If a libertarian drives on government roads and drinks government-approved clean water and breathes government-cleaned air while railing against the government on the government-invented Internet using a computer that can communicate wirelessly thanks to government-managed airwaves, does that make him a hypocrite?
I'm going to call bull on this. I know it is bandied about on slashdot all the time, but seriously, show me patents on bubble sort "on a mobile device" or shopping "over the internet" that are literally that broad. Most times people read patents on here, they ignore that every claim limitation matters.
That's OK, the courts do too. When it comes to prior art, it has to be an exact match. When it comes to infringement, a lot of stretching is accepted to let the supposed infringing device match the patent.
Frankly I'm sick of them. If they haven't evolved rational decision-making ability by now, then they're a dead end. It's time to just wipe them off the face of the planet before they further threaten the rest of us.
Probably a wise choice, from an amoral perspective. Because otherwise, they're going to prove that you're a dead end.
The oil age will end once renewable energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels. One way to speed up this process is a carbon tax.
Thing is, if you put in some sort of carbon tax or oil tax or whatever, not only is it artificial, everyone will know it is artificial. If it's artificial, it could disappear at any time -- or be applied to new technologies to keep the revenue stream. So if oil is $150/bb with taxes applied but only $80/bb without, it's not wise to develop renewable energy with a cost equivalent to $100/bb.
See, this is what is frustrating about slashdot. Do you really - I mean really - think that a patent examiner is sitting there refusing to allow a patent until someone adds "on a mobile device" to the claims. Really?
What's frustrating is that there are indeed patents which claim some common technique "on the internet" or "on a mobile device". How they got to be that way, I don't know. I doubt the "inventor" started out trying to patent technique without the "on a mobile device" and then added it on after initial rejection, if that's what you're implying. No, the "inventor" stuck it there in the first place to pre-empt any prior art claims.
As for the fraud, as I said above, it renders your patent unenforceable, i.e., dead. It will come out in litigation, trust me.
I find your faith in litigation disturbing, but unsurprising.
You have no idea what you are talking about. First to file did not change anything prior art-wise. It did not get rid of prior art.
No, the patent office did that years ago, as they've proven that either they can't recognize it, or they draw the definition so narrowly that adding magic words like "on a mobile device" mean it doesn't count any more.
I cannot see you doing something and then file a patent application on it myself.
Of course you can. It's fraud, but what's to stop you?
Steam is a third party from Windows, I can buy programs/apps through that years before this filing. I am sure some 3rd party apps on the iPhone had in-app purchasing pre-filing of this.
You want to pack up your money and move? Fine. But you'll be stuck with podunk credit union. Try another large bank and you'll find no differences from BoA.
I've been with First Union, Wachovia, and now Wells Fargo. I've also had BoA accounts. Even FU at its worst wasn't as bad as BoA in terms of nailing you with fees.
When I look into Java's performance, I see lots of cases where it's "nearly as fast as compiled C/C++ code" etc. The (narrowly-defined) numbers do look pretty good.
As much as the conclusions of the committee disturb me, I find the violence directed at these senators for merely discussing the idea to be even more disturbing. What, we can't discuss things anymore?
Did you see the amount of UPPERCASE in that report? That's cyberspeechcrime all by itself, and calls for a lynching.
That was my first thought... these techniques have been in use, at the very least by google for a decade now. Not sure WTF...
Ah, but was exactly the embodiment used in the patent in use? If not, new patent -- "X on social network". In court, one of two things happen -- either your target uses it in the same way as your patent, in which case you win. Or they use it in the older way, which you argue is close enough to infringe, in which case you win.
Grant was wrong. Nowadays, governments can do whatever they want to lawbreakers and not only will everyone around them be unsympathetic to their plight ("Well, you knew you weren't supposed to walk on the grass...now you're in for a beheading and it's your own fault") but even the lawbreakers will buy into that reasoning.
Really? Creating a service very similar to the other one, naming it in a way that very easily clashes with the trademark (whether you agree with the granted trademark or not), and even taking the url the other company was using to bring in their traffic and instead using it to access facebook's timeline functionality is just as dumb as Monster suing Disney over Monsters, Inc?
Yep. Because "timeline", in the sense of a sequence of events arranged in chronological order, is generic. As is "monster", in the sense of "monster under the bed". The plurals are generic as well.
Which you can't tell from a single receiver. Direction is possible, but you need a second receiver at sufficient distance to get a second accurate reading, to get location. Not that it helps anyway; radio waves do interact, and weaker signals can be drowned out by more powerful ones.
Radio waves in free space, in a wire, or in the air do not interact. They do interact in the receiver, however.
Matthew 5:28. "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Hooray for thought crime.
Thought-sin, actually. But if both parties are unmarried, there's no adultery involved. Matthew follows up by suggesting you blind yourself to avoid committing that sin, so he was a crazy asshole anyway. Then he proceeds to forbid a man to divorce his wife claiming it makes the woman an adultress. Screw him.
