It's not the length of the patent that is killing inventions, it's the obviousness of the patent. There are a lot of inventions that required years to become sucessful after a patent was granted on them. The intent of the life expectancy of the patent was to reward the inventor for his innovation during his lifetime. Some industries would never see a return on their investment if we limitted the life span of a patent. Drug companies have to patent their drugs before applying for FDA approval. If the drug makes it through the FDA approval process, which most do not, the drug company has two to three years to make their profit on the drug. The purpose of a patent is the granting of a limitted monopoly on the invention. Most inventions would not make it through the system without being out of date since it takes 3-4 years for a computer patent to make it through the system. The real problem is not the limitted monopoly granted by the patent office to the inventor. This incents the inventor to make new products. The real problem is criteria for patentability and the overwhelming number of submissions into the patent office. The system needs an overhaul and there must be a redefinition of obviousness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_no n-obviousness. The patent office needs reform, but limitting the protections of the inventor isn't the right answer. Patents that declare a new use for a current invention should be invalidated. These inventions are called usage patents. They require no real thought. Just look for a different use of a current invention. Also, the fact you can patent a business process is bogus! If you eliminated business processes as patentable, then IBM would not have a case because most of these patents center around business processes. Eliminating business process patents,redefining obviousness, and limitting usage patents. are essential to the survival of the patent process.
We are nothing but brain whores according to most contracts. Open source, inventions, and anything else your wondeful mind can think of belongs to the company that hires you according to most contracts. In some cases, you can obtain minimal rewards for your ideas, but in most the company is just raping your brain.
I hope he programs a version of sedQuake next. Nothing like a happy face running around a screen shooting people with all those neato ascii characters. Oh the joy!
I can't believe that Phds wasted their time on this. A third grader could have gone through and found when Simpsons episodes had nifty mathematical phrases. The LA Times calls them analysts. It would take monkeys far less time to come up with this piece of work then write all the works of Shakesphere.
The early bird gets the post. If you were up before 2 pm every day, you might be able to post something. Maybe the problem is that slashdot is your homepage, and you don't know how to type new addresses in the address bar. Sorry to hear you have no skill.
This merger did not make sense for HP. Why would a company that is trying to get out of the desktop computer business buy another company that has a large desktop manufacturing facility. I agree with the Hewlett family for blocking this merger. Just because the merger might be approved by the voters by the narrowest of margins does not mean this is good for HP. HP is paying too much for bigger stake in the low margin pc market. What happened to HP's focus of delivering services?
It amazes me that we have a blind spot where we can't see asteroids. I dont think it really matters if the asteroid is large enough, we will die. There is no feasible plan to redirect or destroy an asteroid that I know of. If a large enough asteroid comes, its over.
If you were really sick you could name it after Microsofts old BOB software. You would say," Bob, open the pod bay doors." Bob's repsonse,"System Protection Fault."
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the length of the patent that is killing inventions, it's the obviousness of the patent. There are a lot of inventions that required years to become sucessful after a patent was granted on them. The intent of the life expectancy of the patent was to reward the inventor for his innovation during his lifetime. Some industries would never see a return on their investment if we limitted the life span of a patent. Drug companies have to patent their drugs before applying for FDA approval. If the drug makes it through the FDA approval process, which most do not, the drug company has two to three years to make their profit on the drug. The purpose of a patent is the granting of a limitted monopoly on the invention. Most inventions would not make it through the system without being out of date since it takes 3-4 years for a computer patent to make it through the system. The real problem is not the limitted monopoly granted by the patent office to the inventor. This incents the inventor to make new products. The real problem is criteria for patentability and the overwhelming number of submissions into the patent office. The system needs an overhaul and there must be a redefinition of obviousness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_no n-obviousness. The patent office needs reform, but limitting the protections of the inventor isn't the right answer. Patents that declare a new use for a current invention should be invalidated. These inventions are called usage patents. They require no real thought. Just look for a different use of a current invention. Also, the fact you can patent a business process is bogus! If you eliminated business processes as patentable, then IBM would not have a case because most of these patents center around business processes. Eliminating business process patents,redefining obviousness, and limitting usage patents. are essential to the survival of the patent process.
I just patched with Redhat 9. I have a whole list of microsoft bugs I don't need to worry about.
We are nothing but brain whores according to most contracts. Open source, inventions, and anything else your wondeful mind can think of belongs to the company that hires you according to most contracts. In some cases, you can obtain minimal rewards for your ideas, but in most the company is just raping your brain.
I hope he programs a version of sedQuake next. Nothing like a happy face running around a screen shooting people with all those neato ascii characters. Oh the joy!
I can't believe that Phds wasted their time on this. A third grader could have gone through and found when Simpsons episodes had nifty mathematical phrases. The LA Times calls them analysts. It would take monkeys far less time to come up with this piece of work then write all the works of Shakesphere.
The early bird gets the post. If you were up before 2 pm every day, you might be able to post something. Maybe the problem is that slashdot is your homepage, and you don't know how to type new addresses in the address bar. Sorry to hear you have no skill.
The only thing that this doesnt do is replicate to other computers. The Morpheus Borg is here.
This merger did not make sense for HP. Why would a company that is trying to get out of the desktop computer business buy another company that has a large desktop manufacturing facility. I agree with the Hewlett family for blocking this merger. Just because the merger might be approved by the voters by the narrowest of margins does not mean this is good for HP. HP is paying too much for bigger stake in the low margin pc market. What happened to HP's focus of delivering services?
It amazes me that we have a blind spot where we can't see asteroids. I dont think it really matters if the asteroid is large enough, we will die. There is no feasible plan to redirect or destroy an asteroid that I know of. If a large enough asteroid comes, its over.
This robot would catch on in America if it could Sing, dance, vobrate, and smoke a cigarette.
If you were really sick you could name it after Microsofts old BOB software. You would say," Bob, open the pod bay doors." Bob's repsonse,"System Protection Fault."
Might as well make a Quake or Unreal movie. This one might rank up there with Mortal Kombat.