Prior art does not invalidate a patent, it just make the patent dependent on having the rights to the prior art as well.
The poster must have meant something entirely different: the above statement is simply false. Prior art by definition isn't secret stuff- that comment would imply I could come around later and get a patent on something I published years ago. Prior art is used to prove that an 'invention' has not taken an inventive step, meaning someone skilled in the relevant art could reasonably be expected to think of the same invention upon reading the public 'prior art,' without any particular inspiration. (Sure, you have a year from public disclosure of your own stuff to get your own application on file without it causing a problem for you, but that can't be what the parent post means since it's of passing relevance to the overall statement.) Whether you are the originator of the information available to the public will have absolutely no effect.
Unless your patent is exactly what the prior art is... finding prior art will not prevent the granting of a patent.
Again, not at all true. That same inventive step test still applies. Can you be close to the prior art but add something that goes the extra mile? If so, patentable. If not, you're in the dustbin. Besides, there are a much larger number of patent applications filed than granted, so clearly examiners are kicking some things out.
Also, many patents that are flaged as outrageous... are not as broad of scope as they seem due to the prior art that is listed in the patent. The process may be broken, but not as badly as you'd think...
I'm not so sure there's anything persuasive in the article. All it really asks you to do is agree that patentability of fast food is ludicrous.
You can make a short persuasive analysis and reach the same conclusion, just by hitting those same sort of historic ideals: a patent system was created to 'promote the useful arts' with (among others) limited monopoly justified by getting ideas clearly into the public domain sooner and allowing for further innovation. The first steam engines were patented, from there you get internal combustion.
A patent for selling auction items at a fixed price, or many of the business method patents we see, however, are dead ends. (Oooh, I know, I'll sell fixed price items at a fixed price!!) By failing to promote further steps on a technological ladder, business method patents don't give back to the public what the patent system was created to do.
And, just as the bank robber cannot be heard to complain when the guard pulls off his mask
I wondered first whether Mr. Oppenheim had ever been present in such circumstances, but then I thought more about his word choice: "heard to complain." Right, the complaints would be drowned out by the sound of gunfire from the now-unmasked robber.
Okay, first, there's no "judge". The article (obliquely) refers to the fact that Hormel is trying to cancel Spam Arrest's trademark applications. See, for instance, this record at the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. These are administrative hearings with a panel and are not binding on any federal court. They are merely binding on the USPTO's own registration process.
Second, people are misunderstanding genericism. The key is whether the term at issue is generic for the goods or services for which the term is registered. Thus, you can't register PENCIL for pencils, but you sure can for vacuum cleaners. Whether the term is generic for other goods and services is not strictly relevant- one of the strongest trademarks in the world for beverages happens to be generic for the residue of coal left after destructive distillation. You all hear stories about THERMOS becoming generic for thermally-insulated bottles though failure to educate the public that THERMOS was a brand of thermally-insulated bottles, but now you're talking about the equivalent of astronomer's frequent references to exploding stars rendering a car brand generic- it just doesn't work that way.
Hormel should have enforced their trademark much earler to stop the alternative usage of the word
This line of thought is also way off for the same kind of reasons. When exactly did Hormel begin allowing use of the term SPAM by others to distinguish the source of goods or services? When did they begin ignore use of the term SPAM for *any item purchasable by a consumer*? They didn't.
So, nonetheless, I assume someone will persist in believing SPAM has somehow lost trademark significance through reference to unwanted email. Even if this were the case, it's yet another argument in favor of cancelling Spam Arrest's trademark registrations- Spam Arrest certainly use a generic term in their name if either of the parties do.
I can't believe Hormel will have any trouble convincing the TTAB that their mark is famous and entitled to a wide berth on the trademark register. Too well known, too well enforced, too long a period of time in use....
There's a lot of truth to the parent post. I'd want to take it somewhat broader and just stress that the days of mp3.com (and the other properties in Vivendi Univeral Net USA's portfolio) being anything beyond the usual abhorrent RIAA-loving media companies are well over.
