It is meant to be an objective requirement. It is true that it is hard to administer mostly because you are asking someone that already knows about the invention, whether it would have been obvious.
And the person applying for the patent should initially prove that his invention is non obvious.
The non-obviousness requirement has been reduced in importance lately but it is really key for having a sensible patent system.
Re:You folks don't no sh*t about patent law
on
MS Palladium Patent
·
· Score: 2
Well there is another requirement - that you must be the guy that invented it. That is nobody invented it before you. So generally you must be the first to invent, but after you invent the thing you have one year after it has been published, used in public, or offered for sale to patent.
So it is not really as simple as the inittial poster put it.
at least diesel is infinetly less polluting than coal and yet coal is the largest source of power in the states (i am not sure about california specificaly).
So it could be worse, they could be making more coal plants.
actually chmsky just cited "doctors without borders" - a very well known international relief organization.
Truth of the mater is nobody knows how many people starved to death that winter, because as Chomsky correctly predicted nobody cared to check.
I guarantee you will go back to hating math after taking a single class.
But seriously university classes in math tend to be rather boring because they tend to reduce even complicated fields into a few formulas that can be memorized and a few problem types for which you can memorize which formula to use.
Also they tend to assign a lot of dull homework.
So classes seem to be geared towards those that cant understand math but are willing to tackle it with brute memorization.
is why does repeating the same damn story over and over again make anybody money?
During the chandra levy spectacle i would have to switch the channel every time the news mentioned chandra because i had already heard every thing they had to say ten times and did not want to hear it again. Same thing with oj simpson and monice lewinsky.
I can imagine that many other people are like me.
So why does repeating those things ad naseum make media companie smoney?
Buffy is a pretty mediocre show. And no the main actress is not that hot either. The interesting thing about Buffy is how it consistently attracts a gay male audience.
Why do gay guys like Buffy so much? Some one should really look into it. The phenomenon is so persistent that even guys that are in the closet or have not yet realized they are gay love the show. In fact if you suspect you may be gay, than ask your self "do i watch buffy regularly?" and if you answer yes watch some ricky martin videos and carefully note how they make you feel.
And a rather predictable by product of the huge gay male audience is that every one cares a lot about whether it gets a freacking emmy or not. I am sorry if suggesting that gay men tend to like those tv ceremonies is an unwarranted stereotype. But i think it is true.
There are many TV shows that i liked, including my all time favourite american show, "news radio", but i never noticed whether it got an emmy or not.
Even though mac os was usually better than dos and windows, Mac's monopoly on hardware caused the computers to be expensive and new hardware features to be slowly adopted.
If Microsoft goes that route i think they will soon become as relevant as apple.
No the all time best Real Time Strategy game continues to be starcraft.
one of the things that annoys about us sports
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
they tend to declare their world domination without even giving a chance for other countries.
The world series is not a world series. Not every team in the world had a chance to play.
And the superbowl champions are not the best in the world, because not every american footbal team had a chance to play. Sure they are probably the best in the world, but you still cant declare that, until the world has had a chance.
What surprises me about the really religous people in this country is how they dont really follow their religion.
Nixon who's religion supposedly denounced war willing killed millions in southeast asia. And you are obviously religous but you come on here and lie AND denounce God.
tsk tsk tsk.
Oh and by the way i am interested to hear where God is mentioned in the constitution.
Lying by omission is when you ommit some material facts that make your statement intentionaly misleading.
The pledge can never be lyingby omission because nobody uses it for information. Nobody determines whether God exists or not dependingon whats in the pledge.
Itonly feels blasphemous toyou because you are used tohaving it there, and every body in the media keeps repeating thats its blasphemous ad naseum.
but all you need is some president to speak somberly of some grave danger and off go the trillions into the military.
No body even bothers to check if the money is spent to protect from that danger, if that is what we need to protect from that danger, or that the military is getting fair prices and not giving away money.
And if any one asks the above questions they are called unamerican.
