Where on the USPTO's fee schedule (https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule) do you see a fee for issuing a patent? There are fees for applying, fees for very large applications, fees to maintain an issued patent, but I see none for issuing a patent.
Patent examiners are remunerated based on how many patents they grant. Disallow a large number of patents because they're trivially obvious and you lose pay, or possibly get fired. Rubberstamp everything that crosses your desk and you get a performance bonus.
This is not a system that produces good/valid patents.
Actually, patent examiners are remunerated based on how many patents they bring to a final disposition. That includes granting, but it also includes rejecting. Rubberstamp everything "rejected" and you'll get the same performance bonus.
Patent examiners are not the USPTO. They are employees of the USPTO, and the USPTO is -- contrary to drinkypoo's assertion -- not "funded by charging fees for granting patents". There are extensive fees for applying for a patent, but no fees are due upon grant of a patent.
satire makes fun of something else.Think Weird Al's "Eat it" or "I'm fat", which make fun of obesity, but do not make fun of Michael Jackson or those songs, except stylistically. He could have made fun of obesity with countless other songs, so the copyright on those songs do not limit his expressive rights. That's why satire does not fall under fair use.
Good point in theory but it seems like it might be a tough case to make. Let's say Jackson were to sue Weird Al over either Eat It or I'm Fat, using your reasoning here. How exactly do Jackson's attorneys show that Yankovic is making fun of obesity and not the songs themselves? All Yankovic's people have to say is "Nuh-uh, we're commenting on the intellectual vacuity of Beat It and Bad by associating even more vacuous lyrics with the same music."
"Well, counselor, if that were true, why did you need to copy those particular songs? Aren't there other vacuous songs you can think of? Is there anything specific about your alleged parody that refers to those songs?"
And the answer is no, which is why it's satire.
You can say it's a good point in theory, but it's also a good point in practice, having been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court.
As soon as they say something like that in court, it's not just a legal matter anymore, but a slippery subjective argument about critical theory. Once Yankovic's people start rambling on about Derrida and Barthes, the judge will (presumably) throw up his hands in surrender and ask Jackson's people to show damages. Which of course they won't be able to do, because regardless of whether Yankovic's work is satire or parody, it's not the least bit rivalrous.
"We'll take the $150k in statutory damages plus attorneys fees, thank you, your honor."
Also, no, the judge isn't going to throw up his hands when Yankovic's attorneys start rambling on about unrelated artists, he'll tell them that's irrelevant and if they can't answer why this song is a parody rather than a satire, then they should sit down. Real courts are not like the movies, judges don't simply give in if you babble for long enough.
Also, in nearly all of the renditions I've seen, it's been used in a satirical sense, mostly to poke fun at anti-fascists, and, even more hilariously, at fascists themselves.
Ironically, your post includes the answer to why this is irrelevant. Notice how your subject line was "parody", but in the body, you say "satire" (well, "satirical")? Those are different things under copyright law.
The short version is that:
(i) parody makes fun of the thing it's copying. Think Weird Al's "Smells like Nirvana", which explicitly makes fun of Nirvana and Smells Like Teen Spirit, or his "Perform That Way" which makes fun of Lady Gaga and Born that Way. Parody falls under fair use because, since you're making fun of the thing you're copying, there's no way to do so without copying it.
(ii) satire makes fun of something else.Think Weird Al's "Eat it" or "I'm fat", which make fun of obesity, but do not make fun of Michael Jackson or those songs, except stylistically. He could have made fun of obesity with countless other songs, so the copyright on those songs do not limit his expressive rights. That's why satire does not fall under fair use.
So, if those renditions you've seen are making fun of, say anti-fascists or Hillary Clinton or what not, they're satires. They are not parodies of Pepe the Frog, and therefore are not protected by fair use, unlike if they had actually been parodies.
As an aside, Weird Al always gets permission from artists before he copies their songs, and while it's primarily because he's such a nice guy, the above satire/parody divide is another significant reason.
Disclaimer: I am an IP lawyer. I am not your IP lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Examples from the 50s and 60s are no longer applicable. Those people just loved computers, people shifting these days love money.