My own experience with emusic.com (which I won't get into, but feel free to help me burn down my buddy's condo with the partial account here) suggests that VUNet as a whole is relatively desperate to avoid any kind of high-cost service delivery, yet unwilling to really fess up to its consumers or potential consumers like we might expect out of any business that hopes to grow. Honestly, I don't know how to put it, except that I think the management of the company thinks they're drowning and are flailing about. I suspect the proper summary of the original article is 'giant media company in trouble, internet subsidiaries no longer given carte blanche to be underperforming asset.'
The Vivendi board meets today, I'm sure that with the attempt to restructure their huge debt load, any subsidiary like mp3.com needs to show some relatively large cash flow improvement to be retained.
From a baseball purist standpoint, MLB has become a Home Run Derby of sorts, but that has VERY little to do with strike zone
I think this section is an excellent analysis of the parent post. If the strike zone were the cause of "Home Run Derby" baseball, you'd expect to see an overall increase in league batting average. The theory would say that by improving the quality of the pitches the batter faces as strikes, they'd be hitting more of everything, not just home runs.
Anyway, some guy's chart bears this out- keep in mind what looks like a big difference on that chart (.006, say) represents about 30 hits per team per season. Given that the NL appears to be hitting a collective.262 right now, I think I'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that umpires' collective decisions about strike zones can move overall batting averages so minimally yet be the cause of an increase in home runs.
...However, for the purposes of authentication, I had a code developer present to review the materials with. No one has greater respect for their inherent limitations than I do!!!
I guess she meant to say "No one has greater respect for inherent self-limitations than I do."
RIAA guy re: cease-and-desist letters: We are not accessing anybody's "property," and we are certainly not violating anybody's personal rights.
Really, you mean my copyrighted content on my website is not my property? Interesting, grasshopper, perhaps you should consider whether your own organization owns any "property" as you say.
In defending extended copyright terms, RIAA guy: Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works...
Right, I forgot how much more expensive it is to post a single mp3 file than to press a million CD's. That certainly explains why my paper industry stocks are doing so well: it's just so much cheaper to print copies than put them online.
I know I'm nitpicking, but for the love of god, doesn't this guy have the RIAA-mandated filter between his rational mind and his keyboard/voice? I'm usually a lot more even-keeled, but this stuff is straight from left field.
However, for SCO to bring copyright-based lawsuits against Linux users, SCO would have to show that the copyright transfers have been registered at the U.S. Copyright Office, Ferrell said.
I'm not sure if that means by not recording the transfers SCO's prevented themselves from suing, or if it just means they'd need to get them recorded before they'd be able to sue, but they don't seem to be recorded.
The only copyrights that Norvell assigned to anybody that got recorded are "ConvertPerfect 2.0 for DOS & 153 other titles" to Corel and "Novell Internet caching system 1.0 & 2 other titles" to Volera. (From COHS, the Copyright Office's copyright ownership document database.)
Uh, actually, the RPR product appears to be several devices chained together, rather than the sigle device reviewed. I'm sure any of us could figure out how to use the 'audio out' in conjunction with the 'mic' jack on just about anything to successfully record.
Maybe this post is a little late, and maybe the case cited is more of an avoidance-of-major-loss rather than an actual victory, but small non-commercial internet broadcasters appear to have managed a compromise on the royalty issue.
I was thinking the same think and noticed that there's no currently-pending (or at least not-yet-indexed) U.S. trademark application for COMPUTON for 'leasing of computer facilities'. I mean, the article did suggest that the term "computon" was only being used inside HP, but I suspect they'll want to use it for customers later, especially now that they have some press.
So, any of us have a "bona fide intention to use" COMPUTON for services along these lines? $335, a hotmail account, and a mail drop would undoubtedly lead to some fun at HP's expense or consternation...
Re:Can't change peoples' thinking
on
Making Change
·
· Score: 1
There's no way you're going to teach entire countries to just op thinking in terms of 1, 5, 10, 25 and start thinking about 83 cent coins, or 1.37 dollar bills
But Canada already has a $1.46 coin and they seem to be doing fine with it. (Oh, except that I guess it's really two of their "dollars".)
