Please tell me where you got your crystal ball. I'd be quite interested in getting one myself.
I'm curious to how you came to the conclusion that IBM wouldn't have improved their architecture without pressure from the clones. Sure, it would have been a slower improvement, but they very well could still have wound up with a significant market share.
You'd be in prison if you cracked his skull with a maglight too!
Much less likely. If he was in range of your maglight, you'd have a much better claim of self-defense. It's hard to claim an immanent threat when the guy is 20 feet away and outside of your car (unless he has a gun).
Well, I am sure (or, I hope) that someone will encode into all vehicle sound equipment the sounds or IFF signals for sirens, crosswalk coo-koos and chirps.
Not to mention other traffic, horns, railroads,...
(I can think of more, but they start getting out there... people screaming help, accidents, etc.)
It's an awful good thing you didn't actually charge; if you had hit him, you'd be in prison for assault with a deadly weapon, and face civil remedies. With essentially the sole exception if he had a gun.
Nagasaki. Three days later. America set the record straight - we are not fucking around. No, really - we are serious. Killed maybe another 50,000 people in the blick of an eye.
And in the process committed one of the US's gravest atrocities.
Many believe the Hiroshima bomb was unnecessary; I'm not gonna argue that, especially because I don't completely buy it myself. But, dropping the Nagasaki bomb, at least at such incredibly short order from Hiroshima, was nothing short of 100,000 murders.
It's obvious that loud bass disturbs others, yet he continues to do it. That is a deliberately irratating act.
But it may not be an intentionally irrating act. (I'm using the legal term here, meaning specific intent, not general intent.) He's listening to music with a lot of really loud bass because he likes to listen to music with a lot of really loud bass, not because he wants to annoy you. (I assume.) You on the other hand drove by with the specific intent to get some form of "revenge" upon him by honking your horn as you drove by.
Granted, this guy is an asshole, and should probably go to jail for reckless driving (it's a pity you didn't have a video camera hooked up to your car). But, you are not exactly an angel in this situation either.
See if you can establish a pattern. Do they always go home at the same time, or leave, or drive by. If so, you might be able to pick a slow day of the year and have a cop come sit out in front of your house to cite the guy when he goes by.
You may be able to get him too if you can set up a video camera and audio recorder. Make sure to have a refernce tone played with a known sound level to compare to.
If you do #2 you're going to prison for assault. Probably one of the only reasons that didn't happen to your dad's friends is because they are officers.
First of all, I'm not sure I've seen an EULA even in XP let alone earlier versions. In fact, many EULAs have explicit provisions for transferring the licences.
And you're looking for a violation of the doctrine of first sale, not fair use.
The real problem is that our law schools produce people who can, as Socrates was accused of doing, make the weaker argument appear to be the stronger, and convince juries to convict people who not only aren't guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, but who are later proven beyond any doubt whatsoever to be not guilty when new evidence or new techniques of analyzing evidence are used. Just having one person on death row exonerated by DNA evidence shows that the system is horribly broken.
Oh, bull. You seem to be arguing that having any false positives are unacceptable. What if all the evidence that *was* available pointed very strongly to the accused, but by some enormous coincidence was wrong? You can't have a 'proven guilty beyond no doubt' standard, or no one would ever be convicted...
Ah, I see. Still, I'm convinced that such an action would doom the player; why pay quite a bit of money when you can get a more fully-featured player for free. (And probably have a good defense in court, as you would (should) have no actual damages.) Quicktime's lack of full screen playback I thought was just a ploy to get people to buy Quicktime Pro, which has had it for a long time; thus a commercial DVD decoder would not suffer. Actually, such a feature would be a good one to remove for a demo version... (I dunno about in Windows, but at one point a couple years back I looked online to see if QT had full screen playback support somehow, and saw that pro did. Don't remember specifics about what was there under different OSes.)
What? No it didn't. You must be thinking of something else...
This is the feature that when you open 20 different IE windows it will show only one taskbar icon for the group, and pop up a submenu once you click it.
Others have stated that BeOS had it as of 1999 (though I haven't seen a month), and even one person 1998. So there very well may be prior art, but KDE sure ain't it.
Let's assume it surfaced in KDE 3.0, and was present in the tree for a year and a half before the beta1 release on December 19, 2001. That takes us back to June 2000. This is still AFTER the patent was originally filed in April. Hell, KDE 2.0 was released a full 6 months after the patent was filed for.
You need instances from April 1999 (when the latest release was 1.1.1) to be sure of it's status as prior art. (Rule is prior art created after the invention date or one year previous to the filing date, whichever is later, does not damage the validity of the patent. For prior art after April 1999, you would need to prove that it was only invented at MS after that.)
