Ford doesn't sue the soccer mom that drives a Chevy Suburban if the Suburban violates patents Ford owns - Ford sues Chevy. If Ford were to hint to car buyers that they might sue anyone who buys a Chevy, they would be violating a tremendous number of laws that Chevy could sue them for.
MS has already tried the FUD of scaring people away. They've already cried wolf. Have you seen SCO's stock price lately?
no, MS has to take on you. They have to sue you for patent infringement.
And if you really think MS's pockets are so deep that they can carry themselves through their current lull, survive the dip their stock is going to take, AND sue a couple thousand companies...without details from each of the defendants being shared between said defendants...
This isn't the RIAA going after grandmothers living on welfare. MS is aiming to go up against people that will put up a tremendous fight. You don't think RMS would happily go to court every day just to make MS hire the team of lawyers it would take to argue against him, for instance? You don't think the fact that it was shown they were propping up SCO hurt their case? You don't think that public opinion is already swinging against MS, and would do so even more if they followed through with such a thing? You don't think that the battle-hardened troops that dealt with SCO (much smaller, yes, but that fight was only against IBM, and SCO was claiming much more solid (and false) infringements) are licking their lips to take on MS in the "look and feel" BS that they're saying is being infringed upon? You don't think Motif Windows Manager was around prior to Windows 3.0? You don't think other things were around long before the Motif toolkit?
When the RIAA sues a grandmother living on welfare, all they have to do is show that an IP given to her computer by her ISP downloaded songs from a p2p site. Going after someone for actual patent violations, when the patents are bad patents, is not quite as cut and dry. And you can believe that if MS tries to "make an example" of someone, that someone will have a hell of a lot of support standing not behind them, but with them.
some people can't read, even when they're given the answer already.
As already stated, IP is what goes on the dvds and cds (entertainment industry), how to make things (we still do a LOT of structural engineering here for car, planes, rockets, etc...we just don't actually produce as many of those engineered items anymore), etc. And then, of course, there's software and computers...mahaps you've heard of names like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Apple, etc?
How about the other direction - how about you tell me which of our largest industries wouldn't be heavily impacted if IP law was weakened in the US.
validity of the patents? not really. Money MS has available? Nope. the tenacity of Ballmer? Ha.
The real reason to worry is that the big thing the US still exports is...IP. We don't export televisions, computers, cds, dvds, toys, or anything else. We export how to make those things, what music and movies to put on the cds and dvds, etc. That is our largest remaining industry (since food is too cheap to make money off of really anymore).
Part of me, therefore, worries that the feds will come HARD to the rescue of MS, because to do otherwise would be to give up a large part of the US IP. Not that MS is, by itself, such a thing...but it is certainly a figurehead for software patents, and the fall of MS would domino many other falls, all dramatically hurting the long-term export portfolio of the US.
serious? I'm going to start taking a screwdriver with me then, because though the total bill is always low, I still get annoyed at gas pumps because they click off for me when I'm trying to fill the tank on my bike. Some pumps wont even freakin do anything at all.
ah, yeah, I personally don't know either, and didn't look for the same reason. Whether they hold the patent to me is fairly irrelevant, as it is not a "good" patent if it does exist.
if there is no patent, then there is no patent to invalidate. The process for invalidating something requires that first, that the something exists.
Thus, I'm obviously talking to the end of your post - the courtroom, where the patent is invalidated. The USPTO is too overworked as it is to hear things themselves. At this point they're almost more harm than good, and should just stop doing tech patent discovery at all - allow someone to file, allow them to claim a patent, and allow the courts to work it out.
Maybe tech patents should themselves be done differently, with a special type of patent that courts know is less meaningful and is to their discretion?
incorrect. It is up to the person that claims I am infringing upon their patent to bring a case against me. Once they do, I can cheaply (and easily) respond by demonstrating prior art.
You have it backwards - you say patents are valid until proven bad, when in fact patents are dubious until proven good
MS can claim tabbed browsing all they want, but it is clearly a bad patent. The patent itself is completely worthless, because if they were to ever try to actually use it, it would be exceptionally trivial for the defendant to have the patent invalidated.