1) This isn't such a "IE did this first" issue. If you read the claims, the process calls for some more detailed analysis on the suggestion end- for example, culling out null results. It'd be the equivalent of IE not autocompleting to 404's, which we all know it still doesn't do.
2) Prior art from any time after their filing date in 2000 won't matter, so don't worry about what was going on "last year."
3) The examiner clearly considered mere autocompleting- look at the references cited during prosecution. PDA operating instructions are among them, which I imagine contained lots of "this device will complete your word for you."
4) Prior posters seem to be confusing "novelty" with "non-obviousness." I think it's pretty likely Amazon was among the first to use this invention as disclosed, but I'm willing to grant that any reasonable programmer turning his or her mind to this problem would have created a similar solution. But that doesn't mean it really has been done before.
What's really interesting about that trademark application is that it is under opposition. (See here.)
You'll note that not only did Cohen's trademark lawyers "fire" him, but that this application is about to die.
And as a note to an above post, the USPTO actually does kind of act like the "trademark police" in the opposition process. Think of it like an administrative court.
I kind of think the lawyers did really well- I mean, the firm now has equity in a promising enterprise, right? Oh, you mean the advice was bad for the inventor. Sorry. I guess I do feel bad for the inventor from Atlanta who was convinced to pay for a patent in Georgia...
The last highly-moderated post to suggest there was no parody of Strawberry Shortcake got a mixed reaction, too. However, I think a little additional analysis shows this to be the right take.
To start off, separate the elements. Replacing Strawberry Shortcake with some random public-domain formerly-known-as-wholesome female character makes the same overall point about American McGee. Replace her with, I don't know, Elvira or somebody suitably gothic to begin with, and you're suddenly saying nothing at all about American McGee. For the cartoon to make any sense, you've got to use a good character and make her bad. This is not making a critical comment on the original character, it's merely what the author of the cartoon is doing to the original character.
So take it the other way- remove any reference to American McGee. Now do you have a parody of Strawberry Shortcake? Not quite- you still need some additional context to get it there, like 'my generation of women has grown up' or 'behind the scenes at American Greetings' or something that would give the drawing the critical or humorous meaning sufficient to be considered parody. Otherwise, a reader would think nothing more than 'gee, that's a wholesome character drawn nasty.'
Maybe you think that such a drawing is in itself humorous enough to qualify as parody. However, the fair use exemptions require consideration of things like "the purpose and character of the use" of the copyrighted work, which will include things like intended audience. Would you then be telling me you read Penny Arcade for its insightful analysis of 1980's toys for girls? I think American Greetings would have a relatively easy time showing that a top reason the average reader checks it out is for game-related stuff, meaning any parody of their character would be a stretch.
Seriously, if you read this at Penny Arcade it settles the matter: So, American McGee's creative propensities amuse us. What would happen if he turned his dark gaze on one of those sweet girls' toys from the eighties, like Rainbow Brite or Sweet Secrets or My Little Pony? No, I've got it: Strawberry Shortcake. If you argue that there is a Strawberry Shortcake parody, you'd be telling me you think it's a parody of all pretty toys from the 80's? I'm skeptical to say the least.
The definition of Small Entity is long, but, as a starting point, individuals and companies with fewer than 500 employees is considered a small entity.
Not to act all prissy, but actually it isn't that long: 1) Independent inventors (someone who has not assigned and is not under obligation to assign the invention) 2) Nonprofit organizations 3) Small business concerns
See here. What's long is the document that defines what a small business concern is by the industry it is in. You might note that a "Electronic computer manufacturing" business is a small entity if it has less than 1,000 employees, whereas for beer and ale wholesalers it's 100. "Custom computer programming services" are defined in dollar amounts, though, where the limit is $18M in revenue.
I suppose the effort should be admired, but I was really hoping to see something like a 1986 Nissan Sentra modified. There's just some beauty lost in making a sporty-looking car go faster when imagination begs that you make a clunker rip down the road.
I think I know all I need to about this topic now. I asked ELIZA:
Eliza: Hello. I am ELIZA. How can I help you? Me: Do you believe the Turing Test is sufficient to evaluate artificial intelligence?
