provides certain advantages. If anyone tries to register your unregistered trademark you have the right to oppose or cancel the registration.
Great point. Also, this added limitation answers the other questions posed above about how this patent could be granted in the face of the internet archive publication. This publication is listed in References Cited area indicating that the Examiner was at least aware of it.
This is a potential argument. There was a case where McDonald's sued a dentist office that wast trying to use the name McDental. In trademark law there is a concept of a "family of marks" which share a common element. In this case it would be the leading 'i'. It seems like a long shot argument though, and arguing descriptiveness or genericness would probably be better.
This sounds more like solicitation than conspiracy. Conspiracy requires an agreement between the parties as well as a substantial step towards the commission of the crime. Neither of those elements exist here because the "agreement" was with a party who was unwilling to actually commit the crime. From the Wikipedia entry..."It is not necessary that the person actually commit the crime, nor is it necessary that the person solicited be willing or able to commit the crime (such as if the "solicitee" were an undercover police officer)."
Also, this guy's claim that he got cold feet and backed out is irrelevant toward a charge of solicitation. Unlike conspiracy, the crime is complete at the time of the request.
exactly! laws that violate express grants of power in the constitution are some of the easiest for the supreme court to strike down as unconstitutional.
it was refreshing to find your post.
Another way of looking at this issue is by considering the economics of career specialization. Most people specialize in some discipline. By becoming a specialist, one can increase their effectiveness by gaining a deep understanding of the problem domain. This has the secondary effect of allowing a specialist to conduct a task as a lower cost because there should be less learning/training involved. When someone gets bitten by the DIY bug it frequently means that they do not properly value the opportunity cost of handling a specialized task on their own. (Admittedly many people take on DIY projects just for the fun of learning something new)
So for your prior art search, you could hire a patent attorney or agent and pay them somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 to get a search report. It would probably take the attorney/agent (or his/her understudy) anywhere from two to eight hours to complete. Because this person has experience with patent searches, you will have the confidence that search report is accurate (not to mention the attorney's mal-practice liability if the report is flawed).
If you were to conduct the search on your own, you would not only need to learn the ins and outs of the PTO search site, you would also need to understand the precise language of patent drafting. It is widely acknowledged that it can take up to five years to become an expert at patent drafting. I'm in no way saying that you are not capable of learning these things. My point is that if you are a specialist in computer hardware, how could it ever be worth the opportunity cost to conduct the search yourself. And can you honestly say that your very first patent search will be of the same quality as that of a person who regularly conducts patent searches? Was your first computer program the same quality as your most recent computer program?
I'm curious to see if part two of the DeveloperWorks article will mention cayenne as a good ORM framework. An older post with examples of using tapestry and cayenne can be found here.
A later inventor still has an incentive to build on top of a patented product that is not available for licensing because you may develop a derivative invention that induces the original patentee to cross-license the patents. Even if you are not yet selling your derivative invention there is a potential that the original patentee will sue you for infringement under the assumption that the new invention could not possibly have been developed without using the original invention. However, no rational person would file this suit because the cost of litigation would far exceed any damages that could be won from the production of a few prototypes.
I think the argument that is frequently made against a compulsory licensing regime is that such a system may reduce the incentive to invent. When a patent holder refuses to license a patent it creates a huge incentive to design around the patent at issue.
An intelligent inventor would do a patent search up front to avoid the "hard work of independently re-inventing." Even "a bunch of cheap obscure patent, sitting around" unimplemented have value to society because they force other later inventors to come up with new ideas. This concept known as "designing around" other patents is a key feature of the patent system.
Give the parent a break. His/her point is still valid even if the poster misunderstood the difference between patents and trademarks. The patent system is a wonderful tool for protecting one's ideas and then profiting from them. Its only the USPTO's ineptitude over the last decade that has skewed people's perspective of the patent system. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
"Also, some have claimed that in the pharmaceutical industry, slight changes in formulation that marginally improve effectiveness can allow a new patent on essentially the same substance."
While this may be true in some cases, the new patent only protects the marginal improvement. Anyone else is free to make the product as orginially disclosed in the first patent.
