No, absolutely not. The previously rejected patent is not a different patent from the one that is apparently now being allowed...actually, I think it is just specific claims that were rejected and now modified versions of those claims are being allowed. In any case, none of the prior iterations of the patent can server as disabiling prior art for the final version of the patent. Even if there were previous patents from Amazon that had parts of the invention, this one could have been filed as a continuation of the earlier patents to avoid prior art issues.
With the latest changes and allowance by the USPTO, this one looks good, meets the requirements and is very likely to stand.
First off, the power spike is so short, it is basically irrelevant. LEDs are so expensive that the payback is much much longer than the payback for CFL. Plus you can't get LED lights as bright as regular lights.
We may be going LED in the future, but CFL is the best choice for most people today.
We are talking about a non violent crime here. Keep it in proportion.
Would feel differently about a teenager who attempted to defraud people of their money in person as opposed to via the web? What is the difference? What if they were adults instead of teenagers? They are trying to con people for their own enrichment. They should get the same punishment no matter what medium they use for their crime.
Microsoft somehow monitors this through my operating system and brings a trial against me in country X. I don't even live there but now I have to go there and defend a lawsuit in that country?
These are criminal trials we are talking about here. Microsoft is simply providing evidence of fraud to the police, and I can't see any way that this is a bad thing.
If Microsoft wanted to bring a civil case against you in any country, they could do it whether or not they are helping the police gather evidence for criminal cases.
...but teenagers settling out of court? That reeks of RIAA/MPAA tactics to me.
These teenagers are phishing; they are attemtping to defraud others of their money. This is not low level copyright violation. IMO they should have to do some time for it.
Patents are a tool that can be used both by big and by small players. And since big players have more financial resources, i.e. lawyers, they can use the tool more and will continue to dominate.
Bricklin could have kicked Microsoft's and Lotus's butt if he had a patent on Visicalc. You say that patents are used more by big companies and therefore they benefit more. That may be true to a degree, patents are also used very effectively by the little guys. Without patents, you will get a situation more like Dan Briklin's situation today: he invented the killer app and was out executed and out marketed by the big guys because he did not protect his IP and therefore he did not make a dime.
Besides, even if you are right, the worst case is that we might all still be using our TRS-80s. Would that be so bad?
If he had patented (which, bizarrely, is allowed for software in the US), then neither Apple's nor IBM's PCs would have taken off.
He had Visicalc running on the IBM PC by 1981, he also had it on the Apple II, the PET, and the TRS-80. Dan could have elected to continue working on it himself or license other companies, such as that little outfit in Redmond. Your suggestion that a patent on Visicalc would have kept us in the stone age is absurd. He was clearly trying to run it on anything that was popular at the time. The only difference that would have been caused by a patent would be that Microsoft and Lotus (IBM) would be a bit less rich than they are today. A result most on here would probably welcome.
The point is that without patents, big companies like Microsoft can easily out muscle and out market little guys with good ideas. With patents, the little guys can win more.
If he had bothered to patent it, he could have been a billionaire by now.
This is not an example of Microsoft screwing someone. It is an example for the anti-patent free software crowd on what happens when you don't patent something: a big company like Microsoft can come in and do it better (or at least market it better) than you. They make billions and you don't.
Dig down through the links to the source page: http://www.jp.playstation.com/support/qa-591.html
Translate that with babelfish and you will see that the MAX consumption is 380 watts. With 8 cores all running at 100%, 380 watts seems very reasonable (48 watts/core peak). The average will be much lower.
We need more taxes on stuff that wastes this much power. There's no need for it - it's clearly a problem that's allowed to go untreated because there's no financial incentive to do so.
Let's keep this in perspective. People already pay proportionally more in their power bill when the use more power. At 380watts, if play eight hours a day every day of the year, you will pay an extra $122 a year to play games (at $0.11/kwh). If you play less, you will pay less. Considering all the extra processing power that the PS3 has, this level of power consumption may be perfectly reasonable and I think that most people who buy it will find the power/cost/enjoyment tradeoff reasonable.
Another service mission will only get us from 2009 to 2013? That seems like an awfully short life extension compared to the expense and risk of a manned flight. Is this really the best they can do?
The patent was incredibly terse and offered no specifics as to "How" the system really worked. Instead of outlining protocols used, or specific procedures for each step in the process they instead used generic terms such as "A network protocol will be used" it didn't state what protocols were used...
