They can outsource the modernization and the data migration to India. And make sure they're trained by the people in the "train your own replacement" thread. By the time the dust settles, there won't BE an IRS...
However, the chance of Apple getting Claim 1 past the examiners is pretty slim (even given today's USPTO). Past the courts, given a motivated defendant, much slimmer.
For those too lazy to RTFPA, Claim 1 covers hierarchical menus in multimedia players. Claim 2 and 3 are barely more specific, Claims 4-7 are attempts to patent a rather non-novel feature set, claim 8 covers the above when you can actually GO BACK TO A PREVIOUS MENU (such novelty) etc. Junk patent, but I'm sure the USPTO will give them something.
The company only patented certain strains of basmati rice, that it had created. Rather ridiculous, IMO, given that they did it through ordinary crossbreeding, but it in no way gave them the right to prevent the import or sale of Indian Basmati rice, nor did it give the rights to the name to Rice-Tec.
Mr. Sharma (author of the second article) appears confused on those points. As for labeling only rice grown in Basmati with the Basmati name, the US does not recognize 'geographical indications' as a general rule -- for instance US sparkling wines can be called champagne when sold in the US.
No, humming the song is public performance, and means you own money to ASCAP and/or BMI and/or one of the other composer's mafia organizations, not the RIAA.
Having the song stuck in your head does not currently subject you to liability (but just wait 'till next year)
The Canada levy still only applies to a recording medium on which no sounds have ever been fixed. So why isn't Apple just putting some sounds on the iPods to begin with? Some sort of back-room deal to avoid additional legislation closing that loophole?
Naa, just using someone else's aftermarket parts isn't hacking. Unless those parts were designed for a completely different automobile, or you used them in a manner unintended by the maker, or you modified them somehow.
For example, installing Lexus projector beam lights in a Lexus = no hack. Installing them in an older Miata, under polycarbonate so you could use the headlights without raising them = hack.
Claim 1: A technique for obtaining winning caps involving a person, a trash receptacle, and a collection receptacle wherein the user searches through the trash receptacle for winning caps and places them in the collection receptacle.
Claim 2: The method of Claim 1 where the trash receptacle is chosen for its likelyhood of containing Pepsi caps.
Claim 3: The method of Claim 1 where the user wears rubber gloves
Claim 4: The method of Claim 1 where the trash receptacle is a Dumpster
Claim 5: The method of Claim 1 where the user showers afterwards.
Claim 6: A technique for obtaining winning caps involving a person, a trash receptacle, an intermediate receptacle, a sieve, and a collection receptacle wherein the user sieves the trash receptacle into the intermediate receptacle to remove items larger than bottlecaps, then searches the intermediate receptacle for winning caps.
Just about any item that someone objects to the sale of, eBay will block. They're the dominant auction site, they don't _need_ that business, and they'd rather block it than deal with the difficulty. eBay is controversy-averse to a fault.
Ask anyone burned by their "VeRO" program where eBay will remove any auction requested by a VeRO, even if the item auctioned is clearly legal to be sold (e.g. a CD given away with the sale a pair of jeans at the GAP)
If banks want electronic payments so badly, THEY CAN STOP CHARGING A MONTHLY FEE FOR ELECTRONIC BILL PAYMENT!
To be fair, a lot of credit card companies don't -- but who wants to go to each different credit card site to pay those bills? And that still leaves the other bills.
IBM: Show us the infringing code
SCO: We can't. You have the infringed code. You wrote it, you put it into AIX, you then put it into Linux, and we never saw the AIX original. But we own it. And we can prove it. If you'll only show us your code.
IBM's lawyer: Raises eyebrow.
Actually, if you hear music and then share your memory of that music with others, it's ASCAP or BMI or another composer's organization to which you owe royalties, not the RIAA.
I suppose it's ironic that a copyright-as-we-know-it fan would not only violate your copyright but plaigerize your work.
As a copyright-sucks-because-it-leads-to-tyranny person, I'm crying you a river.
They don't and can't work without destroying email as we know it. There's a substantive difference between something which is free per use (such as email) and something which is pay per use (such as postal mail). The researchers even mention this in their paper.
Any economic scheme has to make email pay per use. Even potential pay-per-use (as in this scheme) is enough to change the nature of the medium. E-mail is as useful as it is because you _aren't_ putting a quarter in the meter every time you push 'send'. Take that away -- make people consider costs before they send -- and you've changed the medium drastically.
Some would argue the result would be a _better_ medium. I disagree. You'd never send an e-mail to anyone you didn't know (e.g. you found their web page or a post on Usenet or a message board or some such thing), for fear that they'd just take your money. Would still work fine for business-to-customer communication of course, but that's not really the point of e-mail, is it?
Because you're naive. Maybe 5% of your taxes go to feed hungry people, fix potholes, or give a kid a free doctor's visit. Probably 50-60% just get swallowed in cost of administration, and the rest goes to programs you'd not like at all. And every time they raise taxes, the percentage which goes to causes you consider worthy goes DOWN.
