Sure, I'll agree the ADA Is not a joke, very important. But arguing its extension to website content is completely insane. It's the equivalent of requiring braile translators on commercial radio stations. Where's the line drawn, too, is another question: after Southwest complies with this first court decision, would they have to add parenthetical labels indicating color over their logo so the colorblind can get the same internet experience as those with color vision? What if I'm dyslexic in English but not Zulu? The ADA is totally serious- the equivalent of the 1964 civil rights legislation for the disabled- but extending the ADA to cases like this is far, far more out of hand than affirmative action.
Yep, this is spot on. See a section from the bill: When a digital work is distributed to the public subject to non-negotiable license terms, such terms shall not be enforceable under the common laws or statutes of any State to the extent that they restrict or limit any of the limitations on exclusive rights under this title. So it wouldn't cover GPL (where you're provided in advance with license terms that would apply if you wanted to incorporate something into a derivative work, etc.) but it would cover the typical EULA (where the mere distribution comes with a 'license' that is intended to bind you regardless).
Maybe it's easier to understand in these terms: the GPL is the equivalent of shipping a CD with a blank mechanical license form- here you go, listen all you want, and if you should want to record a cover of my song, sign here and send a check for the statutory royalty rate, don't bother to call my lawyer. A EULA is more like shipping that same CD with springloaded earmuffs that pop out when you open the case that prevent you from hearing it.
I see your point, though, and would argue that perhaps patents shouldn't be licensable, only sellable and only enforcable by the owner of the patent IF they are actually using the idea in their trade after some grace period of for "development of trade", ie the time between desinging the thing and actually getting it to market. So if I come up with a great new CPU design and patent it, I have some grace period where I get enforcement of the design without having to market my CPU. I can either start making CPUs or sell the patent outright. Whoever I sell it to has to start making my design or they can't enforce the patent.
This idea might go quite a long way toward taking care of many of the typical rants about patents in this space. Many countries have working/compulsory license provisions whereby if you're issued a patent but don't 'satisfy the market' within, say, three years, a third party can obtain a compulsory license at a 'reasonable' royalty rate (sometimes this is a statutory rate instead). Makes me wonder if some of the more egregious examples of patents would be fixed- as in, oh, Amazon, there's this huge market for one-click ordering of cars and you've failed to sell cars, now I get a compulsory license to one-click sell cars.
There are a wide variety of people discussing the idea that "constants" (such as Planck's as mentioned) may indeed be variable. Although I'm not sufficiently nerdy to vouch for this, it is certainly something interesting. Discusses some of the possible instances of observed variance as well as some of the larger implications to theory that would result if the observations are correct.
Minnesota has a nice worksheet to calculate payoff here, on the 6th page of the document. The "example" appears to be a fairly reasonable case for their state, and that calculates out at 8.8 years. I note that it does not include the normal (modest) maintenance costs, but there's also no tax benefit column.
I'd say we're on the way, just not in the federal mandate sense. The State of Minnesota has a ton of information that would help you figure out whether to plant a windmill on your property in the state, and the legal environment there (utilities must buy wind-generated power at retail rates, subsidies for purchase of windmills, etc.) seems pretty great. The Minnesota program is generally considered sucessful, so it would seem that other states following suit would certainly expand wind power use.
Doesn't seem quite consistent with one of the first US patents (1790) being for a method of making potash and Pearle ash. And that's to say nothing of the first British patent hundreds (?) of years earlier. Sure, founders would not have envisioned software patents, but just because they don't fit into some clumsy 'machine shop' metaphor doesn't mean they don't still make some sense.
The oft-appearing sentiment on/. about Europe not having software patents is flatly not true. Let me quote an exchange I had with a European patent attorney:
I write: "Our client may be interested in nationalizing the a PCT application in Europe. Because we understand that the European Patent Office is not receptive to software patents, we are interested in obtaining your advice on whether the referenced PCT application may be successfully prosecuted in Europe, either in its current form or as amended to specifically avoid EPO rejection with respect to its software content. Additionally, if you are aware of any substantively different treatment of software patent applications in the national offices of Germany or the United Kingdom, we would appreciate your thoughts on the matter."