Why would they want to limit themselves to a specific protocol or format? No competent patent agent would draft a patent with such limitations.
In it's implementation they are using technology that's the property of a specific orgtanization, but they never mentioned what they were doing or using in the patent. (btw the technology owner is already fighting this in court stating that the standard they built on is their property and an exclusive patent can not be granted to Fuji since it incorporates a patented technology... ug... )
If those are the facts, there should be no issue. If my invention happens to rely on other patents items, and is simply larger that them, adds on to them or whatever, that is perfectly okay. I don't need permission or authorization from the base patent holder to file my patent. Of course, if I want to practice my patent, then I will need a license from the base patent holder.
If you beleive the patent and take it at it's face value, the entire concept of storing images online and having users of a system on the web being able to access and download them is now the propery (as of 2004) of the Fuji corporation...
What is the patent number? Let's see it. I can guarantee you that a patent issued in 2004 that only covers storing, accessing and download images in general will not stand. There is a ton of prior art and it will be easily invalidated. However, I suspect that their patent is not that simple, so let's have the patent number so we can all see.
If the patent office is so inept and incredibly ill informed that they will grant a patent that doesn't meet the bare minimum of a technology patent, why should it be granted in the first place?
Sometimes bad ones get through, and that is why we have the review process. I can tell you, the PTO virtually never accepts patents as originally submitted. They always find prior art and require that applications be limited to exclude the prior art. At the same time, I agree that they should get more funding and spend more time examining each patent to increase the quality and validity of the patents they issue.
Historians argue that the ancient Romans were extremely close to an industrial revolution, but I never heard the reason they never went through one being because of the lack of patents.
My point is that we've had a ton of innovation since modern patents were introduced. Our country has some of the strongest patent laws in the world and we are also the leader in innovation. Arguments that the net effect of patents is to stifle innovation just don't wash.
So even if you are correct, there's such a thing as too much of a good thing.
As I said, we can certainly debate what should and should not be patentable and any given vague, obvious or not novel patent, but the overall system is a huge net benefit to us.
People were coming up with ideas and inventions, and making profit off them long before anyone came up with the idea of patents. The whole idea of IP and Patents does a lot more to hinder progress than help it.
Assuming that when you say "IP and Patents" you are really just talking about patents and not copyrights or trademarks, I think your claim that patents have hindered progress more than help it is debatable. Patents as we currently know them first appeared in Italy in 1474. In case you have not noticed, we have had a bit of progress since 1474. Yes, patents have sometimes slowed things down, however, they also help a bunch, which you appear to want to deny.
Mankind has probably had far more inventive progress since patents were first issued than before they were issued. Why do you think the US has been the center of invention for so long? Far from restricting invention, our patent laws have provided a strong incentive for invention, attracting the best and brightest from all over the world to the US where our laws enable them to benefit directly from their work, as opposed to much of the rest of the world which has, until recently, had much more restricted patent rights for inventors and, guess what, less innovation.
We can have legitimate debates about what should and should not be patentable, and the various obvious or not novel patents that have been granted. However, the notion that patents as a whole hurt more than help is simply not supported by the facts.
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Correct. It is a virtual certainty that the Supreme Court will strike down patents for tax reduction and probably any other method that involves dealing with the government. It may take several years for this to make it to the Supreme Court, and I am sure that anti-patent/. folks will be hoping for a complete wipe out of the patent system and in the mean time will be laughing their asses off about the patent system run amok. Each side gets a moment in the sun...
That's four percent towards the Kyoto targets which are of course nowhere near zero.
I thought "4% of power used" seemed like an awfully high figure. Based on the numbers here, it seems like there is little point in changing out your powersupply just to cut the standby power consumption. Your time and effort would be much better put into replacing all of your lightbulbs with compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs, which will save you real money right now.
Are we justified sanctioning and otherwise punishing it, even if it lied?
They lied to the Clinton administration when they started cheating on the no nuke deal before the ink was dry. We should punish them for that.
As for the nuke, we need to have a serious sit down with China. China does not want a unified Korea (at least not unified under the South), but they also don't want SK, Japan or, God forbid, Taiwan going nuclear either. China is the only one in a good position to stop NKs nuclear ambitions without firing a shot, and they had better do it or Japan and the rest may go nuclear too. That would be much worse for China than destabilizing NK that might lead to a unified Korea.