Eliza: Oh, i believe the turing test is sufficient to evaluate artificial intelligence.
Totally wrong, it's annual, 10 trillion or so. See the government stats. The table clearly says "seasonally adjusted at annual rates." You should also realize this number makes sense because otherwise: 1) the national debt would be like 15% of GDP (I wish); and 2) US fixed asset values (the value of frickin everything everywhere - about 30 trillion) would be less than one year's GDP.
The game titles alone make me want to own it: Little Wizzrd
Dyhard Infinity
Kimchi-Man
Astonishia Story R
Her Knights - "Forcing break-out"
Hany Party Game
Tails of windyland
Especially "Kimchi-Man". Is he really made of pickled cabbage?
A picture is not "news". A photograph is not "the truth." Fooling around with an image is not at all the same issue as inaccurate reporting- the slippery-slope fear is a stretch.
I don't think you can imagine a doctored photo that would lead to actual misrepresentation of the truth without the support of a fake story alongside it. Boy, that's strange, you say, I never noticed that F15 crashing into the Shuttle upon re-entry. Doesn't somebody actually need to write the headline "F15 Destroys Shuttle" before the funky photo is of any consequence? Honestly, if you read the comments above, it's clear that photos convey few facts. Some see the soldier in the doctored photograph as "threatening," some see him 'being listened to.' All we really know without a text alongside is that a guy in camouflage was near a bunch of seated people. It's not like the photo is being used to invalidate the widely-held belief that there are no twins in Iraq.
While there's no reason to be pro-faked-photo, I'm struggling to understand the objections, given that a million fake photos seem to have no impact without written lies to boot. Sure, you could fake a photo of me going into a strip club and print it on the front page without comment, but I'd own the paper within the week.
Slashdot Mirror
Prior art does not invalidate a patent, it just make the patent dependent on having the rights to the prior art as well.
The poster must have meant something entirely different: the above statement is simply false. Prior art by definition isn't secret stuff- that comment would imply I could come around later and get a patent on something I published years ago. Prior art is used to prove that an 'invention' has not taken an inventive step, meaning someone skilled in the relevant art could reasonably be expected to think of the same invention upon reading the public 'prior art,' without any particular inspiration. (Sure, you have a year from public disclosure of your own stuff to get your own application on file without it causing a problem for you, but that can't be what the parent post means since it's of passing relevance to the overall statement.) Whether you are the originator of the information available to the public will have absolutely no effect.
Unless your patent is exactly what the prior art is... finding prior art will not prevent the granting of a patent.
Again, not at all true. That same inventive step test still applies. Can you be close to the prior art but add something that goes the extra mile? If so, patentable. If not, you're in the dustbin. Besides, there are a much larger number of patent applications filed than granted, so clearly examiners are kicking some things out.
Also, many patents that are flaged as outrageous... are not as broad of scope as they seem due to the prior art that is listed in the patent. The process may be broken, but not as badly as you'd think...
Well, I'll agree with that.
Makes the argument persuasively.
I'm not so sure there's anything persuasive in the article. All it really asks you to do is agree that patentability of fast food is ludicrous.
You can make a short persuasive analysis and reach the same conclusion, just by hitting those same sort of historic ideals: a patent system was created to 'promote the useful arts' with (among others) limited monopoly justified by getting ideas clearly into the public domain sooner and allowing for further innovation. The first steam engines were patented, from there you get internal combustion.
A patent for selling auction items at a fixed price, or many of the business method patents we see, however, are dead ends. (Oooh, I know, I'll sell fixed price items at a fixed price!!) By failing to promote further steps on a technological ladder, business method patents don't give back to the public what the patent system was created to do.
I disagree, the funniest quote is clearly:
And, just as the bank robber cannot be heard to complain when the guard pulls off his mask
I wondered first whether Mr. Oppenheim had ever been present in such circumstances, but then I thought more about his word choice: "heard to complain." Right, the complaints would be drowned out by the sound of gunfire from the now-unmasked robber.