20 years of corporate climbing tells me she was a competent politician.
20 years ago was 1997. People didn't love computers then?
Honestly, considering/.'s audience, I think you're making the wrong argument here. This thread is filled with tons of people saying "I'm a music major and a programmer" or "I work with music majors who became programmers." Your insistence that a piece of paper from a decade or more ago determines competency is misguided and contrary to tons of available evidence.
There are no doctors without medical degrees. There are no lawyers without law degrees. Yet somehow, tech seems to be the one place where a degree is considered near irrelevant (in fact, according to Slashdot, having a degree in computer science may very well disqualify you from professional programming). The reason most often suggested for this difference is that technology isn't as important as medicine or law.
Or, it could simply be that programming is a new field. Three hundred years ago, there were plenty of doctors without medical degrees - the first one being given in only 1703. Law is an older established field then medicine (at least from a professional perspective - there were plenty of shaman and the like before professional physicians), but the first JD program wasn't until the late 1300s.
The first "lawyers" were really persuasive scholars. The first "doctors" were naturalists who were really interested in dissection. Many of the first programmers were hackers and tinkerers. There will likely eventually be professional degrees and licensure, but the fact that there aren't currently is more a sign that it's a new field, than that it's "not as important".
For a closer parallel in professional engineering, the first people messing around with steam engines and the like were scholars. Professional licensure didn't come till much later.
Yet, basic things weren't done on her watch. Keeping your servers patched is very basic, but it's the kind of corner a non-technically proficient manager, like her, will cut.
Proof of the pudding and all. She's done and deserves to be unemployable.
Well, yes, certainly. None of this says that she's a good engineer or manager. Just that having a music degree rather than a CS or MIS degree doesn't automatically make her a bad engineer or manager.
Also, bear in mind, for the scale of issues that Equifax has, there's apparently incompetency from the top to the bottom. We're not hearing that she's got a crack team of programmers who were trying to solve all of these problems for years but were overruled - apparently, everyone who touched this was terrible.
Unless you are getting hired directly out of school for a tech job, whether or not you have a degree in tech means almost nothing. It's your experience that counts. If Mrs. Mauldin majored in music, graduated, found that was a dumb idea and worked her way up through the ranks over 20 years before landing the Chief Security role at Equifax, I have no problem with that.
This... I, too, majored in music, but focused on audio engineering. I ended up building and maintaining radio stations, including repairing solid state and analog transmitters and rewiring audio consoles, building multi-site audio and data links, building automation computers and maintaining data networks, etc. In the course of doing that, I studied electrical engineering and programming, passed the FE, and eventually become a patent attorney specializing in communications and security.
If she had no experience, that'd be one thing, but from her resume, it looks like she's spent at least 15 years in the industry.
Actually, I read the patent several days ago, and I like how you missed the rest of that line that specifically mentions it in regards to 2-axis accelerometer as if that makes any fucking difference to using a 3-axis accelerometer the clearly invalid patent.
Ah, now I'm calling bullshit. Here's the entire paragraph:
In point of fact, many methods are known for sensing body movement, or non-movement (i.e., sensed dynamic accelerations, including cessation of movement), as well as, for sensing body movement over time, which is commonly used to determine comparative levels of activity of a monitored body (See, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,110,741, 4,292,630, 5,045,839, and 5,523,742). These methodologies, however, merely report various levels of body activity, and, simply stated, fail to recognize possible causes for any increased or decreased level of body activity.
There's nothing there about 2-axis accelerometers.
You may be thinking of two paragraphs later, when it says:
Various training methods have been conceived for sensing relative tilt of a body (See, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,300,921 and 5,430,435), and some such methodologies have employed two-axis accelerometers.
However, the patent doesn't claim the use of three-axis accelerometers as opposed to two-axis accelerometers. In fact, the word "three" appears once in the entire patent, and the number "3" only appears in reference to Fig. 3.
Sorry, no, your post is complete and utter bullshit, and this confirms that your earlier post was indeed based off ignorance.