I think you are on to something. In law school I was a law clerk at a state administrative court. The administrative law judges would frequently pose their opinions in a way to grab the attention of the reviewing appellate courts. Unlike elected or appointed judges, ALJs are salaried civil servants who don't receive a high degree of respect in the legal community. Getting the first stab at changing the law is about the most exciting aspect of an ALJ's job. It was noted that the Board made the decision precedent. So even if this particular individual doesn't appeal the decision to the federal circuit, some future losing party likely will.
You forgot one important issue... so long as the reporter is in this country or otherwise subject to a court's jurisdiction the information would have to be released upon a court order. It doesn't matter how secure the data is or how far from the court's jurisdiction the server is located, the issue is what the reporter knows and what s/he is not telling the court when ordered to do so. The reporter in the rove/plame matter did not have anything encrypted. She is in jail for refusing to turn over her notes. Telling the judge oh sure you can have my notes but I'm not going to tell you the password would result in exactly the same punishment.
I completely understand and agree with your assessment about not being able to distinguish between vowel sounds. I think though, this is where phonetics comes into play. Once phonetics are committed to memory, recognizing the sound triggers the memory of the proper spelling of that sound. I recently read an online article about the decision not to teach phonetics in elementary schools from the late '70s to the late '80s. The article explained that there was a notion that it was no longer necessary and the time was better spent on other topics. Interestingly, that theory was rejected in the late '80s just as may of the 20-30 year olds here on slashdot finished elementary school. Without an actual detailed study, it would be difficult to prove a link between not teaching phonetics and an inability to sound-out words, but it is nevertheless an interesting possibility that non-spellers in the 20-30 age range are the outcome of a great experiment gone wrong in elementary education.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife had to get a special exemption to sit for the bar exam because the state police couldn't take her fingerprints, which were necessary for conducting the required criminal background check. She has no idea why her fingerprints are virtually nonexistent.
Where did this quote come from? There is no such reference to jury's impression of the evidence in the linked Washington Post article.
just in case anyone else needs to review the definition...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=horked
My immigration lawyer wife informs me that recent layoffs are not a factor when applying for *new* H1-B applications. HOWEVER, if and when a company decides to petition for permanent residency (aka, green card) for a H1-B holder, the company must prepare a declaration explaining why any recently laid-off employees would be unsuitable for the permanent position that will be filled by the person adjusting from H1-B to permanent resident status. Therefore, there is at least some protection for laid-off employees. I do agree that this protection should be strengthened to eliminate the possibility of abusive employment practices.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html
(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. A civil action for a violation of this section may be brought only if the conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of subsection (a)(5)(B). Damages for a violation involving only conduct described in subsection (a)(5)(B)(i) are limited to economic damages. No action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage. No action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware.
The USPTO already imposes maintenance fees. However, they are fixed fees that are not tied to the revenue generation of the patent.
Due at 3.5 years 930.00
Due at 7.5 years 2,360.00
Due at 11.5 years 3,910.00
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2007september30_2007dec17.htm
Great point. Also, this added limitation answers the other questions posed above about how this patent could be granted in the face of the internet archive publication. This publication is listed in References Cited area indicating that the Examiner was at least aware of it.
don't forget that a laptop probably needs to be depreciated over a few years and not counted as the full $2000 in the first year.
This is a potential argument. There was a case where McDonald's sued a dentist office that wast trying to use the name McDental. In trademark law there is a concept of a "family of marks" which share a common element. In this case it would be the leading 'i'. It seems like a long shot argument though, and arguing descriptiveness or genericness would probably be better.
This sounds more like solicitation than conspiracy. Conspiracy requires an agreement between the parties as well as a substantial step towards the commission of the crime. Neither of those elements exist here because the "agreement" was with a party who was unwilling to actually commit the crime. From the Wikipedia entry..."It is not necessary that the person actually commit the crime, nor is it necessary that the person solicited be willing or able to commit the crime (such as if the "solicitee" were an undercover police officer)."
Also, this guy's claim that he got cold feet and backed out is irrelevant toward a charge of solicitation. Unlike conspiracy, the crime is complete at the time of the request.
exactly! laws that violate express grants of power in the constitution are some of the easiest for the supreme court to strike down as unconstitutional.
it was refreshing to find your post.
