I totally agree -- it seems like it is too much screen scanning is required to determine the mod points -- and (oddly) I feel I have to move my pointer a lot more to find where I am.
I am a big fan of updating web sites and products to keep them refreshed, but my opinion is that these changes seem to have missed some important UI guidelines...
Oh well, I have faith that I'll evolve to accommodate the changes:)
Some companies (like Adobe) are spending many months converting their programs to XCode, and then many more months testing to ensure compatibility with both the Power PC and Intel versions.
How would you like them to be compensated for their efforts?
Remember, it was Apple that made the switch to Intel -- not Adobe.
I'm not sure what data you are referring to, but Microsoft's market cap is significantly larger than Wal-Mart's.
The market cap (taken from http://finance.yahoo.com/ of listed companies as of January 23, 2005:
Microsoft: 280.49B
Wal-Mart: 188.40B
Apple: 65.46B
Dell: 71.12B
Ya, the offering probably is not except, the linked articles say they missed these offerings in their S-1 filing -- regardless, the rescission offer would be granted to unsophisticated investors in order to reduce the chance of a lawsuit.
One point of clarification: When I refer to "registered" and "unregistered" shares I'm referring to the SEC registration of the offering. All shares are registered (or should be) in the jurisdiction of the company's incorporation.
Interestingly, the article does not make the distinction, so they may be unregistered with the state (a "no-no") - and therefore they may not have been a part of the outstanding shares that were used in the valuation, as you mentioned. The number of the shares referred to is insignificant to most, but it is (obviously) important to have an accurate picture of your outstanding shares!
Finally, in the rescission offer, they don't have to buy the shares back at cost - they can offer to buy them back for whatever price they want - even lower than the original offering, but that may lead to lawsuits:)
To put it simply: When a company has a unregistered private share offering to non-qualified investors (essentially non-high net worth, or "unsophisticated investors") they are required to get a waiver from the "unsophisticated investor" that they are willing to participate in the risk of investing in an unregistered offering.
The risk is that there are not the same corporate disclosure requirements for unregistered offerings as there are for registered offerings.
In the event that the company wants to go public at a later date, they usually provide rescission offers to these investors, which allow them to cash before the risky public offering.
Most rescission offers are optional, and in the event that the investor declines they will sign an additional waiver that says they are going along for the ride.
Except that I do not think your claim would be complete without adding "comprising", "wherein", or "and" on the end.
As it stands I do not think the claim: "1) A device for cutting grass using rotating blades." would be accepted
However the claim: "1) A device for cutting grass using rotating blades, comprising
a) A method of allowing the blades to hover above the grass using a magnetic force.
b)...."
True -- which is why I said that I felt many of MS's CLAIMS are voided by prior art.
They will not throw out an entire patent based on a claim -- but AFAIK the claims do still need to be unique (as they relate to their "comprised of" statements). Is this incorrect?
Yes -- see IBMs paper on the subject.... note the date of the -prior art- demonstration: November 18-19, 1996 -- Microsoft filed their patent April 27, 2000. I wonder where they got there ideas from?
Microsoft filed their patent (which is titled a "Method and apparatus for transmitting power and data using the human body") on April 27, 2000.
Yet at this web site, http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/user/pan/pan.html, there is a white paper (dated November 18-19, 1996) where IBM demonstrates their "new Personal Area Network technology that uses the natural electrical conductivity of the human body to transmit electronic data".
So, IBM demonstrated similar techniques back in 1996 that used the natural electrical conductivity to transmit data.
However, Microsoft's claims focus on power, and frequency adjustments, this is basis for their ability to send data.
One of Microsoft's claims states "modulating an information signal transmitted" using this signal; yet, in the IBM white paper it states that "The natural salinity of the human body makes it an excellent conductor of electrical current. PAN technology takes advantage of this conductivity by creating an external electric field that passes an incredibly tiny current through the body, over which data is carried."
My gut says that many of MS's claims are voided by prior art -- but one would need to study the MS claims in detail, and compare it to DoCoMo's and IBM's research on the subject, to make a truly educated rebuttal.
Snippets from the article:..."system's FreeBSD foundation"... and..."the Unix-based Mac OS X system"... and..."not the same as the Unix 'root' account password"...
You must be referring to the *original* article... the first makes no reference to BSD or UNIX. Based on that, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment - I do not think that the original author had a real understanding of OS X, BSB, UINX, or for that matter, even Windows.