There is nothing novel about the patent, if we are going to say the novelty is in the data processing, then sorry to tell you software/algorithms can not be patented as per a recent Supreme court case that finally struck down that one
This is also bullshit. You're probably referring to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, which you also clearly haven't read. Although the claim at issue in that case was found to be ineligible, the Supreme Court said that that didn't mean that all software was ineligible, instead stating:
... we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 2). At some level, “all
inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2). Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 187 (1981). “[A]pplication[s]” of such concepts “‘to a new and useful end,’” we have said, remain eligible for patent protection. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63, 67 (1972). Accordingly, in applying the 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the “‘buildin[g] block[s]’” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more, Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 20), thereby “transform[ing]” them into a patent-eligible invention, id., at ___ (slip op., at 3). The former “would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying” ideas, id., at ___ (slip op., at 4), and are therefore ineligible for patent protection. The latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible for the monopoly granted under our patent laws.
The astute reader - not you, of course - would note that that paragraph cites affirmatively to several cases in which patents on software/algorithms were held to be patent eligible.
the patent does cover using 3-axis accelerometer in conjunction with some form of data processing of said data this whole second point is a moot point..
The patent absolutely does not cover using a 3-axis accelerometer (that word does not ap
Infringement litigation does not look at the validity of a patent. If Nintendo wants to challenge its validity in court it has to sue in a separate trial, if the patent gets invalidated than the litigation trial ruling gets vacated
That's not true at all. I don't know where you got this idea, but it's simply incorrect: invalidity is a defense to infringement and comes in every single infringement trial. In fact, Nintendo made two separate arguments here having to do with invalidity.
In fact, your statement is not just incorrect, it's the precise opposite of correct: failure to challenge the validity of the patent here would waive those defenses and Nintendo would be estopped from being able to bring a separate claim of invalidity.
Respectfully, that subject line should be according to your uninformed opinion:
Is the patent valid? Well according to this judge and jury yes, according to most of us probably not. The patent covers using a 3-axis accelerometer and some sort of data processing to detect motion of a body.
The patent doesn't actually cover that. In fact, the background of the patent admits that using an accelerometer and data processing to detect motion of a body was well known:
In point of fact, many methods are known for sensing body movement, or non-movement (i.e., sensed dynamic accelerations, including cessation of movement), as well as, for sensing body movement over time, which is commonly used to determine comparative levels of activity of a monitored body (See, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,110,741, 4,292,630, 5,045,839, and 5,523,742).
For a guess - you didn't actually read the patent, you just went by the Slashdot summary?
I haven't done a prior art search or read the patent closely, but I did look at the jury form. Interestingly, it only asks two questions going to invalidity of the patent - did Nintendo prove that the patent lacked sufficient written description, and did Nintendo prove that the patent lacked enablement. In other words, Nintendo apparently didn't find any prior art to invalidate the patent. That should be a clue that it's a bit narrower than just "using an accelerator and a processor to detect motion".
" The problem with the hackneyed stereotype of the socially inept, hoodie-clad white male coder? It does not inspire underrepresented groups to pursue careers in computer science.."
So it's not INACCURATE, just uninspiring.
Because *everything* needs to be about achieving purported social justice agendas?
No, because socially inept, hoodie-clad white male coders are pretty terrible at crafting aesthetically pleasing UX.
When I get home after 11 hours work + commute, I don't want a worthwhile use of time. I want to flop in my chair. Maybe I watch Fox News and yell at the host. Maybe I futz around online. Or, maybe I watch *gasp* a TV show.
Us cord cutters do the same, but the TV show is on demand on Netflix or Hulu or somewhere else streaming, and it doesn't have embedded commercial breaks, so we can watch the same half-hour episode in only 24 minutes. That's the real benefit of cutting the cord - avoiding interstitial crap.
Everyone onboard dies when the car's computer fails to avoid a collision a human could have given enough control.
Well, there is the big red "stop" button.
No, this needs to be said. We have too many people who think: "That won't happen because of the magic box! There won't be a reason to have a steering wheel because everyone will be drove around by the box and no-one will be in direct control of the vehicle. So there's no need to control it directly."