Unfortunately conservative politicians do not really want to decrease government spending, they want to change it, but not decrease it.
tell me who where when is persecuting the religous?
If you think that not being forced by the government to do something is persecution, then you believe that government coersion is freedom, and thats pretty fuscking strange.
O and by the way some realigions have God(s) and some religions do not allow you to say God, and some people dont have a religion.
Just because God is not mentioned it does not mean that the pledge asserts that god does not exist.
It would be an interesting constitutional question whether a pledge that says "and God does not exist" would violate the establishment clause (it will probably violate the free excercise clause) but thats not whats happening here, and it wont be happening any time soon.
I know people will be pissed off, but the constitution does not say the government shall not piss people off.
Re:Society's wholesale dismissal of clinton???
on
Salon in Dire Straits
·
· Score: 2
well the number of votes is not hard to explain. People vote for close elections, and many people dont bother voting when the winner is already known.
that was pretty much the case in 1996 esp.
So that that phenomenon is actually a credit to clinton of sorts.
But it is true Clinton did some indefensible things, much worse than the pardons even, like killing many civilians abroad by his bombing, and virtually destroying yugoslavia and pushing it into poverty.
nobody is going to prohibit you from saying the pladge.
What the court decision means that itwill beunconstitutional for the governmant to require anyoneto say it, display it in official places etc.
You can say the pledge all you want. Nobody is trying to bludgeon you.
Oh and while we are on the subject prohibition of school prayer does notmean you are not allowed to pray at school either. It means your school cant make you to.
So there is no need for alarmist rants.
Society's wholesale dismissal of clinton???
on
Salon in Dire Straits
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
hahaha
you mean the way he won two elections and then his vice president who lacks any charisma still won an election (well he won the election part anyway)?
Slashdot Mirror
It is meant to be an objective requirement. It is true that it is hard to administer mostly because you are asking someone that already knows about the invention, whether it would have been obvious.
And the person applying for the patent should initially prove that his invention is non obvious.
The non-obviousness requirement has been reduced in importance lately but it is really key for having a sensible patent system.
Well there is another requirement - that you must be the guy that invented it. That is nobody invented it before you. So generally you must be the first to invent, but after you invent the thing you have one year after it has been published, used in public, or offered for sale to patent.
So it is not really as simple as the inittial poster put it.
lets say a cubic foot
why dont you tell me quickly off the top of your head
how many cubic feet is a gallon of water?
how many inches is one thousandth of a mile?
how much would 23 ounces of water weigh roughly?
You have to look for a table and a calculator to answer those questions. See how broken the english system is?
at least diesel is infinetly less polluting than coal and yet coal is the largest source of power in the states (i am not sure about california specificaly).
So it could be worse, they could be making more coal plants.
actually chmsky just cited "doctors without borders" - a very well known international relief organization. Truth of the mater is nobody knows how many people starved to death that winter, because as Chomsky correctly predicted nobody cared to check.
really
so show me an article where z Mag has reported a fact falsely?
If you say the truth you are bound to have many people pissed at you.
I guarantee you will go back to hating math after taking a single class.
But seriously university classes in math tend to be rather boring because they tend to reduce even complicated fields into a few formulas that can be memorized and a few problem types for which you can memorize which formula to use.
Also they tend to assign a lot of dull homework.
So classes seem to be geared towards those that cant understand math but are willing to tackle it with brute memorization.
Or maybe i just went to a bad university.
is why does repeating the same damn story over and over again make anybody money?
During the chandra levy spectacle i would have to switch the channel every time the news mentioned chandra because i had already heard every thing they had to say ten times and did not want to hear it again. Same thing with oj simpson and monice lewinsky.
I can imagine that many other people are like me.
So why does repeating those things ad naseum make media companie smoney?
nt
Buffy is a pretty mediocre show. And no the main actress is not that hot either. The interesting thing about Buffy is how it consistently attracts a gay male audience.
