Gandi at www.gandi.net is a French registrar that is fantastic, and has the best contract of any registrar. No bullshit suspensions or any of that nonsense.
I can't conceive of how it could be argued that this hyperlink is so amazingly different that it isn't covered by one of the other patents Then, not to be rude, but you should learn something about patents. That might help you conceive this. Seriously, there's no way that the click-to-talk system is covered under hyperlink patents or the like. There just isn't any way. OTOH, the USPO is gaining a reputation for granting duplicate patents, patents for which there is a considerable amount of prior art, and just generally not reading the patent application at all. That's not the problem. Sure the USPTO may not "get" technology as much as we do here, but they're reading the application and applying the standards they're supposed to. The problem is that the entity that has the final word in what patent standards are on a case-by-case basis is the Federal Circuit, whose power depends on a robust, expansive patent regime. It's not that they're ignoring prior art, it's that the idea of "prior art" is getting narrower. It's generally a bad idea to entrust these things to entities that have this kind of incentive.
Studio 360 is produced by the radio station WNYC in New York, and distributed by Public Radio International. NPR has nothing to do with it, you insensitive clod.
You're probably right that the record industry engages in anticompetitive practices, perhaps in violation of U.S. law. This isn't the plaintiff (or counterclaimant) to win that case.
FRCP 12(b)(6) basically is grounds to dismiss one or more claims in a lawsuit because even if all the factual assertions made by the plaintiff are true, they have not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.
You can certainly get FRCP 11 sanctions on a counterclaim on the grounds that its frivolous. So, yeah, you can have a frivolous counterclaim. (b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
Man, I haven't encountered such a poorly written submission in a while, and I've been here a while, that's a story all in itself! There were so many digressions the point was long lost (but that's a story in itself!)
"Ripped from modern day headlines"
on
EA's Army of Two
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If it's really ripped from modern day headlines, that means the game shows up at your door without you wanting it, it has a shaky story about why you have to play it, but you have to play it, and when you're finished playing you have to play again and again. All of this even though everyone knows the reason why you had to play in the first place was based on lies. And to top it all off, by playing, you're making some big companies lots of money.
On the trunk build of Firefox that I use, Flash isn't even installed. (It's bothersome, block or not.) But the NYT site still crawls because there are so many tables and needless images.
I load and reload news sites hundreds of times a day. Strip the bloat out, and let me do it quickly. The new NYT layout is fine as layout goes (though I still like the old site better) but all the Flash and proliferation of tables upon tables makes the site load at a crawl.
In short: strip Flash out. Video in links only. Make it snappy.
"Documentation required before issuing a license or ID card
Before a card can be issued, the applicant must provide the following documentation:
* A photo ID, or a non-photo ID that includes full legal name and birthdate.
* Documentation of birthdate.
* Proof of Social Security Number or verification that the applicant isn't eligible for one.
* Documentation showing name and principal residence address.
* Documentation showing that the applicant is legally present in the US (in other words, is a US citizen or national, is an alien with permanent or temporary residence status or a valid visa, has applied for or been granted asylum, is a refugee, etc.).
The state must verify each of the above documents with the issuing agency. The only foreign document that may be accepted for any of the above items is an official passport."
Also:
"Each state must agree to share its motor vehicle database with all other states. This database must include, at a minimum, all the data printed on the state drivers' licenses and ID cards, plus drivers' histories (including motor vehicle violations, suspensions, and points on licenses)."
With posting stupid questions on Slashdot becoming ever more popular among users, why do you we bother reading anymore? Do you view Slashdot as different from say, another waste of time? What about another mind-boggling stupid waste of time? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many stupid questions? I'm specifically talking about the questions in this webpage, but any insipid blathering can cause problems with me using a site.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the screen name is MNFIRAQ
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=MNFIRAQ
Gandi at www.gandi.net is a French registrar that is fantastic, and has the best contract of any registrar. No bullshit suspensions or any of that nonsense.
CowboyNealFS?
I can't conceive of how it could be argued that this hyperlink is so amazingly different that it isn't covered by one of the other patents
Then, not to be rude, but you should learn something about patents. That might help you conceive this. Seriously, there's no way that the click-to-talk system is covered under hyperlink patents or the like. There just isn't any way.