Well, there is the big red "stop" button.
That reality also completely disregards the fact that an auto-drive system is a high value target for would be criminals, and would be abused. Leaving the victims no possible means to defend themselves, completely at the mercy of their captors for committing the greatest offense of "getting in a car".
The hypothesis Damore argued against is that all gender-differences in workplace representation are due to discrimination. You only need a single counter-example to disprove this hypothesis, and Damore provided several.
Not really - rather, Damore attempted to argue a hypothesis that gender differences in STEM are due to inherent biological factors, and therefore cannot be addressed by social engineering. But in so doing, the only actual conclusion he proved was that he's a terrible engineer who shouldn't be employed.
Specifically, Damore cited studies that showed that when adult, post-college men and women are surveyed, they self-report different levels of interest in STEM fields. Issues with those studies (e.g. limited populations, self-reporting, no controls, etc.) aside, they don't even begin to prove Damore's point regarding biological inherency. And that's the biggest issue with the manifesto - Damore clearly has no understanding of the difference between correlation and causation. Yes,there are fewer women in tech. Yes, on surveys of adults, they report different levels of interest in the field. But only someone really unclear on logic and science would say "this difference exists, therefore genetics."
And that means he's a terrible engineer, since he doesn't understand that "if X, then Y" doesn't also mean "Y, therefore X." That alone would be reason to fire him, because you sure as fark can't trust his code.
You slammed Debra Soh https://www.researchgate.net/p... because her Thesis was using fMRIs, among other observing tools. Then you claimed that you can prove a salmon has emotion the same way.
Copy-pasting my reply to the other poster, since he made your point much more succinctly:
No, fMRI has not been "discredited". The fish thing was cute and all, and it did make a valid point—that statistics have noise. That's a far cry from discrediting the technology. You might as well say that digital cameras have been discredited for use in astrophotography because they occasionally have hot pixels.
Absolutely, but her thesis was not on the imaging technology. There is no dispute that fMRI allows tracking of blood flow through the brain. Her thesis, however, used fMRI to "investigate brain differences associated with sexual orientation, paraphilias (or unusual sexual interests), and hypersexuality" and that's the part that has been discredited. It has no predictive abilities and, at present, is in the same realm as phrenology. That's not to say that calipers and other measuring technologies are discredited, but trying to use those measuring technologies for personality investigation is not science.
Or, to use your analogy, astrophotography is not discredited, but predicting someone's personality via astrology is, even if you use digital cameras to get really accurate positions of the planets when they were born.
The same applies to your post. fMRI is not discredited. Tensor imaging is not discredited. Other forms of neuroimaging are not discredited. Making personality predictions based on neuroimaging - which is what her thesis was about - however, has been discredited.
No, fMRI has not been "discredited". The fish thing was cute and all, and it did make a valid point—that statistics have noise. That's a far cry from discrediting the technology. You might as well say that digital cameras have been discredited for use in astrophotography because they occasionally have hot pixels.
Absolutely, but her thesis was not on the imaging technology. There is no dispute that fMRI allows tracking of blood flow through the brain. Her thesis, however, used fMRI to "investigate brain differences associated with sexual orientation, paraphilias (or unusual sexual interests), and hypersexuality" and that's the part that has been discredited. It has no predictive abilities and, at present, is in the same realm as phrenology. That's not to say that calipers and other measuring technologies are discredited, but trying to use those measuring technologies for personality investigation is not science.
Or, to use your analogy, astrophotography is not discredited, but predicting someone's personality via astrology is, even if you use digital cameras to get really accurate positions of the planets when they were born.
by posting someone's lucrative writing gigs, attacking their thesis, without posting it, or having a scientific discussion.
You've committed a classic ad hominem.
Nope. The grandparent committed a classic argument ad authoritum - arguing that, because she has specific credentials, therefore her opinion is reliable. I countered by showing that her credentials are suspect, pointing out both that she has not been published in peer reviewed journals and that her thesis topic has been discredited.
It's factually accurate too, and it is biological -- hit a search engine you can find it across nearly every society to boot. So you're arguing against science now...