Ah, I'm the exact opposite... I think the taskbar grouping is useful but HATE the OS X taskbar's magnification.
Both are automatically moving stuff around, but the Windows taskbar at least has the decency to not do it while you're trying to click somewhere...
(In a somewhat related note, I also hate the propensity for dialog boxes on MacOS to randomly resize themselves. It's even in the UI guidelines. For instance, if you have a tabbed dialog and each page is a different size, they reccomend that you have the dialog resize itself as you change tabs rather than leave empty space.)
19998? That's certainly not prior art, though the patent will have expired by then...
In all seriousness, the guy was talking about WINDOWS PROGRAMS. I'm tired of people around here responding to questions about "can I do this in Windows" with "use this other OS that won't run your programs". (I dual boot with FreeBSD BTW, so I'm not being anti-Linux here, just anti-zealot)
In his defense, that's not enough IMO. I agree with NanoGator.
I currently have 5 Mozilla windows open, each with 5-10 tabs. Because I open a window, say "I want to look at this later", leave it open, then open a new tab so I can continue browsing. If I were to have all the tabs open in one window, there would be no way that I could tell what tab was what. And without the taskbar grouping, I wouldn't be able to tell the Mozilla (and Windows Explorer windows, of which I have 5) windows apart.
XP's release date has nothing to do with it. You need to find a system than had it in use no later than April 1999, one year before the filing date, to be sure of prior art.
The regulations are that prior art disqualifies a patent if and only if it was in use or on sale or had a description published before the latter of the invention date (which might be hard to prove) or one year before the filing for the patent. (35 USC 102.) Because we are not sure of the invention date, we need to go off of the one year previous rule.
Okay, I think four of your points are valid, but I take issue with this:
In order for it to be approved, it will have to obey silly restrictions like DRM, no full-screen and mandatory no-skip tracks (for trailers, FBI warnings, etc).
Okay. Why would a Linux player be restricted from having full-screen playback? In addition to just being stupid, it would be inconsistent with the fact that approved players with full screen for other platforms abound; why would it be any different for Linux?
And also, re. #5, how is charging for what you make an "outdated business model"?
Slashdot Mirror
Please tell me where you got your crystal ball. I'd be quite interested in getting one myself.
I'm curious to how you came to the conclusion that IBM wouldn't have improved their architecture without pressure from the clones. Sure, it would have been a slower improvement, but they very well could still have wound up with a significant market share.
You'd be in prison if you cracked his skull with a maglight too!
Much less likely. If he was in range of your maglight, you'd have a much better claim of self-defense. It's hard to claim an immanent threat when the guy is 20 feet away and outside of your car (unless he has a gun).
Well, I am sure (or, I hope) that someone will encode into all vehicle sound equipment the sounds or IFF signals for sirens, crosswalk coo-koos and chirps.
...
Not to mention other traffic, horns, railroads,
(I can think of more, but they start getting out there... people screaming help, accidents, etc.)
Do it now.
Your mistaken assumption is that the governor, senators, rep, and cop aren't suspects.
It's an awful good thing you didn't actually charge; if you had hit him, you'd be in prison for assault with a deadly weapon, and face civil remedies. With essentially the sole exception if he had a gun.
Nagasaki. Three days later. America set the record straight - we are not fucking around. No, really - we are serious. Killed maybe another 50,000 people in the blick of an eye.
And in the process committed one of the US's gravest atrocities.
Many believe the Hiroshima bomb was unnecessary; I'm not gonna argue that, especially because I don't completely buy it myself. But, dropping the Nagasaki bomb, at least at such incredibly short order from Hiroshima, was nothing short of 100,000 murders.
It's obvious that loud bass disturbs others, yet he continues to do it. That is a deliberately irratating act.
But it may not be an intentionally irrating act. (I'm using the legal term here, meaning specific intent, not general intent.) He's listening to music with a lot of really loud bass because he likes to listen to music with a lot of really loud bass, not because he wants to annoy you. (I assume.) You on the other hand drove by with the specific intent to get some form of "revenge" upon him by honking your horn as you drove by.
Granted, this guy is an asshole, and should probably go to jail for reckless driving (it's a pity you didn't have a video camera hooked up to your car). But, you are not exactly an angel in this situation either.
See if you can establish a pattern. Do they always go home at the same time, or leave, or drive by. If so, you might be able to pick a slow day of the year and have a cop come sit out in front of your house to cite the guy when he goes by.
You may be able to get him too if you can set up a video camera and audio recorder. Make sure to have a refernce tone played with a known sound level to compare to.
If you do #2 you're going to prison for assault. Probably one of the only reasons that didn't happen to your dad's friends is because they are officers.
First of all, I'm not sure I've seen an EULA even in XP let alone earlier versions.
