the PATENT prevented everyone else from implementing a safety.
No, no, and NO. Looking at the comments here so far, I strongly suspect nobody has bothered to look at the actual patent.
The patent prevents other from implementing a VERY SPECIFIC safety mechanism, most notably including a "scenery analyzer" that [magically] determines where in the car the device is based on camera inputs (this part is why you're not going to see anyone implementing this for a good long while). Claim 1 of the patent:
1. A handheld computing device comprising: a motion analyzer configured to detect whether the handheld computing device is in motion beyond a predetermined threshold level; a scenery analyzer configured to determine whether the handheld computing device is located within a safe operating area of a vehicle based on at least one of picture data and video data; and a lock-out mechanism configured to automatically and selectively disable one or more functions of the handheld computing device based on outputs from the motion analyzer and the scenery analyzer.
Any uber "customer" should be nothing more than a random number generated by uber when you request their services.
Sure, as long as you don't mind breaking significant customer-profile-related functionality in the Uber platform that makes the system better for everyone, like automatic billing (all-around time savings and certainty), passenger reputation scores (this helps drivers make rational decisions whether they want the business or the potential headache of known nasty customers, and increases the odds the nice customers can get a ride during peak times), and so on.
Patent was for a process, not any individual components.
Sorry, but that's just flat wrong. The asserted claim that gave rise to the appeal (claim 42 of U.S. Patent No. RE 37,984) is not on a process at all, but on a kit with five individual components:
42. A kit for analyzing polymorphism in at least one locus in an DNA sample, comprising:
a) at least one vessel containing a mixture of primers constituting between 1 and 50 of said primer pairs;
b) a vessel containing a polymerizing enzyme suitable for performing a primer-directed polymerase chain reaction;
c) a vessel containing the deoxynucleotide triphosphates adenosine, guanine, cytosine and thymidine;
d) a vessel containing a buffer solution for performing a polymerase chain reaction;
e) a vessel containing a template DNA comprising i) a simple or cryptically simple nucleotide sequence having a repeat motif length of 3 to 10 nucleotides and ii) nucleotide sequences flanking said simple or cryptically simple nucleotide sequence that are effective for annealing at least one pair of said primers, for assaying positive performance of the method.
The component produced in the US (the enzyme) is not patent protected, it's a commonly used commodity.
That indeed is Life Tech's argument, which is not exactly a slam dunk given the fact that Section 271(f)(2) specifically requires a non-commodity component to find infringement, while Section 271(f)(1) does not. This argument also presumes that someone could never take a set of commodity components and combine them in a patentably distinct way.
Courts view was that, since this component was a commodity that is not unique to this process, it is not a substantive component.
You must mean the district court, which is irrelevant at this point. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held exactly the opposite -- that the commodity Taq polymerase is indeed "a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention" -- and that's the holding the Supreme Court is currently considering.
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that supplying a single, commodity component of a multi-component invention from the United States is an infringing act under 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1), exposing the manufacturer to liability for all worldwide sales.
But oh no, that would require more evil gubbermint to do all that. Leave it to private companies (yay capitalism), yeah sure and look what we got for internet.
Baloney. The limited poor choices we have for broadband access today are generally driven by government-protected monopolies -- the exact opposite of free-market competition.
They weren't able to roll back most of the transactions because they happened over the course of the year. From TFA:
Editors note: This story has been updated to clarify that the losses cited from cyberattacks at Russia's central bank were for 2016, not a single attack.
I find that most people who have never actually run a business can't imagine what it actually costs to run one. Not only are there countless expenses associated with day to day operations of just about any business, there are still more expenses associated with a disruptive business like Uber.
To my understanding, Uber has been leading the charge to bust cabbie cartels both in the U.S. and globally. That's not cheap, much less free. After that work is done, free riders can enter the new competitive market with relative ease and undercut Uber's fares. And since any fare reduction by Uber would essentially come right out of its bottom line, it wouldn't take much of a cut to wipe out Uber's net profit margin.