Okay, first, there's no "judge". The article (obliquely) refers to the fact that Hormel is trying to cancel Spam Arrest's trademark applications. See, for instance, this record at the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. These are administrative hearings with a panel and are not binding on any federal court. They are merely binding on the USPTO's own registration process.
Second, people are misunderstanding genericism. The key is whether the term at issue is generic for the goods or services for which the term is registered. Thus, you can't register PENCIL for pencils, but you sure can for vacuum cleaners. Whether the term is generic for other goods and services is not strictly relevant- one of the strongest trademarks in the world for beverages happens to be generic for the residue of coal left after destructive distillation. You all hear stories about THERMOS becoming generic for thermally-insulated bottles though failure to educate the public that THERMOS was a brand of thermally-insulated bottles, but now you're talking about the equivalent of astronomer's frequent references to exploding stars rendering a car brand generic- it just doesn't work that way.
Hormel should have enforced their trademark much earler to stop the alternative usage of the word
This line of thought is also way off for the same kind of reasons. When exactly did Hormel begin allowing use of the term SPAM by others to distinguish the source of goods or services? When did they begin ignore use of the term SPAM for *any item purchasable by a consumer*? They didn't.
So, nonetheless, I assume someone will persist in believing SPAM has somehow lost trademark significance through reference to unwanted email. Even if this were the case, it's yet another argument in favor of cancelling Spam Arrest's trademark registrations- Spam Arrest certainly use a generic term in their name if either of the parties do.
I can't believe Hormel will have any trouble convincing the TTAB that their mark is famous and entitled to a wide berth on the trademark register. Too well known, too well enforced, too long a period of time in use....
There's a lot of truth to the parent post. I'd want to take it somewhat broader and just stress that the days of mp3.com (and the other properties in Vivendi Univeral Net USA's portfolio) being anything beyond the usual abhorrent RIAA-loving media companies are well over.
My own experience with emusic.com (which I won't get into, but feel free to help me burn down my buddy's condo with the partial account here) suggests that VUNet as a whole is relatively desperate to avoid any kind of high-cost service delivery, yet unwilling to really fess up to its consumers or potential consumers like we might expect out of any business that hopes to grow. Honestly, I don't know how to put it, except that I think the management of the company thinks they're drowning and are flailing about. I suspect the proper summary of the original article is 'giant media company in trouble, internet subsidiaries no longer given carte blanche to be underperforming asset.'
The Vivendi board meets today, I'm sure that with the attempt to restructure their huge debt load, any subsidiary like mp3.com needs to show some relatively large cash flow improvement to be retained.
From a baseball purist standpoint, MLB has become a Home Run Derby of sorts, but that has VERY little to do with strike zone
.262 right now, I think I'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that umpires' collective decisions about strike zones can move overall batting averages so minimally yet be the cause of an increase in home runs.
I think this section is an excellent analysis of the parent post. If the strike zone were the cause of "Home Run Derby" baseball, you'd expect to see an overall increase in league batting average. The theory would say that by improving the quality of the pitches the batter faces as strikes, they'd be hitting more of everything, not just home runs.
Anyway, some guy's chart bears this out- keep in mind what looks like a big difference on that chart (.006, say) represents about 30 hits per team per season. Given that the NL appears to be hitting a collective
...However, for the purposes of authentication, I had a code developer present to review the materials with. No one has greater respect for their inherent limitations than I do!!!
I guess she meant to say "No one has greater respect for inherent self-limitations than I do."
before I get so angry I've got to post.
RIAA guy re: cease-and-desist letters:
We are not accessing anybody's "property," and we are certainly not violating anybody's personal rights.
Really, you mean my copyrighted content on my website is not my property? Interesting, grasshopper, perhaps you should consider whether your own organization owns any "property" as you say.
In defending extended copyright terms, RIAA guy:
Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works...
Right, I forgot how much more expensive it is to post a single mp3 file than to press a million CD's. That certainly explains why my paper industry stocks are doing so well: it's just so much cheaper to print copies than put them online.
I know I'm nitpicking, but for the love of god, doesn't this guy have the RIAA-mandated filter between his rational mind and his keyboard/voice? I'm usually a lot more even-keeled, but this stuff is straight from left field.