It can get a lot sillier in the US though, due to the potential for federal, state and local laws to interact. You end up with situations where it's perfectly legal for a couple to have vaginal sex, but if they have oral sex then they can both go to jail for statutory rape.
I knew the best advice to teens having sex was to "keep your mouth shut", but I didn't realize it was quite so literal.
Since this only works with media encryption enabled, I'm guessing this is an alternative cipher attack. They can't directly obtain the Blackberry device password, but they can break the media encryption (perhaps because it is a much weaker cipher). The media encryption key is likely the same as or derived from the device password, allowing an expedited attack on that.
Moral of the story: If you derive a key for a weak cipher from a key used for a strong one, make sure you use an irreversible function to do so.
This isn't a serious paper; it's an attempt to get vaguely pornographic diagrams into a computing journal. Since it's on arxiv, I assume it hasn't yet succeeded.
Some management people think that methodology can be used to make piss-poor (cheap) developers serviceable and avoid having to reward/retain good talent.
That's exactly the point of methodology. It is to reduce the process of software development to a bunch of rote steps which low-skill people can perform consistently. Assembly-line software.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what liberals tell us all the time.
9%+ unemployment is ensuring that.
That's OK, the courts do too. When it comes to prior art, it has to be an exact match. When it comes to infringement, a lot of stretching is accepted to let the supposed infringing device match the patent.
Probably a wise choice, from an amoral perspective. Because otherwise, they're going to prove that you're a dead end.
Thing is, if you put in some sort of carbon tax or oil tax or whatever, not only is it artificial, everyone will know it is artificial. If it's artificial, it could disappear at any time -- or be applied to new technologies to keep the revenue stream. So if oil is $150/bb with taxes applied but only $80/bb without, it's not wise to develop renewable energy with a cost equivalent to $100/bb.
What's frustrating is that there are indeed patents which claim some common technique "on the internet" or "on a mobile device". How they got to be that way, I don't know. I doubt the "inventor" started out trying to patent technique without the "on a mobile device" and then added it on after initial rejection, if that's what you're implying. No, the "inventor" stuck it there in the first place to pre-empt any prior art claims.
I find your faith in litigation disturbing, but unsurprising.
No, the patent office did that years ago, as they've proven that either they can't recognize it, or they draw the definition so narrowly that adding magic words like "on a mobile device" mean it doesn't count any more.
Of course you can. It's fraud, but what's to stop you?
"...on a mobile device".
I've been with First Union, Wachovia, and now Wells Fargo. I've also had BoA accounts. Even FU at its worst wasn't as bad as BoA in terms of nailing you with fees.
Magnetron and horn antenna.
"We're not being attacked, we just are totally incompetent and can't keep our site up under normal conditions"
Benchmarks lie. That's really all there is to it.
Did you see the amount of UPPERCASE in that report? That's cyberspeechcrime all by itself, and calls for a lynching.
Actually, the US Supreme Court has been fairly consistent in not accepting the sorts of restrictions on hate speech that Canadians take for granted.
Ah, but was exactly the embodiment used in the patent in use? If not, new patent -- "X on social network". In court, one of two things happen -- either your target uses it in the same way as your patent, in which case you win. Or they use it in the older way, which you argue is close enough to infringe, in which case you win.
Except it's probably goatse for the universe.
Grant was wrong. Nowadays, governments can do whatever they want to lawbreakers and not only will everyone around them be unsympathetic to their plight ("Well, you knew you weren't supposed to walk on the grass...now you're in for a beheading and it's your own fault") but even the lawbreakers will buy into that reasoning.
Yep. Because "timeline", in the sense of a sequence of events arranged in chronological order, is generic. As is "monster", in the sense of "monster under the bed". The plurals are generic as well.
Radio waves in free space, in a wire, or in the air do not interact. They do interact in the receiver, however.
Matthew 5:28. "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Hooray for thought crime.
Thought-sin, actually. But if both parties are unmarried, there's no adultery involved. Matthew follows up by suggesting you blind yourself to avoid committing that sin, so he was a crazy asshole anyway. Then he proceeds to forbid a man to divorce his wife claiming it makes the woman an adultress. Screw him.
I knew the best advice to teens having sex was to "keep your mouth shut", but I didn't realize it was quite so literal.
Pure speculation here:
Since this only works with media encryption enabled, I'm guessing this is an alternative cipher attack. They can't directly obtain the Blackberry device password, but they can break the media encryption (perhaps because it is a much weaker cipher). The media encryption key is likely the same as or derived from the device password, allowing an expedited attack on that.
Moral of the story: If you derive a key for a weak cipher from a key used for a strong one, make sure you use an irreversible function to do so.
Dumbest trademark suit since Monster sued Disney over "Monsters, Inc".
This isn't a serious paper; it's an attempt to get vaguely pornographic diagrams into a computing journal. Since it's on arxiv, I assume it hasn't yet succeeded.
That's exactly the point of methodology. It is to reduce the process of software development to a bunch of rote steps which low-skill people can perform consistently. Assembly-line software.