Hit a search engine and you can find a belief in a god across nearly every society. Does that make the existence of god "science"?
Slashdot Mirror
Where on the USPTO's fee schedule (https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule) do you see a fee for issuing a patent? There are fees for applying, fees for very large applications, fees to maintain an issued patent, but I see none for issuing a patent.
Try here, where it says "issue fee".
Patent examiners are remunerated based on how many patents they grant. Disallow a large number of patents because they're trivially obvious and you lose pay, or possibly get fired. Rubberstamp everything that crosses your desk and you get a performance bonus.
This is not a system that produces good/valid patents.
Actually, patent examiners are remunerated based on how many patents they bring to a final disposition. That includes granting, but it also includes rejecting. Rubberstamp everything "rejected" and you'll get the same performance bonus.
Patent examiners are not the USPTO. They are employees of the USPTO, and the USPTO is -- contrary to drinkypoo's assertion -- not "funded by charging fees for granting patents". There are extensive fees for applying for a patent, but no fees are due upon grant of a patent.
That's not true. The issue fees are not very high compared to the overall cost of prosecution, but they do exist. The issue fee is currently $960 for a large entity.
satire makes fun of something else.Think Weird Al's "Eat it" or "I'm fat", which make fun of obesity, but do not make fun of Michael Jackson or those songs, except stylistically. He could have made fun of obesity with countless other songs, so the copyright on those songs do not limit his expressive rights. That's why satire does not fall under fair use.
Good point in theory but it seems like it might be a tough case to make. Let's say Jackson were to sue Weird Al over either Eat It or I'm Fat, using your reasoning here. How exactly do Jackson's attorneys show that Yankovic is making fun of obesity and not the songs themselves? All Yankovic's people have to say is "Nuh-uh, we're commenting on the intellectual vacuity of Beat It and Bad by associating even more vacuous lyrics with the same music."
"Well, counselor, if that were true, why did you need to copy those particular songs? Aren't there other vacuous songs you can think of? Is there anything specific about your alleged parody that refers to those songs?"
And the answer is no, which is why it's satire.
You can say it's a good point in theory, but it's also a good point in practice, having been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court.
As soon as they say something like that in court, it's not just a legal matter anymore, but a slippery subjective argument about critical theory. Once Yankovic's people start rambling on about Derrida and Barthes, the judge will (presumably) throw up his hands in surrender and ask Jackson's people to show damages. Which of course they won't be able to do, because regardless of whether Yankovic's work is satire or parody, it's not the least bit rivalrous.
"We'll take the $150k in statutory damages plus attorneys fees, thank you, your honor."
Also, no, the judge isn't going to throw up his hands when Yankovic's attorneys start rambling on about unrelated artists, he'll tell them that's irrelevant and if they can't answer why this song is a parody rather than a satire, then they should sit down. Real courts are not like the movies, judges don't simply give in if you babble for long enough.
Also, in nearly all of the renditions I've seen, it's been used in a satirical sense, mostly to poke fun at anti-fascists, and, even more hilariously, at fascists themselves.
Ironically, your post includes the answer to why this is irrelevant. Notice how your subject line was "parody", but in the body, you say "satire" (well, "satirical")? Those are different things under copyright law.
The short version is that:
(i) parody makes fun of the thing it's copying. Think Weird Al's "Smells like Nirvana", which explicitly makes fun of Nirvana and Smells Like Teen Spirit, or his "Perform That Way" which makes fun of Lady Gaga and Born that Way. Parody falls under fair use because, since you're making fun of the thing you're copying, there's no way to do so without copying it.
(ii) satire makes fun of something else.Think Weird Al's "Eat it" or "I'm fat", which make fun of obesity, but do not make fun of Michael Jackson or those songs, except stylistically. He could have made fun of obesity with countless other songs, so the copyright on those songs do not limit his expressive rights. That's why satire does not fall under fair use.
So, if those renditions you've seen are making fun of, say anti-fascists or Hillary Clinton or what not, they're satires. They are not parodies of Pepe the Frog, and therefore are not protected by fair use, unlike if they had actually been parodies.