Dude, I have no idea what word fragment in this thread you're clinging to in order to try to pretend you're confused, but I suspect in your better moments you like to present yourself as slightly more intelligent than this. It's crystal clear which of the two people is running a false flag operation, and which of the two is reporting on it.
Stop it with the distractions and engage the subject matter if you dare: What are your thoughts about a lefty running a fake alt-right news site with the stated goal of then "debunking" its very own fake stories after they spread?
Nah, it's just you failing to exercise a bit of intellectual curiosity/honesty and actually read the last article she wrote, which, amazingly enough, just so happens to be about the subject at hand. One of several relevant excerpts:
Tell me a little about why you started Disinfomedia?
Late 2012, early 2013 I was spending a lot of time researching what is now being referred to as the alt-right. I identified a problem with the news that they were spreading and created Disinfomedia as a response to that. The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly false or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction.
the primary UN body that says things about climate change is the IPCC which is just about entirely staffed by scientists.
Of course, it all hinges on his attempt at deceptively claiming the IPCC is actually a political body.
And your argument hinges on your attempt at deceptively claiming these two things are mutually exclusive. People with science degrees are not magically immune to politics.
Your "correction" may be pedantically proper, but results in a very awkward sentence (read it out loud a few times). Active voice reads much more naturally:
Google has been sending these warnings since 2012 . . .
So, you expect other people to predict what will be published or commented-on IN THE FUTURE?
No, I expect other people, and in particular a journal like Scientific American, not to couch as factual that which is solely based on rumors from anonymous sources. But I'm very comfortable you understand that and are just trying to save face over your original embarrassingly misguided post.
1. The SA article is dated September 26, but the submitter carefully worded the opening sentence to make it sound like a post-election event ("Trump's transition team is steamrolling ahead to transition the government"). Those people we call "editors" either didn't check it or didn't care. 2. The SA article presents this as an absolute fact, but then essentially says "a little birdie told me so." Other sources (including one written today) are honest enough to call it what it is: a rumor.
It's hardly surprising that you don't see how your straw man supports my argument. Your jaunt into the political affiliations of presidents who appointed Supreme Court justices doesn't even remotely address my question about why the Supreme Court would have needed to intervene to create social changes that in your view would have happened anyway.
If you were actually addressing one of my other posts in this thread and suggesting that some tenuous level of indirect political affiliation of Supreme Court justices somehow means the Supreme Court could be consistent with a direct democracy (in your words, "there is at least some connection to the electorate there"), then we've come full circle, haven't we? The Electoral College certainly has "at least some connection to the electorate." But you want to torch the EC on the theory that "One Person, One Vote is fundamental to democracy." If that's really true, then you also have to eliminate any and all other processes that selectively override OPOV. Otherwise you're just proposing a different system of checks and balances to OPOV than the one that currently exists.
The entire world, united into one anti-US, pro-violence coalition, isn't sufficient to attack us without ending everything, and therefore there is no point to such an attack, no matter what the opposing interests have in mind.
If I'm reading you correctly, your entire belief system that we shouldn't ever attack unless and until attacked first hangs on the above proposition. And it may well be true given rational actors. But what happens when the actors are utterly irrational? You know and I know that people like that exist and are currently working overtime to aggregate power. If they get their fingers on a nuke button, I have no assurance they won't gleefully push it. If we see that kind of situation brewing, should we just sit on our hands since that particular attack wouldn't be against us?
Our job is making sure no one annexes us. Other countries can posture all they want. We can squash them like bugs if they try anything. And we should. Other than that, there's an awful lot of stuff we need to be paying attention to within our borders that we are not.
I get that to a point. But if some world power starts going on a wild tear as in the '40s, waiting until we're the only ones left seems a bit too late to mount an effective defense. Same deal for waiting until we and Canada are the only ones left, etc. I'm not suggesting that something like annexing Crimea is on the actionable side of that line, but I am suggesting that there are cases where preemptive action is appropriate to keep a small problem from potentially turning into a really big problem.