He replies: "I do not know from which source you have received your information regarding the problems in prosecution of software patents before the EPO. The desicions of the Boards of Appeal within the last three years clearly demonstrate that the criteria set by the EPO are in line with those made by the USPTO (the harmonization aspect is here very important). It is possible that the prosecution period at the EPO was relatively long in the past for reasons of waiting for principal decisions in this field that were, however, made in the meantime. In Germany (national) we can see more restrictions at the moment but here the situation is also changing. Therfore, filing the application at the EPO or in UK or Germany will make no difference from our present knowledge."
So, which source made me look silly in my profession? Why, taking/. posters like the above without a grain of salt, of course!
I used to think that too, but here's what I heard from one of our EPO associates:
I wrote: Our client....may be interested in nationalizing the below PCT application in Europe... Because we understand that the European Patent Office is not receptive to software patents, we are interested in obtaining your advice on whether the referenced PCT application may be successfully prosecuted in Europe, either in its current form or as amended to specifically avoid EPO rejection with respect to its software content. Additionally, if you are aware of any substantively different treatment of software patent applications in the national offices of Germany or the United Kingdom, we would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
He replied: I do not know from which source you have received your information regarding the problems in prosecution of software patents before the EPO. The desicions of the Boards of Appeal within the last three years clearly demonstrate that the criteria set by the EPO are in line with those made by the USPTO (the harmonization aspect is here very important). It is possible that the prosecution period at the EPO was relatively long in the past for reasons of waiting for principal decisions in this field that were, however, made in the meantime. In Germany (national) we can see more restrictions at the moment but here the situation is also changing. Therfore, filing the application at the EPO or in UK or Germany will make no difference from our present knowledge.
Anyway, unless there's something I misunderstand, the frequent EP anti-software-patent comments on/. are way off.
Although I have no data, I think the licensing is likely to be a significant part of that $1 million- with titles like MONOPOLY or PLAYBOY, you'd have to assume those relatively famous brands don't come cheap. I can't really be convinced that a hobbyist couldn't make their own: artwork and prototyping are pretty much optional costs if you're willing to keep or give away your first few and don't mind if they don't look that slick. That leaves mechanical design, and since playfields have got to be in the public domain- functionality is not protected by a design patent- all you'd need is a machine you like to play to copy it. Sure, the licensed/branded material, previously copyrighted ideas (like TAXI or other non-branded game premises), and patented features (like Sega's computer-controlled electromagnet) wouldn't be available, but get your hands on some parts, programming skills, and an old machine, and I think you're all set.
This is probably the best up-to-date source for exactly where they are, given that it predicts future location. The actual mission status stats seem to get updated only occassionally, and I think what's up there is about three months old.
Anyway, Voyager 1 appears to be just short of 8 billion miles from the sun rather than "well over 7" as mentioned below.
If nothing else, it's a little early to have this verdict, particularly given the US's disappointment that we weren't vigilant enough with the technology already in place to stop terrorist attacks. If I believed the article, I guess I'd find it comforting that all my police-state-growth fears here are apparently unwarranted because technology will save me.
That must be why radio telescopes don't have a 'reply' button. Also makes me think our many years of transmitting radio signals should have been accompanied by 'do not reply to this message' disclaimers to avoid huge amounts of radio spam in 100,000 years.
Given the time scales involved in round-trip transmission, why would they even think it mattered?
I think this suggestion wouldn't work out as well as making our 18-month publication system apply to all applications. I suspect part of the reason this one patent seems so shocking to everyone is that they should have seen in published three years ago.
Anyway, broadening the publication system to include everybody would be far less likely to completely end biotech work, like I suspect an "openpatent" office would.