H.R.2795 hasn't been passed. "prior art" is still a viable means of invalidating something. And if MS is going to start leaning on the highly flawed patent "reform" before it even makes it out of committee, they'll likely just be digging the H.R.2795's grave next to their own.
Will it be substantially easier for MS to abuse patent law under H.R.2795? Absolutely. Will it make "prior art" invalid? Not at all. And, like I mentioned, it's not even out of committee yet;)
have you been paying attention? "prior art" invalidates patents.
If MS sues someone for that particular patent, "prior art" will be shown, and the patent invalidated. It matters not a tiny bit that they have a patent, if the patent is invalid.
No it (my previous post) shouldn't (state that). making invalid claims isn't illegal, unless you're under oath or a few other specific things. IE - claiming you're a police officer, etc.
In much the same way that I can claim to have invented computers, someone can claim that an illegal document is covered under the DMCA. It is an invalid claim, as no illegal document can be protected in such a manner, but it is a claim none the less.
Did you even read what I wrote? If you see some results and can't reproduce them, especially on this particular topic, people will still be interested. If you can reproduce them, then that's an even bigger deal. I covered both of those. It's fairly simple as to the whys involved.
There's a lot of cutting-edge science that is very hit-and-miss, and for those topics, good lab notes are almost as good as reproducible results, to those who examine what you've seen.
right now China has made us look like asses by very effectively using very old tech (diesel-run subs) to sneak up on US carrier groups a couple times. They charge up massive batteries with the diesel engines, then can run for a while completely silent, and at the same temp as their environment.
We were brainiacs and went to nuclear power for many of our more important subs, which run very *hot*, even if they are silent. They can be seen easily due to their thermal footprint.
Cold fusion, therefore, would be a way to have the diesel benefits, without having to surface frequently to recharge. A completely silent sub that can stay down for very long periods of time, with no thermal footprint...what, other than cold fusion, could possibly provide such a thing? Unless they could train some whales, and make some harnesses...
absolutely incorrect. It is perfectly valid, in science and almost any other field, to clarify that your results are reproducible. In fact, in science and nearly any other field, if you can't reproduce the results yourself, people don't want to know about it.
In this particular field, it is in fact important to clarify such a thing. It could be that you only saw signs that you stumbled upon, not quite understanding them, but they looked like fusion took place. Others might still want to look at your lab notes, your results, what you were doing...in an effort to see if they can stumble upon it as well.
When a loon tells me they were able to fly, but only once, I'm substantially less interested than I am in the loon (esp if it's a huge gov organization like the Navy...) that says he knows how to fly, and can show me.
Rather than restricting the product of those debates, we should instead make sure that our democracy and citizens have the chance to benefit from them in all the ways that technology makes possible.
Rather than restricting it...like
Eh, you know, there's pandering and then there's pandering. Pandering to people by promising to pay for their college education (suckers, you were just free labor for Clinton) sucks, pandering by promising to build a huge bridge in Alaska that isn't needed sucks, but pandering by suggesting something that costs no tax dollars, benefits everyone sans one or two corporations, and is a legitimate step toward a better society......well, that sort of pandering (it's to the/. demographic, as if that isn't obvious) is ok. He's probably just trying to recover from the myspace mess. Eh, so what.
I'm not claiming Powershell was the first to invent the pipe - god no. I just meant to point out that *finally* Windows has something on equal ground to *nix.
reeeeallly. Who wrote this, then?
Wake me up when *nix gets an object-oriented (rather than text-oriented) shell. Because that is what makes Powershell so unique. Yes, it has plenty of builtin functions to make tasks easier, but the real advantage is that everything you pass between commands is an object.
socket to socket communication has been around in Unix since it was born. That is one of the fundamentals of Unix. Hell, it is one of the reasons X-windows is doomed to suck forever.
you're not being serious, are you? Hope not, yet your post is mod'd "interesting" instead of "funny."