As an aside, Weird Al always gets permission from artists before he copies their songs, and while it's primarily because he's such a nice guy, the above satire/parody divide is another significant reason.
Disclaimer: I am an IP lawyer. I am not your IP lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Examples from the 50s and 60s are no longer applicable. Those people just loved computers, people shifting these days love money.
20 years of corporate climbing tells me she was a competent politician.
20 years ago was 1997. People didn't love computers then?
Honestly, considering /.'s audience, I think you're making the wrong argument here. This thread is filled with tons of people saying "I'm a music major and a programmer" or "I work with music majors who became programmers." Your insistence that a piece of paper from a decade or more ago determines competency is misguided and contrary to tons of available evidence.
There are no doctors without medical degrees. There are no lawyers without law degrees. Yet somehow, tech seems to be the one place where a degree is considered near irrelevant (in fact, according to Slashdot, having a degree in computer science may very well disqualify you from professional programming). The reason most often suggested for this difference is that technology isn't as important as medicine or law.
Or, it could simply be that programming is a new field. Three hundred years ago, there were plenty of doctors without medical degrees - the first one being given in only 1703. Law is an older established field then medicine (at least from a professional perspective - there were plenty of shaman and the like before professional physicians), but the first JD program wasn't until the late 1300s.
The first "lawyers" were really persuasive scholars. The first "doctors" were naturalists who were really interested in dissection. Many of the first programmers were hackers and tinkerers. There will likely eventually be professional degrees and licensure, but the fact that there aren't currently is more a sign that it's a new field, than that it's "not as important".
For a closer parallel in professional engineering, the first people messing around with steam engines and the like were scholars. Professional licensure didn't come till much later.
Yet, basic things weren't done on her watch. Keeping your servers patched is very basic, but it's the kind of corner a non-technically proficient manager, like her, will cut.
Proof of the pudding and all. She's done and deserves to be unemployable.
Well, yes, certainly. None of this says that she's a good engineer or manager. Just that having a music degree rather than a CS or MIS degree doesn't automatically make her a bad engineer or manager.
Also, bear in mind, for the scale of issues that Equifax has, there's apparently incompetency from the top to the bottom. We're not hearing that she's got a crack team of programmers who were trying to solve all of these problems for years but were overruled - apparently, everyone who touched this was terrible.
Unless you are getting hired directly out of school for a tech job, whether or not you have a degree in tech means almost nothing. It's your experience that counts. If Mrs. Mauldin majored in music, graduated, found that was a dumb idea and worked her way up through the ranks over 20 years before landing the Chief Security role at Equifax, I have no problem with that.
This... I, too, majored in music, but focused on audio engineering. I ended up building and maintaining radio stations, including repairing solid state and analog transmitters and rewiring audio consoles, building multi-site audio and data links, building automation computers and maintaining data networks, etc. In the course of doing that, I studied electrical engineering and programming, passed the FE, and eventually become a patent attorney specializing in communications and security.
If she had no experience, that'd be one thing, but from her resume, it looks like she's spent at least 15 years in the industry.
Actually, I read the patent several days ago, and I like how you missed the rest of that line that specifically mentions it in regards to 2-axis accelerometer as if that makes any fucking difference to using a 3-axis accelerometer the clearly invalid patent.
Ah, now I'm calling bullshit. Here's the entire paragraph:
In point of fact, many methods are known for sensing body movement, or non-movement (i.e., sensed dynamic accelerations, including cessation of movement), as well as, for sensing body movement over time, which is commonly used to determine comparative levels of activity of a monitored body (See, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,110,741, 4,292,630, 5,045,839, and 5,523,742). These methodologies, however, merely report various levels of body activity, and, simply stated, fail to recognize possible causes for any increased or decreased level of body activity.
There's nothing there about 2-axis accelerometers.
You may be thinking of two paragraphs later, when it says:
Various training methods have been conceived for sensing relative tilt of a body (See, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,300,921 and 5,430,435), and some such methodologies have employed two-axis accelerometers.