We would never actually read a serious article of this nature because any person that takes the time to do a security review of Windows would find so many holes they would never finish their article. And they'd probably have to write it twice. And it would be posted on the internet before they could publish it.*
*I may have exaggerated slightly on the last few points:)
Yes, BUT Canada's independent Constitution, combined with their powerless Chief of State, is what forms Canada's "Constitutional" Monarchy: this is where "Monarchs" share power with parliaments. That's significantly different than freeweed's post insinuating governance being out of the citizens control.
Jean Chretien retired, and the Liberal Party of Canada *elected* a successor.
Canadians voted for our present ruling Party fair and square it was pretty clear who the people of Canada chose.
This is the way politics work in Canada: we vote for people in our riding to represent us, who represent a political Party, the members of the Party elect their leader. In this case the leader of the Party with the most seats in the House was Jean Chretien, he then retired, and the party elected a new leader. When the Parties term is up, or whenever the Party chooses chose prior to the term, the Party calls an election, and the voters of Canada elect new people who represent a Party.
If you don't like what you see then *join a party and vote for your leader*.
Sounds pretty far from a Monarchy to me.
Now - back to the article - I think that the Canadian voting system is pretty good. But what Cringely fails to note is that in Canada, for our elections, we are *typically* only voting for one thing: who will represent us in our riding. Whereas in the US voters are voting for people to represent them, and NUMEROUS referendum items. Canadian votes can be tallied quickly because we have so little to add up. Even using the Canadian system US votes would still take a MUCH longer time to tally.
Steve Jobs recruited John Sculley (then current CEO of Pepsi-Co) in 1983 to join Apple. Sculley was not a good fit in the technology industry and so in 1985 Jobs tried to regain control of the company in an ill conceived "coup" attempt. It backfired and Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple by the Board of Directors.
Under Sculley's "rule" Apple posted its first quarterly loss and was forced to lay-off over 1000 employees.
Things went kinda down hill from there...
Until around 1997 when Apple bought Jobs new company (NeXT) and Jobs became CEO again. Apple has had somewhat of a revival since then -- with their fair share of ups and downs -- but overall quite a lot of success. I could hardly qualify any of these "downs" as almost running the company out of business.
So, one could, indirectly say that by Jobs hiring Sculley he drove the company into the ground... but that seems like a "blame the parents" mentality. Responsible for the initial mistake: Yes.
Jobs is by no means perfect (apparently he makes a lousy micro manager, but than so do most of us) -- and he has promoted his share of flops (Apple Lisa for example, which by the way eventually turned into the Macintosh, perhaps you've heard of that?) -- but overall he seems like a pretty visionary leader to me.
I feel like I'm on the deprived side of a legal team. Although the case may be won on principle, the facts are against the defendant.
Therefore I propose a settlement: I'll admit you are right (and obviously have a superior intellect), if you'll agree that my message (poorly constructed, considering its audience) has perhaps a meager amount of insight... assuming we, for this argument, take away the word "domain".
1) I never stated that Windows 95 was Public Domain software, I said that it was released into the public domain (read the original source for context) 2) The definition of the public domain, regardless of whether referring to software, patents or books, is as I've described -- and is a common legally used definition 3) Public Domain software as you've described in relation to sales and licensing is free from encumbrances, I agree
I do appreciate constructive criticisms -- and I also appreciate your knowledge of the subject we're discussing. Perhaps next time we could be more civil in our responses?
I would expect people would be able to make a point without resorting to insults and flames.
Regardless,
Any release of information (regardless of sale or otherwise) made available to the public is considered
in the public domain.
This term has been in use long before your posted definition and refers to any published information
(i.e. patents, books, software).
"Information that is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public"
Definition
Public Domain can mean openly available to everyone and not subject to copyright protection, or simply openly available to the public (i.e. for sale to the public).
But thanks for the mature reply.
And BTW -- the filing date is the date in which a patent is filed PROVISIONAL or otherwise. You cannot state Patent Pending until AFTER the filing date. (But you probably already knew this.)
They released Window 95 into the public domain in August 1995 -- but only filed their patent December 14, 1995.
If I'm not mistaken (patent lawyers please help out here) their own product, once in the public domain, constitutes prior art -- therefore the concept it is not longer patent-able.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree -- it seems like it is too much screen scanning is required to determine the mod points -- and (oddly) I feel I have to move my pointer a lot more to find where I am.
:)
I am a big fan of updating web sites and products to keep them refreshed, but my opinion is that these changes seem to have missed some important UI guidelines...
Oh well, I have faith that I'll evolve to accommodate the changes
Some companies (like Adobe) are spending many months converting their programs to XCode, and then many more months testing to ensure compatibility with both the Power PC and Intel versions.