The D-15 connector Apple had on the back of the Power Macs (and in fact every non-toaster since the Mac II) wasn't particularly superior. But the VGA form factor wasn't much of a standard when it was used.
The 13W3 Sun used was superior, but that's another story.
Look and feel _copyright_ failed, but something like look and feel _trademark_ is enshrined in law as "trade dress". IMO (IANAL), whether or not the word "Booble" infringes on "Google" (and to say it does almost implies that Google has the rights to an entire word pattern -- shades of Haagen-Dazs v. Frusen-Gladje or whatever that other ice cream was), the Booble site certainly violates Google's trade dress. And it certainly has great potential for confusing people into thinking "Booble" is run by "Google", little disclaimer at the bottom notwithstanding.
It's not really a parody in any case; it's not poking fun at Google, it's doing pretty much what Google does already (in terms of playing games with the logo).
Just because the NFL's lawyers write some stuff doesn't mean it's true. Their claim to absolute control over the use of the term "Super Bowl" and the various team and conference names is patently ridiculous -- nominative fair use obviously comes in to play here.
It's nice to know, though, that the NFL's (oops) lawyers don't mind anyone saying "February 1, 2004".
(No, I'm not a lawyer. My advice is worth what you paid me for it. But so is the NFL (oops) lawyers' advice)
I "import" it through the CCD interface. Silly camera thinks it's taking a picture. Sure, this requires more electronics skill than I have, but there are people with those skills who could do it that way.
Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, West Coast Video in my area, among the larger companies. Also a smaller chain called "Video Update".
West Coast Video has 3 day rentals that are actually 3 days, unlike Blockbuster's 2.5 day rentals (get it Friday night, return by noon on Sunday). I believe Hollywood Video does also.
Ob/.: West Coast Video also rents pr0n, which blue-nosed Blockbuster does not.
There is no law in the US against renting videos; no special permission is needed from the copyright holder to do so. Though I'm sure the MPAA would love to change that (as the RIAA has for sound recordings).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that exception looks more like
.EQ. 733043) TAXES = 0
IF (UID
Or maybe
EVALUATE ALTER FINDTAX TO RETZERO WHEN UID IS EQUAL TO 733043
They can outsource the modernization and the data migration to India. And make sure they're trained by the people in the "train your own replacement" thread. By the time the dust settles, there won't BE an IRS...
Violating any accepted claim violates the patent.
However, the chance of Apple getting Claim 1 past the examiners is pretty slim (even given today's USPTO). Past the courts, given a motivated defendant, much slimmer.
For those too lazy to RTFPA, Claim 1 covers hierarchical menus in multimedia players. Claim 2 and 3 are barely more specific, Claims 4-7 are attempts to patent a rather non-novel feature set, claim 8 covers the above when you can actually GO BACK TO A PREVIOUS MENU (such novelty) etc. Junk patent, but I'm sure the USPTO will give them something.
My replacement will be permitted to telecommute from India.
The company only patented certain strains of basmati rice, that it had created. Rather ridiculous, IMO, given that they did it through ordinary crossbreeding, but it in no way gave them the right to prevent the import or sale of Indian Basmati rice, nor did it give the rights to the name to Rice-Tec.
Mr. Sharma (author of the second article) appears confused on those points. As for labeling only rice grown in Basmati with the Basmati name, the US does not recognize 'geographical indications' as a general rule -- for instance US sparkling wines can be called champagne when sold in the US.
No, humming the song is public performance, and means you own money to ASCAP and/or BMI and/or one of the other composer's mafia organizations, not the RIAA. Having the song stuck in your head does not currently subject you to liability (but just wait 'till next year)
The Canada levy still only applies to a recording medium on which no sounds have ever been fixed. So why isn't Apple just putting some sounds on the iPods to begin with? Some sort of back-room deal to avoid additional legislation closing that loophole?
Naa, just using someone else's aftermarket parts isn't hacking. Unless those parts were designed for a completely different automobile, or you used them in a manner unintended by the maker, or you modified them somehow.
For example, installing Lexus projector beam lights in a Lexus = no hack. Installing them in an older Miata, under polycarbonate so you could use the headlights without raising them = hack.
Philip Jose Farmer wrote _Venus on the Half Shell_ as Kilgore Trout. Vonnegut gave him permission, but hasn't let anyone do a Trout book since.
Claim 1: A technique for obtaining winning caps involving a person, a trash receptacle, and a collection receptacle wherein the user searches through the trash receptacle for winning caps and places them in the collection receptacle.
Claim 2: The method of Claim 1 where the trash receptacle is chosen for its likelyhood of containing Pepsi caps.
Claim 3: The method of Claim 1 where the user wears rubber gloves
Claim 4: The method of Claim 1 where the trash receptacle is a Dumpster
Claim 5: The method of Claim 1 where the user showers afterwards.