OTOH, the USPO is gaining a reputation for granting duplicate patents, patents for which there is a considerable amount of prior art, and just generally not reading the patent application at all.
That's not the problem. Sure the USPTO may not "get" technology as much as we do here, but they're reading the application and applying the standards they're supposed to. The problem is that the entity that has the final word in what patent standards are on a case-by-case basis is the Federal Circuit, whose power depends on a robust, expansive patent regime. It's not that they're ignoring prior art, it's that the idea of "prior art" is getting narrower. It's generally a bad idea to entrust these things to entities that have this kind of incentive.
Has Netcraft confirmed it?
Studio 360 is produced by the radio station WNYC in New York, and distributed by Public Radio International. NPR has nothing to do with it, you insensitive clod.
It's not. This is a program that is produced by WNYC in New York with funds from their members.
Who are the ad wizards who came up with that one?
You're probably right that the record industry engages in anticompetitive practices, perhaps in violation of U.S. law. This isn't the plaintiff (or counterclaimant) to win that case.
It hurts to try because if you make a frivolous claim the attorney, law firm, or party may be subject to sanctions.
FRCP 12(b)(6) basically is grounds to dismiss one or more claims in a lawsuit because even if all the factual assertions made by the plaintiff are true, they have not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IANAL. This isn't legal advice.
You can certainly get FRCP 11 sanctions on a counterclaim on the grounds that its frivolous. So, yeah, you can have a frivolous counterclaim.
(b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
I'm just not sure a borderline-frivolous lawsuit is a "meaningful way" of pushing back.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) will quickly dispose of this.
Man, I haven't encountered such a poorly written submission in a while, and I've been here a while, that's a story all in itself! There were so many digressions the point was long lost (but that's a story in itself!)
If it's really ripped from modern day headlines, that means the game shows up at your door without you wanting it, it has a shaky story about why you have to play it, but you have to play it, and when you're finished playing you have to play again and again. All of this even though everyone knows the reason why you had to play in the first place was based on lies. And to top it all off, by playing, you're making some big companies lots of money.
On the trunk build of Firefox that I use, Flash isn't even installed. (It's bothersome, block or not.) But the NYT site still crawls because there are so many tables and needless images.
I load and reload news sites hundreds of times a day. Strip the bloat out, and let me do it quickly. The new NYT layout is fine as layout goes (though I still like the old site better) but all the Flash and proliferation of tables upon tables makes the site load at a crawl.
In short: strip Flash out. Video in links only. Make it snappy.
Yes, it is funny.
That's absolutely not true after the act. I'll re-post the link, and would advise you to look at a referenced link before replying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act
Under the act:
"Documentation required before issuing a license or ID card
Before a card can be issued, the applicant must provide the following documentation:
* A photo ID, or a non-photo ID that includes full legal name and birthdate.
* Documentation of birthdate.
* Proof of Social Security Number or verification that the applicant isn't eligible for one.
* Documentation showing name and principal residence address.
* Documentation showing that the applicant is legally present in the US (in other words, is a US citizen or national, is an alien with permanent or temporary residence status or a valid visa, has applied for or been granted asylum, is a refugee, etc.).
The state must verify each of the above documents with the issuing agency. The only foreign document that may be accepted for any of the above items is an official passport."
Also:
"Each state must agree to share its motor vehicle database with all other states. This database must include, at a minimum, all the data printed on the state drivers' licenses and ID cards, plus drivers' histories (including motor vehicle violations, suspensions, and points on licenses)."
RTFL, amigo.
It's called a driver's license (or state ID card), and you get it at the DMV in your state. Or the DPS if you're in Texas. :)
The feds have "federalized," as they do, and we indeed do have a de facto national ID.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act
I'm sorry to break this to you, but Windows bundles a browser too.
The open hardware issue is a more valid point, but why not move from one bundled-browser OS to another because the new OS has a bundled browser??
Silly.
I'm sorry, what? What is impressive about this? Just what the world needs, another second-rate personalized homepage. Blech.
With posting stupid questions on Slashdot becoming ever more popular among users, why do you we bother reading anymore? Do you view Slashdot as different from say, another waste of time? What about another mind-boggling stupid waste of time? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many stupid questions? I'm specifically talking about the questions in this webpage, but any insipid blathering can cause problems with me using a site.
Does this mean I don't have to look at the photo of Bram and his baby anymore?