Okay, I need to proofread. This should have said "an EULA provision prohibiting transfer of licences even in XP"
First of all, I'm not sure I've seen an EULA even in XP let alone earlier versions. In fact, many EULAs have explicit provisions for transferring the licences.
And you're looking for a violation of the doctrine of first sale, not fair use.
Ah, okay, that makes more sense.
The real problem is that our law schools produce people who can, as Socrates was accused of doing, make the weaker argument appear to be the stronger, and convince juries to convict people who not only aren't guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, but who are later proven beyond any doubt whatsoever to be not guilty when new evidence or new techniques of analyzing evidence are used. Just having one person on death row exonerated by DNA evidence shows that the system is horribly broken.
Oh, bull. You seem to be arguing that having any false positives are unacceptable. What if all the evidence that *was* available pointed very strongly to the accused, but by some enormous coincidence was wrong? You can't have a 'proven guilty beyond no doubt' standard, or no one would ever be convicted...
Ah, I see. Still, I'm convinced that such an action would doom the player; why pay quite a bit of money when you can get a more fully-featured player for free. (And probably have a good defense in court, as you would (should) have no actual damages.) Quicktime's lack of full screen playback I thought was just a ploy to get people to buy Quicktime Pro, which has had it for a long time; thus a commercial DVD decoder would not suffer. Actually, such a feature would be a good one to remove for a demo version... (I dunno about in Windows, but at one point a couple years back I looked online to see if QT had full screen playback support somehow, and saw that pro did. Don't remember specifics about what was there under different OSes.)
What? No it didn't. You must be thinking of something else...
This is the feature that when you open 20 different IE windows it will show only one taskbar icon for the group, and pop up a submenu once you click it.
Forgot to put this in there:
Others have stated that BeOS had it as of 1999 (though I haven't seen a month), and even one person 1998. So there very well may be prior art, but KDE sure ain't it.
Let's assume it surfaced in KDE 3.0, and was present in the tree for a year and a half before the beta1 release on December 19, 2001. That takes us back to June 2000. This is still AFTER the patent was originally filed in April. Hell, KDE 2.0 was released a full 6 months after the patent was filed for.
You need instances from April 1999 (when the latest release was 1.1.1) to be sure of it's status as prior art. (Rule is prior art created after the invention date or one year previous to the filing date, whichever is later, does not damage the validity of the patent. For prior art after April 1999, you would need to prove that it was only invented at MS after that.)
Ah, I'm the exact opposite... I think the taskbar grouping is useful but HATE the OS X taskbar's magnification.
Both are automatically moving stuff around, but the Windows taskbar at least has the decency to not do it while you're trying to click somewhere...
(In a somewhat related note, I also hate the propensity for dialog boxes on MacOS to randomly resize themselves. It's even in the UI guidelines. For instance, if you have a tabbed dialog and each page is a different size, they reccomend that you have the dialog resize itself as you change tabs rather than leave empty space.)
Because a group of 1 is no different from no group.
19998? That's certainly not prior art, though the patent will have expired by then...
In all seriousness, the guy was talking about WINDOWS PROGRAMS. I'm tired of people around here responding to questions about "can I do this in Windows" with "use this other OS that won't run your programs". (I dual boot with FreeBSD BTW, so I'm not being anti-Linux here, just anti-zealot)
In his defense, that's not enough IMO. I agree with NanoGator.
I currently have 5 Mozilla windows open, each with 5-10 tabs. Because I open a window, say "I want to look at this later", leave it open, then open a new tab so I can continue browsing. If I were to have all the tabs open in one window, there would be no way that I could tell what tab was what. And without the taskbar grouping, I wouldn't be able to tell the Mozilla (and Windows Explorer windows, of which I have 5) windows apart.
You forgot part. I have corrected it for you:
Guess I'll have to stop brea..asdfjklsaj;dfsfvz.vsadf...fvafNO CARRIER
XP's release date has nothing to do with it. You need to find a system than had it in use no later than April 1999, one year before the filing date, to be sure of prior art.
The regulations are that prior art disqualifies a patent if and only if it was in use or on sale or had a description published before the latter of the invention date (which might be hard to prove) or one year before the filing for the patent. (35 USC 102.) Because we are not sure of the invention date, we need to go off of the one year previous rule.
Okay, I think four of your points are valid, but I take issue with this:
In order for it to be approved, it will have to obey silly restrictions like DRM, no full-screen and mandatory no-skip tracks (for trailers, FBI warnings, etc).
Okay. Why would a Linux player be restricted from having full-screen playback? In addition to just being stupid, it would be inconsistent with the fact that approved players with full screen for other platforms abound; why would it be any different for Linux?
And also, re. #5, how is charging for what you make an "outdated business model"?