Slashdot Mirror
the government will see income from the slimmed-down USPTO
Ah, the government would see less money from a slimmed-down PTO. They make money on filings - here is just the first source I found.
Sure, I'll agree the ADA Is not a joke, very important. But arguing its extension to website content is completely insane. It's the equivalent of requiring braile translators on commercial radio stations. Where's the line drawn, too, is another question: after Southwest complies with this first court decision, would they have to add parenthetical labels indicating color over their logo so the colorblind can get the same internet experience as those with color vision? What if I'm dyslexic in English but not Zulu? The ADA is totally serious- the equivalent of the 1964 civil rights legislation for the disabled- but extending the ADA to cases like this is far, far more out of hand than affirmative action.
Yep, this is spot on. See a section from the bill: When a digital work is distributed to the public subject to non-negotiable license terms, such terms shall not be enforceable under the common laws or statutes of any State to the extent that they restrict or limit any of the limitations on exclusive rights under this title. So it wouldn't cover GPL (where you're provided in advance with license terms that would apply if you wanted to incorporate something into a derivative work, etc.) but it would cover the typical EULA (where the mere distribution comes with a 'license' that is intended to bind you regardless).
Maybe it's easier to understand in these terms: the GPL is the equivalent of shipping a CD with a blank mechanical license form- here you go, listen all you want, and if you should want to record a cover of my song, sign here and send a check for the statutory royalty rate, don't bother to call my lawyer. A EULA is more like shipping that same CD with springloaded earmuffs that pop out when you open the case that prevent you from hearing it.
I see your point, though, and would argue that perhaps patents shouldn't be licensable, only sellable and only enforcable by the owner of the patent IF they are actually using the idea in their trade after some grace period of for "development of trade", ie the time between desinging the thing and actually getting it to market. So if I come up with a great new CPU design and patent it, I have some grace period where I get enforcement of the design without having to market my CPU. I can either start making CPUs or sell the patent outright. Whoever I sell it to has to start making my design or they can't enforce the patent.
This idea might go quite a long way toward taking care of many of the typical rants about patents in this space. Many countries have working/compulsory license provisions whereby if you're issued a patent but don't 'satisfy the market' within, say, three years, a third party can obtain a compulsory license at a 'reasonable' royalty rate (sometimes this is a statutory rate instead). Makes me wonder if some of the more egregious examples of patents would be fixed- as in, oh, Amazon, there's this huge market for one-click ordering of cars and you've failed to sell cars, now I get a compulsory license to one-click sell cars.
Yeah, the Star Destroyer is more than $250.00! I almost choked.
There are a wide variety of people discussing the idea that "constants" (such as Planck's as mentioned) may indeed be variable. Although I'm not sufficiently nerdy to vouch for this, it is certainly something interesting. Discusses some of the possible instances of observed variance as well as some of the larger implications to theory that would result if the observations are correct.
Minnesota has a nice worksheet to calculate payoff here, on the 6th page of the document. The "example" appears to be a fairly reasonable case for their state, and that calculates out at 8.8 years. I note that it does not include the normal (modest) maintenance costs, but there's also no tax benefit column.
Want to use the Minnesota "payoff time" information to see whether you want to plant a windmill? Use National Renewable Energy Laboratory maps.
Doesn't seem quite consistent with one of the first US patents (1790) being for a method of making potash and Pearle ash. And that's to say nothing of the first British patent hundreds (?) of years earlier. Sure, founders would not have envisioned software patents, but just because they don't fit into some clumsy 'machine shop' metaphor doesn't mean they don't still make some sense.
The oft-appearing sentiment on /. about Europe not having software patents is flatly not true. Let me quote an exchange I had with a European patent attorney:
/. posters like the above without a grain of salt, of course!