What I said is not even mildly controversial, so I don't care to start a game of bring me a rock where you adjust your definitions of "prove" and "numbers" as we go. If you're truly curious about this, how about you start with criteria that you'll accept and we can go from there.
In the meantime, a really simple thought experiment: If these social changes would have naturally happened anyway, why did the Supreme Court feel the need to intervene time and time again?
Given your public political endorsements, I would imagine you've been in favor of at least some of what lefties view as social progress over the past few decades. Little to none of that would have happened had the U.S. been a direct democracy. (And no, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too by saying the majority should decide unless overruled by 5 unelected people in black robes -- that's in even more opposition to direct democracy than what you're complaining about. See above re "if you were to truly implement it across the board.")
I would suggest that you move to a country that implements pure (direct) democracy, but (1) there aren't that many, and (2) I don't think you would like it as much as you think you would (that is, if you were to truly implement it across the board and not just in situations where it would get you a desired short-term result).
No, it's not a pure democracy (i.e., mob rule). Your own linked article clearly explains this, i.e.:
The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote.
Don't out and out preclude people from reading certain material -- just smear it with a big warning that it's the "wrong" way to think. Much more subtle than China/N. Korea/etc.
And think of the efficiencies. Today, the journalistic cadre actually has to go to the trouble to write out why something is "wrong," and then hope readers find it. Imagine the leverage if they could just declare the "right" framework once and have it applied across the board to the "wrong" sources!
Building on that, just think how easy it would then be to measure someone's potential for... er, "inconvenience" by aggregating the "factiness" scores of their browsing history.
If this doesn't scare the hell out of you, it's likely because you hold a worldview currently considered to be "right" (and have forgotten just how recently it may have been considered "wrong").
Yup, crickets. That's pretty much what I figured. It's hilarious (in a sad sort of way) that a community that spends a good portion of its time railing against idiot PHB "all you have to do is" pronouncements is shutting its collective brain down in this case because they desperately want--nay, need--to believe in this deus ex machina maneuver.
Slashdot Mirror
the PATENT prevented everyone else from implementing a safety.
No, no, and NO. Looking at the comments here so far, I strongly suspect nobody has bothered to look at the actual patent.
The patent prevents other from implementing a VERY SPECIFIC safety mechanism, most notably including a "scenery analyzer" that [magically] determines where in the car the device is based on camera inputs (this part is why you're not going to see anyone implementing this for a good long while). Claim 1 of the patent:
1. A handheld computing device comprising: a motion analyzer configured to detect whether the handheld computing device is in motion beyond a predetermined threshold level; a scenery analyzer configured to determine whether the handheld computing device is located within a safe operating area of a vehicle based on at least one of picture data and video data; and a lock-out mechanism configured to automatically and selectively disable one or more functions of the handheld computing device based on outputs from the motion analyzer and the scenery analyzer.
Any uber "customer" should be nothing more than a random number generated by uber when you request their services.
Sure, as long as you don't mind breaking significant customer-profile-related functionality in the Uber platform that makes the system better for everyone, like automatic billing (all-around time savings and certainty), passenger reputation scores (this helps drivers make rational decisions whether they want the business or the potential headache of known nasty customers, and increases the odds the nice customers can get a ride during peak times), and so on.
Patent was for a process, not any individual components.
Sorry, but that's just flat wrong. The asserted claim that gave rise to the appeal (claim 42 of U.S. Patent No. RE 37,984) is not on a process at all, but on a kit with five individual components:
The component produced in the US (the enzyme) is not patent protected, it's a commonly used commodity.
That indeed is Life Tech's argument, which is not exactly a slam dunk given the fact that Section 271(f)(2) specifically requires a non-commodity component to find infringement, while Section 271(f)(1) does not. This argument also presumes that someone could never take a set of commodity components and combine them in a patentably distinct way.
Courts view was that, since this component was a commodity that is not unique to this process, it is not a substantive component.
You must mean the district court, which is irrelevant at this point. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held exactly the opposite -- that the commodity Taq polymerase is indeed "a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention" -- and that's the holding the Supreme Court is currently considering.