Claim 6: A technique for obtaining winning caps involving a person, a trash receptacle, an intermediate receptacle, a sieve, and a collection receptacle wherein the user sieves the trash receptacle into the intermediate receptacle to remove items larger than bottlecaps, then searches the intermediate receptacle for winning caps.
etc.
Just about any item that someone objects to the sale of, eBay will block. They're the dominant auction site, they don't _need_ that business, and they'd rather block it than deal with the difficulty. eBay is controversy-averse to a fault.
Ask anyone burned by their "VeRO" program where eBay will remove any auction requested by a VeRO, even if the item auctioned is clearly legal to be sold (e.g. a CD given away with the sale a pair of jeans at the GAP)
If banks want electronic payments so badly, THEY CAN STOP CHARGING A MONTHLY FEE FOR ELECTRONIC BILL PAYMENT! To be fair, a lot of credit card companies don't -- but who wants to go to each different credit card site to pay those bills? And that still leaves the other bills.
IBM: Show us the infringing code SCO: We can't. You have the infringed code. You wrote it, you put it into AIX, you then put it into Linux, and we never saw the AIX original. But we own it. And we can prove it. If you'll only show us your code. IBM's lawyer: Raises eyebrow.
Actually, if you hear music and then share your memory of that music with others, it's ASCAP or BMI or another composer's organization to which you owe royalties, not the RIAA.
I suppose it's ironic that a copyright-as-we-know-it fan would not only violate your copyright but plaigerize your work. As a copyright-sucks-because-it-leads-to-tyranny person, I'm crying you a river.
They don't and can't work without destroying email as we know it. There's a substantive difference between something which is free per use (such as email) and something which is pay per use (such as postal mail). The researchers even mention this in their paper.
Any economic scheme has to make email pay per use. Even potential pay-per-use (as in this scheme) is enough to change the nature of the medium. E-mail is as useful as it is because you _aren't_ putting a quarter in the meter every time you push 'send'. Take that away -- make people consider costs before they send -- and you've changed the medium drastically.
Some would argue the result would be a _better_ medium. I disagree. You'd never send an e-mail to anyone you didn't know (e.g. you found their web page or a post on Usenet or a message board or some such thing), for fear that they'd just take your money. Would still work fine for business-to-customer communication of course, but that's not really the point of e-mail, is it?
How about if Kazaa gets an Anton Pillar order against MIPI, on the suspicion that MIPI is using the infringing "Kazaa Lite" software?
Because you're naive. Maybe 5% of your taxes go to feed hungry people, fix potholes, or give a kid a free doctor's visit. Probably 50-60% just get swallowed in cost of administration, and the rest goes to programs you'd not like at all. And every time they raise taxes, the percentage which goes to causes you consider worthy goes DOWN.
The D-15 connector Apple had on the back of the Power Macs (and in fact every non-toaster since the Mac II) wasn't particularly superior. But the VGA form factor wasn't much of a standard when it was used. The 13W3 Sun used was superior, but that's another story.
Look and feel _copyright_ failed, but something like look and feel _trademark_ is enshrined in law as "trade dress". IMO (IANAL), whether or not the word "Booble" infringes on "Google" (and to say it does almost implies that Google has the rights to an entire word pattern -- shades of Haagen-Dazs v. Frusen-Gladje or whatever that other ice cream was), the Booble site certainly violates Google's trade dress. And it certainly has great potential for confusing people into thinking "Booble" is run by "Google", little disclaimer at the bottom notwithstanding. It's not really a parody in any case; it's not poking fun at Google, it's doing pretty much what Google does already (in terms of playing games with the logo).
Forget about Janet, what's with that ad for DSL with the woman getting pregnant and popping out babies? That's just bizarre.
They do (or used to) run ads against statutory rape. Actual line from one ad: "You're not a man if you have sex with a 14-year-old"
Just because the NFL's lawyers write some stuff doesn't mean it's true. Their claim to absolute control over the use of the term "Super Bowl" and the various team and conference names is patently ridiculous -- nominative fair use obviously comes in to play here.
It's nice to know, though, that the NFL's (oops) lawyers don't mind anyone saying "February 1, 2004".
(No, I'm not a lawyer. My advice is worth what you paid me for it. But so is the NFL (oops) lawyers' advice)
I "import" it through the CCD interface. Silly camera thinks it's taking a picture. Sure, this requires more electronics skill than I have, but there are people with those skills who could do it that way.
Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, West Coast Video in my area, among the larger companies. Also a smaller chain called "Video Update".
West Coast Video has 3 day rentals that are actually 3 days, unlike Blockbuster's 2.5 day rentals (get it Friday night, return by noon on Sunday). I believe Hollywood Video does also.
Ob/.: West Coast Video also rents pr0n, which blue-nosed Blockbuster does not.
There is no law in the US against renting videos; no special permission is needed from the copyright holder to do so. Though I'm sure the MPAA would love to change that (as the RIAA has for sound recordings).