How would you like them to be compensated for their efforts?
Remember, it was Apple that made the switch to Intel -- not Adobe.
Oops, that should be 2006... not 2005.
I'm not sure what data you are referring to, but Microsoft's market cap is significantly larger than Wal-Mart's.
The market cap (taken from http://finance.yahoo.com/ of listed companies as of January 23, 2005:
Microsoft: 280.49B
Wal-Mart: 188.40B
Apple: 65.46B
Dell: 71.12B
Ya, the offering probably is not except, the linked articles say they missed these offerings in their S-1 filing -- regardless, the rescission offer would be granted to unsophisticated investors in order to reduce the chance of a lawsuit.
Actually they say it is the S-1 filing -- which is the SEC registration of the shares.
:)
So they may have broken the rules in several places
One point of clarification: When I refer to "registered" and "unregistered" shares I'm referring to the SEC registration of the offering. All shares are registered (or should be) in the jurisdiction of the company's incorporation.
:)
Interestingly, the article does not make the distinction, so they may be unregistered with the state (a "no-no") - and therefore they may not have been a part of the outstanding shares that were used in the valuation, as you mentioned. The number of the shares referred to is insignificant to most, but it is (obviously) important to have an accurate picture of your outstanding shares!
Finally, in the rescission offer, they don't have to buy the shares back at cost - they can offer to buy them back for whatever price they want - even lower than the original offering, but that may lead to lawsuits
To put it simply: When a company has a unregistered private share offering to non-qualified investors (essentially non-high net worth, or "unsophisticated investors") they are required to get a waiver from the "unsophisticated investor" that they are willing to participate in the risk of investing in an unregistered offering.
The risk is that there are not the same corporate disclosure requirements for unregistered offerings as there are for registered offerings.
In the event that the company wants to go public at a later date, they usually provide rescission offers to these investors, which allow them to cash before the risky public offering.
Most rescission offers are optional, and in the event that the investor declines they will sign an additional waiver that says they are going along for the ride.
"And if you actually look at the Microsoft patent, you will see that they reference the IBM work as well as the DoCoMo patent."
:)
Haha! I guess that's why I'm not an examiner
"At the very least, the patent examiner would have looked at the refereced patent and determinined they are suficiently different."
I truly hope so!
Except that I do not think your claim would be complete without adding "comprising", "wherein", or "and" on the end.
...."
As it stands I do not think the claim:
"1) A device for cutting grass using rotating blades." would be accepted
However the claim:
"1) A device for cutting grass using rotating blades, comprising
a) A method of allowing the blades to hover above the grass using a magnetic force.
b)
might be accepted...
I understand. I am concerned with the individual claims -- not the patent as a whole --see my other post for more thoughts on this here.
True -- which is why I said that I felt many of MS's CLAIMS are voided by prior art.
They will not throw out an entire patent based on a claim -- but AFAIK the claims do still need to be unique (as they relate to their "comprised of" statements). Is this incorrect?
Thanks for the clarification.
Yes -- see IBMs paper on the subject.... note the date of the -prior art- demonstration: November 18-19, 1996 -- Microsoft filed their patent April 27, 2000. I wonder where they got there ideas from?
Microsoft filed their patent (which is titled a "Method and apparatus for transmitting power and data using the human body") on April 27, 2000.
Yet at this web site, http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/user/pan/pan.html, there is a white paper (dated November 18-19, 1996) where IBM demonstrates their "new Personal Area Network technology that uses the natural electrical conductivity of the human body to transmit electronic data".
So, IBM demonstrated similar techniques back in 1996 that used the natural electrical conductivity to transmit data.
However, Microsoft's claims focus on power, and frequency adjustments, this is basis for their ability to send data.
One of Microsoft's claims states "modulating an information signal transmitted" using this signal; yet, in the IBM white paper it states that "The natural salinity of the human body makes it an excellent conductor of electrical current. PAN technology takes advantage of this conductivity by creating an external electric field that passes an incredibly tiny current through the body, over which data is carried."
My gut says that many of MS's claims are voided by prior art -- but one would need to study the MS claims in detail, and compare it to DoCoMo's and IBM's research on the subject, to make a truly educated rebuttal.
However, Solairs is a fantastic car... food... er... movie.
That would be BSD and UNIX. I don't understand BSB and UINX either.
Snippets from the article: ..."system's FreeBSD foundation"... ..."the Unix-based Mac OS X system"... ..."not the same as the Unix 'root' account password"...