The patented parts of the product were not produced in the US
Um, one of them actually was. Whether that's enough to constitute infringement of Promega's U.S. patent is the exact question the Supreme Court is taking up:
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that supplying a single, commodity component of a multi-component invention from the United States is an infringing act under 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1), exposing the manufacturer to liability for all worldwide sales.
But oh no, that would require more evil gubbermint to do all that. Leave it to private companies (yay capitalism), yeah sure and look what we got for internet.
Baloney. The limited poor choices we have for broadband access today are generally driven by government-protected monopolies -- the exact opposite of free-market competition.
They weren't able to roll back most of the transactions because they happened over the course of the year. From TFA:
Editors note: This story has been updated to clarify that the losses cited from cyberattacks at Russia's central bank were for 2016, not a single attack.
I find that most people who have never actually run a business can't imagine what it actually costs to run one. Not only are there countless expenses associated with day to day operations of just about any business, there are still more expenses associated with a disruptive business like Uber.
To my understanding, Uber has been leading the charge to bust cabbie cartels both in the U.S. and globally. That's not cheap, much less free. After that work is done, free riders can enter the new competitive market with relative ease and undercut Uber's fares. And since any fare reduction by Uber would essentially come right out of its bottom line, it wouldn't take much of a cut to wipe out Uber's net profit margin.
That's an interesting perspective given how succinct my argument actually was:
People with science degrees are not magically immune to politics.
Normally I would expect that to be a fairly uncontroversial proposition.
In other words . . .
What, were my actual words too inconvenient for you?
Dude, I have no idea what word fragment in this thread you're clinging to in order to try to pretend you're confused, but I suspect in your better moments you like to present yourself as slightly more intelligent than this. It's crystal clear which of the two people is running a false flag operation, and which of the two is reporting on it.
Stop it with the distractions and engage the subject matter if you dare: What are your thoughts about a lefty running a fake alt-right news site with the stated goal of then "debunking" its very own fake stories after they spread?
Nah, it's just you failing to exercise a bit of intellectual curiosity/honesty and actually read the last article she wrote, which, amazingly enough, just so happens to be about the subject at hand. One of several relevant excerpts:
Tell me a little about why you started Disinfomedia?
Late 2012, early 2013 I was spending a lot of time researching what is now being referred to as the alt-right. I identified a problem with the news that they were spreading and created Disinfomedia as a response to that. The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly false or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction.
the primary UN body that says things about climate change is the IPCC which is just about entirely staffed by scientists.
Of course, it all hinges on his attempt at deceptively claiming the IPCC is actually a political body.
And your argument hinges on your attempt at deceptively claiming these two things are mutually exclusive. People with science degrees are not magically immune to politics.
Your "correction" may be pedantically proper, but results in a very awkward sentence (read it out loud a few times). Active voice reads much more naturally:
Google has been sending these warnings since 2012 . . .
So, you expect other people to predict what will be published or commented-on IN THE FUTURE?
No, I expect other people, and in particular a journal like Scientific American, not to couch as factual that which is solely based on rumors from anonymous sources. But I'm very comfortable you understand that and are just trying to save face over your original embarrassingly misguided post.
Unsurprisingly, your rhetorical spew didn't quote a single word from the article I linked. Let me help you out:
Donald Trump is rumored to appoint Myron Ebell, a climate change denier, as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Next, carefully compare that quote to my statement above:
Other sources (including one written today) are honest enough to call it what it is: a rumor .
I know reading comprehension is really undervalued these days, but give it a try -- the results may amaze you.
Thanks.
1. The SA article is dated September 26, but the submitter carefully worded the opening sentence to make it sound like a post-election event ("Trump's transition team is steamrolling ahead to transition the government"). Those people we call "editors" either didn't check it or didn't care.
2. The SA article presents this as an absolute fact, but then essentially says "a little birdie told me so." Other sources (including one written today) are honest enough to call it what it is: a rumor.