Why do gay guys like Buffy so much? Some one should really look into it. The phenomenon is so persistent that even guys that are in the closet or have not yet realized they are gay love the show. In fact if you suspect you may be gay, than ask your self "do i watch buffy regularly?" and if you answer yes watch some ricky martin videos and carefully note how they make you feel.
And a rather predictable by product of the huge gay male audience is that every one cares a lot about whether it gets a freacking emmy or not. I am sorry if suggesting that gay men tend to like those tv ceremonies is an unwarranted stereotype. But i think it is true.
There are many TV shows that i liked, including my all time favourite american show, "news radio", but i never noticed whether it got an emmy or not.
Even though mac os was usually better than dos and windows, Mac's monopoly on hardware caused the computers to be expensive and new hardware features to be slowly adopted.
If Microsoft goes that route i think they will soon become as relevant as apple.
No the all time best Real Time Strategy game continues to be starcraft.
they tend to declare their world domination without even giving a chance for other countries.
The world series is not a world series. Not every team in the world had a chance to play.
And the superbowl champions are not the best in the world, because not every american footbal team had a chance to play. Sure they are probably the best in the world, but you still cant declare that, until the world has had a chance.
so where is god mentioned?
Right you are an atheist.
What surprises me about the really religous people in this country is how they dont really follow their religion.
Nixon who's religion supposedly denounced war willing killed millions in southeast asia. And you are obviously religous but you come on here and lie AND denounce God.
tsk tsk tsk.
Oh and by the way i am interested to hear where God is mentioned in the constitution.
Lying by omission is when you ommit some material facts that make your statement intentionaly misleading.
The pledge can never be lyingby omission because nobody uses it for information. Nobody determines whether God exists or not dependingon whats in the pledge.
Itonly feels blasphemous toyou because you are used tohaving it there, and every body in the media keeps repeating thats its blasphemous ad naseum.
but all you need is some president to speak somberly of some grave danger and off go the trillions into the military.
No body even bothers to check if the money is spent to protect from that danger, if that is what we need to protect from that danger, or that the military is getting fair prices and not giving away money.
And if any one asks the above questions they are called unamerican.
Unfortunately conservative politicians do not really want to decrease government spending, they want to change it, but not decrease it.
tell me who where when is persecuting the religous?
If you think that not being forced by the government to do something is persecution, then you believe that government coersion is freedom, and thats pretty fuscking strange.
O and by the way some realigions have God(s) and some religions do not allow you to say God, and some people dont have a religion.
so the fact that other children arent forced to recite a couple of sentences strips something away from you?
Just because God is not mentioned it does not mean that the pledge asserts that god does not exist.
It would be an interesting constitutional question whether a pledge that says "and God does not exist" would violate the establishment clause (it will probably violate the free excercise clause) but thats not whats happening here, and it wont be happening any time soon.
I know people will be pissed off, but the constitution does not say the government shall not piss people off.
well the number of votes is not hard to explain. People vote for close elections, and many people dont bother voting when the winner is already known.
that was pretty much the case in 1996 esp.
So that that phenomenon is actually a credit to clinton of sorts.
But it is true Clinton did some indefensible things, much worse than the pardons even, like killing many civilians abroad by his bombing, and virtually destroying yugoslavia and pushing it into poverty.
the second ammendment does not protect atheists it protects gun enthusiasts.
BUT the first ammendment does proterct atheists.
Oh and forcing kids to say "under God" is an establishment of religion. It doesnt matter that that religion is of unclear origin.
btw i am not an atheist, i am christian, but i dont see why God must be forced on anyone.
nobody is going to prohibit you from saying the pladge.
What the court decision means that itwill beunconstitutional for the governmant to require anyoneto say it, display it in official places etc.
You can say the pledge all you want. Nobody is trying to bludgeon you.
Oh and while we are on the subject prohibition of school prayer does notmean you are not allowed to pray at school either. It means your school cant make you to.
So there is no need for alarmist rants.
hahaha
you mean the way he won two elections and then his vice president who lacks any charisma still won an election (well he won the election part anyway)?