First, that's a poor definition of "object" - second, I can pass non-text data from one function to another with no prob.
you might notice that | symbol there lets ya chain stuff. Well gosh, I've been doing that in Unix for 14 years. Binary data, text, whatever I want to pass. It's been possible in Unix for longer than that, I'm just speaking to how long *I* have been doing it.
ls| sed -e 's/^d/b/'|mailx -s "oh no!" phrosty
Re:YOu only posted that so you can
on
Treating the Dead
·
· Score: 1
she's an exotics vet, working on her second doctorate. I don't even have an associate's degree, yet I make twice as much as her and have put her through 2 schools and paid for her to go all over the place the last 8 years. I'm not gonna be a kept man until she's finished with her PhD - at which point the deal is that *I* get to go back to school. I hate computer science, I've just been doing it forever so I make good money. Meh.
But no, I was just trying to point out (proxy from my wife) that resumption of oxygen has been known for a long time to have toxic, and generally fatal, consequences...and that most of them can't be mitigated simply by cooling the body down, or some such. I wish the scientists in the article the best...I'm just not going to expect any results. My wife was pretty convincing (esp after showing me articles that were decades-old that described in detail what the article says these scientists just "discovered").
reperfusion injury isn't news
on
Treating the Dead
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I mentioned this to my wife as I started reading it (who was massaging a heart earlier today, trying to resuscitate the animal) and her response was that "reperfusion injury" was well known. Then I read that word in the article. Then she described it to me.
She also explained that when the cells stop getting oxygen, they start going into anaerobic respiration, and the other issue is all the toxins that get released into the circulatory system once the heart starts pumping again.
Anyway, yeah - when a body dies, almost all the cells in the body are certainly still alive. That's not the point though - the cells have to be happy, then the tissues, then the organs, then the body as a whole. Once the body stops working as a whole, it doesn't matter that almost all the cellular components are, on a cellular level, still alive.
Says she, resuscitations in animals are even far less frequent than the 15% listed in the article for humans. And in the ones that do survive, they almost always have "reperfusion injury."
Slashdot Mirror
Ford doesn't sue the soccer mom that drives a Chevy Suburban if the Suburban violates patents Ford owns - Ford sues Chevy. If Ford were to hint to car buyers that they might sue anyone who buys a Chevy, they would be violating a tremendous number of laws that Chevy could sue them for.
MS has already tried the FUD of scaring people away. They've already cried wolf. Have you seen SCO's stock price lately?
no, MS has to take on you. They have to sue you for patent infringement.
And if you really think MS's pockets are so deep that they can carry themselves through their current lull, survive the dip their stock is going to take, AND sue a couple thousand companies...without details from each of the defendants being shared between said defendants...
This isn't the RIAA going after grandmothers living on welfare. MS is aiming to go up against people that will put up a tremendous fight. You don't think RMS would happily go to court every day just to make MS hire the team of lawyers it would take to argue against him, for instance? You don't think the fact that it was shown they were propping up SCO hurt their case? You don't think that public opinion is already swinging against MS, and would do so even more if they followed through with such a thing? You don't think that the battle-hardened troops that dealt with SCO (much smaller, yes, but that fight was only against IBM, and SCO was claiming much more solid (and false) infringements) are licking their lips to take on MS in the "look and feel" BS that they're saying is being infringed upon? You don't think Motif Windows Manager was around prior to Windows 3.0? You don't think other things were around long before the Motif toolkit?
When the RIAA sues a grandmother living on welfare, all they have to do is show that an IP given to her computer by her ISP downloaded songs from a p2p site. Going after someone for actual patent violations, when the patents are bad patents, is not quite as cut and dry. And you can believe that if MS tries to "make an example" of someone, that someone will have a hell of a lot of support standing not behind them, but with them.
bad patents aren't enforceable. That's what makes the system liveable.
some people can't read, even when they're given the answer already.
As already stated, IP is what goes on the dvds and cds (entertainment industry), how to make things (we still do a LOT of structural engineering here for car, planes, rockets, etc...we just don't actually produce as many of those engineered items anymore), etc. And then, of course, there's software and computers...mahaps you've heard of names like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Apple, etc?
How about the other direction - how about you tell me which of our largest industries wouldn't be heavily impacted if IP law was weakened in the US.
validity of the patents? not really.
Money MS has available? Nope.
the tenacity of Ballmer? Ha.