However, the patent doesn't claim the use of three-axis accelerometers as opposed to two-axis accelerometers. In fact, the word "three" appears once in the entire patent, and the number "3" only appears in reference to Fig. 3.
Sorry, no, your post is complete and utter bullshit, and this confirms that your earlier post was indeed based off ignorance.
There is nothing novel about the patent, if we are going to say the novelty is in the data processing, then sorry to tell you software/algorithms can not be patented as per a recent Supreme court case that finally struck down that one
This is also bullshit. You're probably referring to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, which you also clearly haven't read. Although the claim at issue in that case was found to be ineligible, the Supreme Court said that that didn't mean that all software was ineligible, instead stating:
... we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 2). At some level, “all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2). Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 187 (1981). “[A]pplication[s]” of such concepts “‘to a new and useful end,’” we have said, remain eligible for patent protection. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63, 67 (1972). Accordingly, in applying the 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the “‘buildin[g] block[s]’” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more, Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 20), thereby “transform[ing]” them into a patent-eligible invention, id., at ___ (slip op., at 3). The former “would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying” ideas, id., at ___ (slip op., at 4), and are therefore ineligible for patent protection. The latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible for the monopoly granted under our patent laws.
The astute reader - not you, of course - would note that that paragraph cites affirmatively to several cases in which patents on software/algorithms were held to be patent eligible.
the patent does cover using 3-axis accelerometer in conjunction with some form of data processing of said data this whole second point is a moot point..
The patent absolutely does not cover using a 3-axis accelerometer (that word does not ap
Infringement litigation does not look at the validity of a patent. If Nintendo wants to challenge its validity in court it has to sue in a separate trial, if the patent gets invalidated than the litigation trial ruling gets vacated
That's not true at all. I don't know where you got this idea, but it's simply incorrect: invalidity is a defense to infringement and comes in every single infringement trial. In fact, Nintendo made two separate arguments here having to do with invalidity.
In fact, your statement is not just incorrect, it's the precise opposite of correct: failure to challenge the validity of the patent here would waive those defenses and Nintendo would be estopped from being able to bring a separate claim of invalidity.
Come on, where did you get this from?
Is the patent valid? Well according to this judge and jury yes, according to most of us probably not. The patent covers using a 3-axis accelerometer and some sort of data processing to detect motion of a body.
The patent doesn't actually cover that. In fact, the background of the patent admits that using an accelerometer and data processing to detect motion of a body was well known:
In point of fact, many methods are known for sensing body movement, or non-movement (i.e., sensed dynamic accelerations, including cessation of movement), as well as, for sensing body movement over time, which is commonly used to determine comparative levels of activity of a monitored body (See, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,110,741, 4,292,630, 5,045,839, and 5,523,742).
For a guess - you didn't actually read the patent, you just went by the Slashdot summary?
I haven't done a prior art search or read the patent closely, but I did look at the jury form. Interestingly, it only asks two questions going to invalidity of the patent - did Nintendo prove that the patent lacked sufficient written description, and did Nintendo prove that the patent lacked enablement. In other words, Nintendo apparently didn't find any prior art to invalidate the patent. That should be a clue that it's a bit narrower than just "using an accelerator and a processor to detect motion".
" The problem with the hackneyed stereotype of the socially inept, hoodie-clad white male coder? It does not inspire underrepresented groups to pursue careers in computer science.." So it's not INACCURATE, just uninspiring.
Because *everything* needs to be about achieving purported social justice agendas?
No, because socially inept, hoodie-clad white male coders are pretty terrible at crafting aesthetically pleasing UX.
... Taco Bell's experiments have proved that something else rains from Uranus.
When I get home after 11 hours work + commute, I don't want a worthwhile use of time. I want to flop in my chair. Maybe I watch Fox News and yell at the host. Maybe I futz around online. Or, maybe I watch *gasp* a TV show.
Us cord cutters do the same, but the TV show is on demand on Netflix or Hulu or somewhere else streaming, and it doesn't have embedded commercial breaks, so we can watch the same half-hour episode in only 24 minutes. That's the real benefit of cutting the cord - avoiding interstitial crap.