I write: "Our client may be interested in nationalizing the a PCT application in Europe. Because we understand that the European Patent Office is not receptive to software patents, we are interested in obtaining your advice on whether the referenced PCT application may be successfully prosecuted in Europe, either in its current form or as amended to specifically avoid EPO rejection with respect to its software content. Additionally, if you are aware of any substantively different treatment of software patent applications in the national offices of Germany or the United Kingdom, we would appreciate your thoughts on the matter."
He replies: "I do not know from which source you have received your information regarding the problems in prosecution of software patents before the EPO. The desicions of the Boards of Appeal within the last three years clearly demonstrate that the criteria set by the EPO are in line with those made by the USPTO (the harmonization aspect is here very important). It is possible that the prosecution period at the EPO was relatively long in the past for reasons of waiting for principal decisions in this field that were, however, made in the meantime. In Germany (national) we can see more restrictions at the moment but here the situation is also changing. Therfore, filing the application at the EPO or in UK or Germany will make no difference from our present knowledge."
So, which source made me look silly in my profession? Why, taking
I used to think that too, but here's what I heard from one of our EPO associates:
/. are way off.
I wrote:
Our client....may be interested in nationalizing the below PCT application in Europe... Because we understand that the European Patent Office is not receptive to software patents, we are interested in obtaining your advice on whether the referenced PCT application may be successfully prosecuted in Europe, either in its current form or as amended to specifically avoid EPO rejection with respect to its software content. Additionally, if you are aware of any substantively different treatment of software patent applications in the national offices of Germany or the United Kingdom, we would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
He replied:
I do not know from which source you have received your information regarding the problems in prosecution of software patents before the EPO. The desicions of the Boards of Appeal within the last three years clearly demonstrate that the criteria set by the EPO are in line with those made by the USPTO (the harmonization aspect is here very important). It is possible that the prosecution period at the EPO was relatively long in the past for reasons of waiting for principal decisions in this field that were, however, made in the meantime. In Germany (national) we can see more restrictions at the moment but here the situation is also changing. Therfore, filing the application at the EPO or in UK or Germany will make no difference from our present knowledge.
Anyway, unless there's something I misunderstand, the frequent EP anti-software-patent comments on
Although I have no data, I think the licensing is likely to be a significant part of that $1 million- with titles like MONOPOLY or PLAYBOY, you'd have to assume those relatively famous brands don't come cheap. I can't really be convinced that a hobbyist couldn't make their own: artwork and prototyping are pretty much optional costs if you're willing to keep or give away your first few and don't mind if they don't look that slick. That leaves mechanical design, and since playfields have got to be in the public domain- functionality is not protected by a design patent- all you'd need is a machine you like to play to copy it. Sure, the licensed/branded material, previously copyrighted ideas (like TAXI or other non-branded game premises), and patented features (like Sega's computer-controlled electromagnet) wouldn't be available, but get your hands on some parts, programming skills, and an old machine, and I think you're all set.
Anyway, Voyager 1 appears to be just short of 8 billion miles from the sun rather than "well over 7" as mentioned below.
If nothing else, it's a little early to have this verdict, particularly given the US's disappointment that we weren't vigilant enough with the technology already in place to stop terrorist attacks. If I believed the article, I guess I'd find it comforting that all my police-state-growth fears here are apparently unwarranted because technology will save me.
is what I read about what they'd do once intelligent life is found.
See Declaration of Principles Concerning Activities Following the Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence : "No response to a signal or other evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence should be sent until appropriate international consultations have taken place."That must be why radio telescopes don't have a 'reply' button. Also makes me think our many years of transmitting radio signals should have been accompanied by 'do not reply to this message' disclaimers to avoid huge amounts of radio spam in 100,000 years.
Given the time scales involved in round-trip transmission, why would they even think it mattered?
I think this suggestion wouldn't work out as well as making our 18-month publication system apply to all applications. I suspect part of the reason this one patent seems so shocking to everyone is that they should have seen in published three years ago. Anyway, broadening the publication system to include everybody would be far less likely to completely end biotech work, like I suspect an "openpatent" office would.