The real reason to worry is that the big thing the US still exports is...IP. We don't export televisions, computers, cds, dvds, toys, or anything else. We export how to make those things, what music and movies to put on the cds and dvds, etc. That is our largest remaining industry (since food is too cheap to make money off of really anymore).
Part of me, therefore, worries that the feds will come HARD to the rescue of MS, because to do otherwise would be to give up a large part of the US IP. Not that MS is, by itself, such a thing...but it is certainly a figurehead for software patents, and the fall of MS would domino many other falls, all dramatically hurting the long-term export portfolio of the US.
serious? I'm going to start taking a screwdriver with me then, because though the total bill is always low, I still get annoyed at gas pumps because they click off for me when I'm trying to fill the tank on my bike. Some pumps wont even freakin do anything at all.
your sig ignores the "Cold War" and a vast sea of other examples, btw.
ah, yeah, I personally don't know either, and didn't look for the same reason. Whether they hold the patent to me is fairly irrelevant, as it is not a "good" patent if it does exist.
if there is no patent, then there is no patent to invalidate. The process for invalidating something requires that first, that the something exists.
Thus, I'm obviously talking to the end of your post - the courtroom, where the patent is invalidated. The USPTO is too overworked as it is to hear things themselves. At this point they're almost more harm than good, and should just stop doing tech patent discovery at all - allow someone to file, allow them to claim a patent, and allow the courts to work it out.
Maybe tech patents should themselves be done differently, with a special type of patent that courts know is less meaningful and is to their discretion?
substantially cheaper than closing the doors to your business, and liquidating your assets, which is what would happen alternatively.
incorrect. It is up to the person that claims I am infringing upon their patent to bring a case against me. Once they do, I can cheaply (and easily) respond by demonstrating prior art.
You have it backwards - you say patents are valid until proven bad, when in fact patents are dubious until proven good
MS can claim tabbed browsing all they want, but it is clearly a bad patent. The patent itself is completely worthless, because if they were to ever try to actually use it, it would be exceptionally trivial for the defendant to have the patent invalidated.
H.R.2795 hasn't been passed. "prior art" is still a viable means of invalidating something. And if MS is going to start leaning on the highly flawed patent "reform" before it even makes it out of committee, they'll likely just be digging the H.R.2795's grave next to their own.
;)
And even if we switch to "first to file," prior art will still invalidate the patent. Specifically, see section 135 - "Inventor's rights contests"
Or start at the beginning, and patch it with the ammendments H.R.2795 would make
Will it be substantially easier for MS to abuse patent law under H.R.2795? Absolutely. Will it make "prior art" invalid? Not at all. And, like I mentioned, it's not even out of committee yet
have you been paying attention? "prior art" invalidates patents.
If MS sues someone for that particular patent, "prior art" will be shown, and the patent invalidated. It matters not a tiny bit that they have a patent, if the patent is invalid.
No it (my previous post) shouldn't (state that). making invalid claims isn't illegal, unless you're under oath or a few other specific things. IE - claiming you're a police officer, etc.
In much the same way that I can claim to have invented computers, someone can claim that an illegal document is covered under the DMCA. It is an invalid claim, as no illegal document can be protected in such a manner, but it is a claim none the less.
Did you even read what I wrote? If you see some results and can't reproduce them, especially on this particular topic, people will still be interested. If you can reproduce them, then that's an even bigger deal. I covered both of those. It's fairly simple as to the whys involved.
There's a lot of cutting-edge science that is very hit-and-miss, and for those topics, good lab notes are almost as good as reproducible results, to those who examine what you've seen.
how the hell am I supposed to surf porn in peace at work if someone else is sharing the same monitor as me? Well, unless she's cute, I guess...
right now China has made us look like asses by very effectively using very old tech (diesel-run subs) to sneak up on US carrier groups a couple times. They charge up massive batteries with the diesel engines, then can run for a while completely silent, and at the same temp as their environment.
We were brainiacs and went to nuclear power for many of our more important subs, which run very *hot*, even if they are silent. They can be seen easily due to their thermal footprint.