So for your prior art search, you could hire a patent attorney or agent and pay them somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 to get a search report. It would probably take the attorney/agent (or his/her understudy) anywhere from two to eight hours to complete. Because this person has experience with patent searches, you will have the confidence that search report is accurate (not to mention the attorney's mal-practice liability if the report is flawed).
If you were to conduct the search on your own, you would not only need to learn the ins and outs of the PTO search site, you would also need to understand the precise language of patent drafting. It is widely acknowledged that it can take up to five years to become an expert at patent drafting. I'm in no way saying that you are not capable of learning these things. My point is that if you are a specialist in computer hardware, how could it ever be worth the opportunity cost to conduct the search yourself. And can you honestly say that your very first patent search will be of the same quality as that of a person who regularly conducts patent searches? Was your first computer program the same quality as your most recent computer program?
I'm curious to see if part two of the DeveloperWorks article will mention cayenne as a good ORM framework. An older post with examples of using tapestry and cayenne can be found here.
As a former WO zealot and programmer '99-03 there is a certain feeling of vindication seeing such a glowing write-up of a WO clone.
A later inventor still has an incentive to build on top of a patented product that is not available for licensing because you may develop a derivative invention that induces the original patentee to cross-license the patents. Even if you are not yet selling your derivative invention there is a potential that the original patentee will sue you for infringement under the assumption that the new invention could not possibly have been developed without using the original invention. However, no rational person would file this suit because the cost of litigation would far exceed any damages that could be won from the production of a few prototypes.
I think the argument that is frequently made against a compulsory licensing regime is that such a system may reduce the incentive to invent. When a patent holder refuses to license a patent it creates a huge incentive to design around the patent at issue.
An intelligent inventor would do a patent search up front to avoid the "hard work of independently re-inventing." Even "a bunch of cheap obscure patent, sitting around" unimplemented have value to society because they force other later inventors to come up with new ideas. This concept known as "designing around" other patents is a key feature of the patent system.
Give the parent a break. His/her point is still valid even if the poster misunderstood the difference between patents and trademarks. The patent system is a wonderful tool for protecting one's ideas and then profiting from them. Its only the USPTO's ineptitude over the last decade that has skewed people's perspective of the patent system. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
"Also, some have claimed that in the pharmaceutical industry, slight changes in formulation that marginally improve effectiveness can allow a new patent on essentially the same substance."
While this may be true in some cases, the new patent only protects the marginal improvement. Anyone else is free to make the product as orginially disclosed in the first patent.
I think you are on to something. In law school I was a law clerk at a state administrative court. The administrative law judges would frequently pose their opinions in a way to grab the attention of the reviewing appellate courts. Unlike elected or appointed judges, ALJs are salaried civil servants who don't receive a high degree of respect in the legal community. Getting the first stab at changing the law is about the most exciting aspect of an ALJ's job. It was noted that the Board made the decision precedent. So even if this particular individual doesn't appeal the decision to the federal circuit, some future losing party likely will.
You forgot one important issue... so long as the reporter is in this country or otherwise subject to a court's jurisdiction the information would have to be released upon a court order. It doesn't matter how secure the data is or how far from the court's jurisdiction the server is located, the issue is what the reporter knows and what s/he is not telling the court when ordered to do so. The reporter in the rove/plame matter did not have anything encrypted. She is in jail for refusing to turn over her notes. Telling the judge oh sure you can have my notes but I'm not going to tell you the password would result in exactly the same punishment.
I completely understand and agree with your assessment about not being able to distinguish between vowel sounds. I think though, this is where phonetics comes into play. Once phonetics are committed to memory, recognizing the sound triggers the memory of the proper spelling of that sound. I recently read an online article about the decision not to teach phonetics in elementary schools from the late '70s to the late '80s. The article explained that there was a notion that it was no longer necessary and the time was better spent on other topics. Interestingly, that theory was rejected in the late '80s just as may of the 20-30 year olds here on slashdot finished elementary school. Without an actual detailed study, it would be difficult to prove a link between not teaching phonetics and an inability to sound-out words, but it is nevertheless an interesting possibility that non-spellers in the 20-30 age range are the outcome of a great experiment gone wrong in elementary education.