9.11% user fee
Indeed, think what the government could make charging people to use the phrase "nine-eleven'!
(1 Karma point for the first person to post the correct Simpson's ref.)
I'll try:
Lisa: "Fox turned into a hard-core porn network so gradually, I didn't even notice!"
The news.com.com article claims:
However, for SCO to bring copyright-based lawsuits against Linux users, SCO would have to show that the copyright transfers have been registered at the U.S. Copyright Office, Ferrell said.
I'm not sure if that means by not recording the transfers SCO's prevented themselves from suing, or if it just means they'd need to get them recorded before they'd be able to sue, but they don't seem to be recorded.
The only copyrights that Norvell assigned to anybody that got recorded are "ConvertPerfect 2.0 for DOS & 153 other titles" to Corel and "Novell Internet caching system 1.0 & 2 other titles" to Volera. (From COHS, the Copyright Office's copyright ownership document database.)
Uh, actually, the RPR product appears to be several devices chained together, rather than the sigle device reviewed. I'm sure any of us could figure out how to use the 'audio out' in conjunction with the 'mic' jack on just about anything to successfully record.
Maybe this post is a little late, and maybe the case cited is more of an avoidance-of-major-loss rather than an actual victory, but small non-commercial internet broadcasters appear to have managed a compromise on the royalty issue.
See this article from the Houston Chronicle.
I'm sure many a Slashdot reader's favorite stream is not necessarily rejoicing, but at least this looks workable.
a new word to distinguish it
I was thinking the same think and noticed that there's no currently-pending (or at least not-yet-indexed) U.S. trademark application for COMPUTON for 'leasing of computer facilities'. I mean, the article did suggest that the term "computon" was only being used inside HP, but I suspect they'll want to use it for customers later, especially now that they have some press.
So, any of us have a "bona fide intention to use" COMPUTON for services along these lines? $335, a hotmail account, and a mail drop would undoubtedly lead to some fun at HP's expense or consternation...
There's no way you're going to teach entire countries to just op thinking in terms of 1, 5, 10, 25 and start thinking about 83 cent coins, or 1.37 dollar bills
But Canada already has a $1.46 coin and they seem to be doing fine with it. (Oh, except that I guess it's really two of their "dollars".)
1) This isn't such a "IE did this first" issue. If you read the claims, the process calls for some more detailed analysis on the suggestion end- for example, culling out null results. It'd be the equivalent of IE not autocompleting to 404's, which we all know it still doesn't do.
2) Prior art from any time after their filing date in 2000 won't matter, so don't worry about what was going on "last year."
3) The examiner clearly considered mere autocompleting- look at the references cited during prosecution. PDA operating instructions are among them, which I imagine contained lots of "this device will complete your word for you."
4) Prior posters seem to be confusing "novelty" with "non-obviousness." I think it's pretty likely Amazon was among the first to use this invention as disclosed, but I'm willing to grant that any reasonable programmer turning his or her mind to this problem would have created a similar solution. But that doesn't mean it really has been done before.
What's really interesting about that trademark application is that it is under opposition. (See here.)
You'll note that not only did Cohen's trademark lawyers "fire" him, but that this application is about to die.
And as a note to an above post, the USPTO actually does kind of act like the "trademark police" in the opposition process. Think of it like an administrative court.
His lawyers advised him badly.
I kind of think the lawyers did really well- I mean, the firm now has equity in a promising enterprise, right?
Oh, you mean the advice was bad for the inventor. Sorry. I guess I do feel bad for the inventor from Atlanta who was convinced to pay for a patent in Georgia...
The last highly-moderated post to suggest there was no parody of Strawberry Shortcake got a mixed reaction, too. However, I think a little additional analysis shows this to be the right take.
To start off, separate the elements. Replacing Strawberry Shortcake with some random public-domain formerly-known-as-wholesome female character makes the same overall point about American McGee. Replace her with, I don't know, Elvira or somebody suitably gothic to begin with, and you're suddenly saying nothing at all about American McGee. For the cartoon to make any sense, you've got to use a good character and make her bad. This is not making a critical comment on the original character, it's merely what the author of the cartoon is doing to the original character.