IT did not cause your problems
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
I don't see that IT works people harder than other groups in general. If your specific department worked you very hard or if you are a workaholic and either way did not spend the time that you needed too with your family and that led to your divorce, that is your problem. I am sure the warning signs were there long ago, you should have stopped working so much, found another job or whatever. In any case, IT did not cause your problems.
that'd be a better way to measure it's magnetic field
We can't indirectly measure the magnetic fields of the other planets in our own solarsystem, we actually have to send out robots to measure them directly. I don't think we have any chance of measuring the magnetic fields (or lack thereof) of extrasolar planets, they are too weak and far away.
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding your "shopping list model", I suggest you read up on the doctrine of equivalents. Changing what you call it does not get you anywhere.
Without convincing prior art to show, it is highly unlikely that the USPTO would grant another review.
No, absolutely not. The previously rejected patent is not a different patent from the one that is apparently now being allowed...actually, I think it is just specific claims that were rejected and now modified versions of those claims are being allowed. In any case, none of the prior iterations of the patent can server as disabiling prior art for the final version of the patent. Even if there were previous patents from Amazon that had parts of the invention, this one could have been filed as a continuation of the earlier patents to avoid prior art issues. With the latest changes and allowance by the USPTO, this one looks good, meets the requirements and is very likely to stand.
Obvious to an expert is not a barrier to patent. The invention must not be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
First off, the power spike is so short, it is basically irrelevant. LEDs are so expensive that the payback is much much longer than the payback for CFL. Plus you can't get LED lights as bright as regular lights. We may be going LED in the future, but CFL is the best choice for most people today.
Full reverse!
Would feel differently about a teenager who attempted to defraud people of their money in person as opposed to via the web? What is the difference? What if they were adults instead of teenagers? They are trying to con people for their own enrichment. They should get the same punishment no matter what medium they use for their crime.
If Microsoft wanted to bring a civil case against you in any country, they could do it whether or not they are helping the police gather evidence for criminal cases.
Besides, even if you are right, the worst case is that we might all still be using our TRS-80s. Would that be so bad?
Next thing you know, the company that makes them will be bought out by Cylon, Inc.
I for one welcome our...
The point is that without patents, big companies like Microsoft can easily out muscle and out market little guys with good ideas. With patents, the little guys can win more.
This is not an example of Microsoft screwing someone. It is an example for the anti-patent free software crowd on what happens when you don't patent something: a big company like Microsoft can come in and do it better (or at least market it better) than you. They make billions and you don't.
Dig down through the links to the source page: http://www.jp.playstation.com/support/qa-591.html Translate that with babelfish and you will see that the MAX consumption is 380 watts. With 8 cores all running at 100%, 380 watts seems very reasonable (48 watts/core peak). The average will be much lower.
Another service mission will only get us from 2009 to 2013? That seems like an awfully short life extension compared to the expense and risk of a manned flight. Is this really the best they can do?
Mankind has probably had far more inventive progress since patents were first issued than before they were issued. Why do you think the US has been the center of invention for so long? Far from restricting invention, our patent laws have provided a strong incentive for invention, attracting the best and brightest from all over the world to the US where our laws enable them to benefit directly from their work, as opposed to much of the rest of the world which has, until recently, had much more restricted patent rights for inventors and, guess what, less innovation.
We can have legitimate debates about what should and should not be patentable, and the various obvious or not novel patents that have been granted. However, the notion that patents as a whole hurt more than help is simply not supported by the facts.
These things are clearly more than commericals and the actors should be paid. Heck, even actors in commericals get paid.
As for the nuke, we need to have a serious sit down with China. China does not want a unified Korea (at least not unified under the South), but they also don't want SK, Japan or, God forbid, Taiwan going nuclear either. China is the only one in a good position to stop NKs nuclear ambitions without firing a shot, and they had better do it or Japan and the rest may go nuclear too. That would be much worse for China than destabilizing NK that might lead to a unified Korea.
I don't see that IT works people harder than other groups in general. If your specific department worked you very hard or if you are a workaholic and either way did not spend the time that you needed too with your family and that led to your divorce, that is your problem. I am sure the warning signs were there long ago, you should have stopped working so much, found another job or whatever. In any case, IT did not cause your problems.