It's hardly surprising that you don't see how your straw man supports my argument. Your jaunt into the political affiliations of presidents who appointed Supreme Court justices doesn't even remotely address my question about why the Supreme Court would have needed to intervene to create social changes that in your view would have happened anyway.
If you were actually addressing one of my other posts in this thread and suggesting that some tenuous level of indirect political affiliation of Supreme Court justices somehow means the Supreme Court could be consistent with a direct democracy (in your words, "there is at least some connection to the electorate there"), then we've come full circle, haven't we? The Electoral College certainly has "at least some connection to the electorate." But you want to torch the EC on the theory that "One Person, One Vote is fundamental to democracy." If that's really true, then you also have to eliminate any and all other processes that selectively override OPOV. Otherwise you're just proposing a different system of checks and balances to OPOV than the one that currently exists.
The entire world, united into one anti-US, pro-violence coalition, isn't sufficient to attack us without ending everything, and therefore there is no point to such an attack, no matter what the opposing interests have in mind.
If I'm reading you correctly, your entire belief system that we shouldn't ever attack unless and until attacked first hangs on the above proposition. And it may well be true given rational actors. But what happens when the actors are utterly irrational? You know and I know that people like that exist and are currently working overtime to aggregate power. If they get their fingers on a nuke button, I have no assurance they won't gleefully push it. If we see that kind of situation brewing, should we just sit on our hands since that particular attack wouldn't be against us?
Our job is making sure no one annexes us. Other countries can posture all they want. We can squash them like bugs if they try anything. And we should. Other than that, there's an awful lot of stuff we need to be paying attention to within our borders that we are not.
I get that to a point. But if some world power starts going on a wild tear as in the '40s, waiting until we're the only ones left seems a bit too late to mount an effective defense. Same deal for waiting until we and Canada are the only ones left, etc. I'm not suggesting that something like annexing Crimea is on the actionable side of that line, but I am suggesting that there are cases where preemptive action is appropriate to keep a small problem from potentially turning into a really big problem.
Can you prove that with numbers?
What I said is not even mildly controversial, so I don't care to start a game of bring me a rock where you adjust your definitions of "prove" and "numbers" as we go. If you're truly curious about this, how about you start with criteria that you'll accept and we can go from there.
In the meantime, a really simple thought experiment: If these social changes would have naturally happened anyway, why did the Supreme Court feel the need to intervene time and time again?
Given your public political endorsements, I would imagine you've been in favor of at least some of what lefties view as social progress over the past few decades. Little to none of that would have happened had the U.S. been a direct democracy. (And no, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too by saying the majority should decide unless overruled by 5 unelected people in black robes -- that's in even more opposition to direct democracy than what you're complaining about. See above re "if you were to truly implement it across the board.")
One Person, One Vote is fundamental to democracy
I would suggest that you move to a country that implements pure (direct) democracy, but (1) there aren't that many, and (2) I don't think you would like it as much as you think you would (that is, if you were to truly implement it across the board and not just in situations where it would get you a desired short-term result).
No, it's not a pure democracy (i.e., mob rule). Your own linked article clearly explains this, i.e.:
The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote.
Don't out and out preclude people from reading certain material -- just smear it with a big warning that it's the "wrong" way to think. Much more subtle than China/N. Korea/etc.
And think of the efficiencies. Today, the journalistic cadre actually has to go to the trouble to write out why something is "wrong," and then hope readers find it. Imagine the leverage if they could just declare the "right" framework once and have it applied across the board to the "wrong" sources!
Building on that, just think how easy it would then be to measure someone's potential for... er, "inconvenience" by aggregating the "factiness" scores of their browsing history.
If this doesn't scare the hell out of you, it's likely because you hold a worldview currently considered to be "right" (and have forgotten just how recently it may have been considered "wrong").
Yup, crickets. That's pretty much what I figured. It's hilarious (in a sad sort of way) that a community that spends a good portion of its time railing against idiot PHB "all you have to do is" pronouncements is shutting its collective brain down in this case because they desperately want--nay, need--to believe in this deus ex machina maneuver.