Cold fusion, therefore, would be a way to have the diesel benefits, without having to surface frequently to recharge. A completely silent sub that can stay down for very long periods of time, with no thermal footprint...what, other than cold fusion, could possibly provide such a thing? Unless they could train some whales, and make some harnesses...
absolutely incorrect. It is perfectly valid, in science and almost any other field, to clarify that your results are reproducible. In fact, in science and nearly any other field, if you can't reproduce the results yourself, people don't want to know about it.
In this particular field, it is in fact important to clarify such a thing. It could be that you only saw signs that you stumbled upon, not quite understanding them, but they looked like fusion took place. Others might still want to look at your lab notes, your results, what you were doing...in an effort to see if they can stumble upon it as well.
When a loon tells me they were able to fly, but only once, I'm substantially less interested than I am in the loon (esp if it's a huge gov organization like the Navy...) that says he knows how to fly, and can show me.
/. should allow you to delete your own posts... ;)
How about:
Rather than restricting it...like pulling out of the debates sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, and Fox?
Rather than restricting the product of those debates, we should instead make sure that our democracy and citizens have the chance to benefit from them in all the ways that technology makes possible.
...well, that sort of pandering (it's to the /. demographic, as if that isn't obvious) is ok. He's probably just trying to recover from the myspace mess. Eh, so what.
Rather than restricting it...like
Eh, you know, there's pandering and then there's pandering. Pandering to people by promising to pay for their college education (suckers, you were just free labor for Clinton) sucks, pandering by promising to build a huge bridge in Alaska that isn't needed sucks, but pandering by suggesting something that costs no tax dollars, benefits everyone sans one or two corporations, and is a legitimate step toward a better society...
I'm not claiming Powershell was the first to invent the pipe - god no. I just meant to point out that *finally* Windows has something on equal ground to *nix.
reeeeallly. Who wrote this, then?
Wake me up when *nix gets an object-oriented (rather than text-oriented) shell. Because that is what makes Powershell so unique. Yes, it has plenty of builtin functions to make tasks easier, but the real advantage is that everything you pass between commands is an object.
socket to socket communication has been around in Unix since it was born. That is one of the fundamentals of Unix. Hell, it is one of the reasons X-windows is doomed to suck forever.
you're not being serious, are you? Hope not, yet your post is mod'd "interesting" instead of "funny."
First, that's a poor definition of "object" - second, I can pass non-text data from one function to another with no prob.
you might notice that | symbol there lets ya chain stuff. Well gosh, I've been doing that in Unix for 14 years. Binary data, text, whatever I want to pass. It's been possible in Unix for longer than that, I'm just speaking to how long *I* have been doing it.
ls| sed -e 's/^d/b/'|mailx -s "oh no!" phrosty
she's an exotics vet, working on her second doctorate. I don't even have an associate's degree, yet I make twice as much as her and have put her through 2 schools and paid for her to go all over the place the last 8 years. I'm not gonna be a kept man until she's finished with her PhD - at which point the deal is that *I* get to go back to school. I hate computer science, I've just been doing it forever so I make good money. Meh.
But no, I was just trying to point out (proxy from my wife) that resumption of oxygen has been known for a long time to have toxic, and generally fatal, consequences...and that most of them can't be mitigated simply by cooling the body down, or some such. I wish the scientists in the article the best...I'm just not going to expect any results. My wife was pretty convincing (esp after showing me articles that were decades-old that described in detail what the article says these scientists just "discovered").
I mentioned this to my wife as I started reading it (who was massaging a heart earlier today, trying to resuscitate the animal) and her response was that "reperfusion injury" was well known. Then I read that word in the article. Then she described it to me.
She also explained that when the cells stop getting oxygen, they start going into anaerobic respiration, and the other issue is all the toxins that get released into the circulatory system once the heart starts pumping again.
Anyway, yeah - when a body dies, almost all the cells in the body are certainly still alive. That's not the point though - the cells have to be happy, then the tissues, then the organs, then the body as a whole. Once the body stops working as a whole, it doesn't matter that almost all the cellular components are, on a cellular level, still alive.
Says she, resuscitations in animals are even far less frequent than the 15% listed in the article for humans. And in the ones that do survive, they almost always have "reperfusion injury."