:)
and
and
You must be referring to the *original* article... the first makes no reference to BSD or UNIX. Based on that, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment - I do not think that the original author had a real understanding of OS X, BSB, UINX, or for that matter, even Windows.
We would never actually read a serious article of this nature because any person that takes the time to do a security review of Windows would find so many holes they would never finish their article. And they'd probably have to write it twice. And it would be posted on the internet before they could publish it.*
*I may have exaggerated slightly on the last few points
Yes, BUT Canada's independent Constitution, combined with their powerless Chief of State, is what forms Canada's "Constitutional" Monarchy: this is where "Monarchs" share power with parliaments. That's significantly different than freeweed's post insinuating governance being out of the citizens control.
Wrong.
Jean Chretien retired, and the Liberal Party of Canada *elected* a successor.
Canadians voted for our present ruling Party fair and square it was pretty clear who the people of Canada chose.
This is the way politics work in Canada: we vote for people in our riding to represent us, who represent a political Party, the members of the Party elect their leader. In this case the leader of the Party with the most seats in the House was Jean Chretien, he then retired, and the party elected a new leader. When the Parties term is up, or whenever the Party chooses chose prior to the term, the Party calls an election, and the voters of Canada elect new people who represent a Party.
If you don't like what you see then *join a party and vote for your leader*.
Sounds pretty far from a Monarchy to me.
Now - back to the article - I think that the Canadian voting system is pretty good. But what Cringely fails to note is that in Canada, for our elections, we are *typically* only voting for one thing: who will represent us in our riding. Whereas in the US voters are voting for people to represent them, and NUMEROUS referendum items. Canadian votes can be tallied quickly because we have so little to add up. Even using the Canadian system US votes would still take a MUCH longer time to tally.
"almost ran Apple and Kodak out of business"???
What are you talking about?
Steve Jobs recruited John Sculley (then current CEO of Pepsi-Co) in 1983 to join Apple. Sculley was not a good fit in the technology industry and so in 1985 Jobs tried to regain control of the company in an ill conceived "coup" attempt. It backfired and Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple by the Board of Directors.
Under Sculley's "rule" Apple posted its first quarterly loss and was forced to lay-off over 1000 employees.
Things went kinda down hill from there...
Until around 1997 when Apple bought Jobs new company (NeXT) and Jobs became CEO again. Apple has had somewhat of a revival since then -- with their fair share of ups and downs -- but overall quite a lot of success. I could hardly qualify any of these "downs" as almost running the company out of business.
So, one could, indirectly say that by Jobs hiring Sculley he drove the company into the ground... but that seems like a "blame the parents" mentality. Responsible for the initial mistake: Yes.
Jobs is by no means perfect (apparently he makes a lousy micro manager, but than so do most of us) -- and he has promoted his share of flops (Apple Lisa for example, which by the way eventually turned into the Macintosh, perhaps you've heard of that?) -- but overall he seems like a pretty visionary leader to me.
As for Kodak... huh?
I feel like I'm on the deprived side of a legal team. Although the case may be won on principle, the facts are against the defendant.
Therefore I propose a settlement: I'll admit you are right (and obviously have a superior intellect), if you'll agree that my message (poorly constructed, considering its audience) has perhaps a meager amount of insight... assuming we, for this argument, take away the word "domain".
Next time I'll pick a different cause to debate.
1) I never stated that Windows 95 was Public Domain software, I said that it was released into the public domain (read the original source for context)
2) The definition of the public domain, regardless of whether referring to software, patents or books, is as I've described -- and is a common legally used definition
3) Public Domain software as you've described in relation to sales and licensing is free from encumbrances, I agree
I do appreciate constructive criticisms -- and I also appreciate your knowledge of the subject we're discussing. Perhaps next time we could be more civil in our responses?
Regardless, Any release of information (regardless of sale or otherwise) made available to the public is considered in the public domain. This term has been in use long before your posted definition and refers to any published information (i.e. patents, books, software).
"Information that is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public" Definition
Public Domain can mean openly available to everyone and not subject to copyright protection, or simply openly available to the public (i.e. for sale to the public).
But thanks for the mature reply.
And BTW -- the filing date is the date in which a patent is filed PROVISIONAL or otherwise. You cannot state Patent Pending until AFTER the filing date. (But you probably already knew this.)
They released Window 95 into the public domain in August 1995 -- but only filed their patent December 14, 1995. If I'm not mistaken (patent lawyers please help out here) their own product, once in the public domain, constitutes prior art -- therefore the concept it is not longer patent-able.