So take it the other way- remove any reference to American McGee. Now do you have a parody of Strawberry Shortcake? Not quite- you still need some additional context to get it there, like 'my generation of women has grown up' or 'behind the scenes at American Greetings' or something that would give the drawing the critical or humorous meaning sufficient to be considered parody. Otherwise, a reader would think nothing more than 'gee, that's a wholesome character drawn nasty.'
Maybe you think that such a drawing is in itself humorous enough to qualify as parody. However, the fair use exemptions require consideration of things like "the purpose and character of the use" of the copyrighted work, which will include things like intended audience. Would you then be telling me you read Penny Arcade for its insightful analysis of 1980's toys for girls? I think American Greetings would have a relatively easy time showing that a top reason the average reader checks it out is for game-related stuff, meaning any parody of their character would be a stretch.
Seriously, if you read this at Penny Arcade it settles the matter:
So, American McGee's creative propensities amuse us. What would happen if he turned his dark gaze on one of those sweet girls' toys from the eighties, like Rainbow Brite or Sweet Secrets or My Little Pony? No, I've got it: Strawberry Shortcake.
If you argue that there is a Strawberry Shortcake parody, you'd be telling me you think it's a parody of all pretty toys from the 80's? I'm skeptical to say the least.
The definition of Small Entity is long, but, as a starting point, individuals and companies with fewer than 500 employees is considered a small entity.
Not to act all prissy, but actually it isn't that long:
1) Independent inventors (someone who has not assigned and is not under obligation to assign the invention)
2) Nonprofit organizations
3) Small business concerns
See here. What's long is the document that defines what a small business concern is by the industry it is in. You might note that a "Electronic computer manufacturing" business is a small entity if it has less than 1,000 employees, whereas for beer and ale wholesalers it's 100. "Custom computer programming services" are defined in dollar amounts, though, where the limit is $18M in revenue.
I suppose the effort should be admired, but I was really hoping to see something like a 1986 Nissan Sentra modified. There's just some beauty lost in making a sporty-looking car go faster when imagination begs that you make a clunker rip down the road.
I think I know all I need to about this topic now. I asked ELIZA:
Eliza: Hello. I am ELIZA. How can I help you?
Me: Do you believe the Turing Test is sufficient to evaluate artificial intelligence?
Eliza: Oh, i believe the turing test is sufficient to evaluate artificial intelligence.
Figures she'd think that.
Yes. Per quarter.
Totally wrong, it's annual, 10 trillion or so. See the government stats. The table clearly says "seasonally adjusted at annual rates." You should also realize this number makes sense because otherwise:
1) the national debt would be like 15% of GDP (I wish); and
2) US fixed asset values (the value of frickin everything everywhere - about 30 trillion) would be less than one year's GDP.
The game titles alone make me want to own it:
Little Wizzrd
Dyhard Infinity
Kimchi-Man
Astonishia Story R
Her Knights - "Forcing break-out"
Hany Party Game
Tails of windyland
Especially "Kimchi-Man". Is he really made of pickled cabbage?
A picture is not "news". A photograph is not "the truth." Fooling around with an image is not at all the same issue as inaccurate reporting- the slippery-slope fear is a stretch.
I don't think you can imagine a doctored photo that would lead to actual misrepresentation of the truth without the support of a fake story alongside it. Boy, that's strange, you say, I never noticed that F15 crashing into the Shuttle upon re-entry. Doesn't somebody actually need to write the headline "F15 Destroys Shuttle" before the funky photo is of any consequence? Honestly, if you read the comments above, it's clear that photos convey few facts. Some see the soldier in the doctored photograph as "threatening," some see him 'being listened to.' All we really know without a text alongside is that a guy in camouflage was near a bunch of seated people. It's not like the photo is being used to invalidate the widely-held belief that there are no twins in Iraq.
While there's no reason to be pro-faked-photo, I'm struggling to understand the objections, given that a million fake photos seem to have no impact without written lies to boot. Sure, you could fake a photo of me going into a strip club and print it on the front page without comment, but I'd own the paper within the week.