Everyone onboard dies when the car's computer fails to avoid a collision a human could have given enough control.
Well, there is the big red "stop" button.
No, this needs to be said. We have too many people who think: "That won't happen because of the magic box! There won't be a reason to have a steering wheel because everyone will be drove around by the box and no-one will be in direct control of the vehicle. So there's no need to control it directly."
Well, there is the big red "stop" button.
That reality also completely disregards the fact that an auto-drive system is a high value target for would be criminals, and would be abused. Leaving the victims no possible means to defend themselves, completely at the mercy of their captors for committing the greatest offense of "getting in a car".
Well, there is the big red "stop" button.
This is for a specific design for a center console. They didn't really patent 'using a single button'.
Ad authoritum is a bullshit cop-out.
You don't ask a Prof. of Basketweaving about Computer Science problems.
You were claiming his fake Ph.D was in biology, remember? We probably shouldn't ask him about Computer Science problems then either.
The point is he _STILL_ knows more then armchair critics such as the OP.
He knows more about faking things apparently.
The hypothesis Damore argued against is that all gender-differences in workplace representation are due to discrimination. You only need a single counter-example to disprove this hypothesis, and Damore provided several.
Not really - rather, Damore attempted to argue a hypothesis that gender differences in STEM are due to inherent biological factors, and therefore cannot be addressed by social engineering. But in so doing, the only actual conclusion he proved was that he's a terrible engineer who shouldn't be employed.
Specifically, Damore cited studies that showed that when adult, post-college men and women are surveyed, they self-report different levels of interest in STEM fields. Issues with those studies (e.g. limited populations, self-reporting, no controls, etc.) aside, they don't even begin to prove Damore's point regarding biological inherency. And that's the biggest issue with the manifesto - Damore clearly has no understanding of the difference between correlation and causation. Yes,there are fewer women in tech. Yes, on surveys of adults, they report different levels of interest in the field. But only someone really unclear on logic and science would say "this difference exists, therefore genetics."
And that means he's a terrible engineer, since he doesn't understand that "if X, then Y" doesn't also mean "Y, therefore X." That alone would be reason to fire him, because you sure as fark can't trust his code.
3. James has a Ph.D. in Biology. What are your degrees?
Argumentum ad authoritum aside, Damore lied about his Ph.D.
You slammed Debra Soh https://www.researchgate.net/p... because her Thesis was using fMRIs, among other observing tools. Then you claimed that you can prove a salmon has emotion the same way.
Copy-pasting my reply to the other poster, since he made your point much more succinctly:
No, fMRI has not been "discredited". The fish thing was cute and all, and it did make a valid point—that statistics have noise. That's a far cry from discrediting the technology. You might as well say that digital cameras have been discredited for use in astrophotography because they occasionally have hot pixels.
Absolutely, but her thesis was not on the imaging technology. There is no dispute that fMRI allows tracking of blood flow through the brain. Her thesis, however, used fMRI to "investigate brain differences associated with sexual orientation, paraphilias (or unusual sexual interests), and hypersexuality" and that's the part that has been discredited. It has no predictive abilities and, at present, is in the same realm as phrenology. That's not to say that calipers and other measuring technologies are discredited, but trying to use those measuring technologies for personality investigation is not science.
Or, to use your analogy, astrophotography is not discredited, but predicting someone's personality via astrology is, even if you use digital cameras to get really accurate positions of the planets when they were born.
The same applies to your post. fMRI is not discredited. Tensor imaging is not discredited. Other forms of neuroimaging are not discredited. Making personality predictions based on neuroimaging - which is what her thesis was about - however, has been discredited.
No, fMRI has not been "discredited". The fish thing was cute and all, and it did make a valid point—that statistics have noise. That's a far cry from discrediting the technology. You might as well say that digital cameras have been discredited for use in astrophotography because they occasionally have hot pixels.
Absolutely, but her thesis was not on the imaging technology. There is no dispute that fMRI allows tracking of blood flow through the brain. Her thesis, however, used fMRI to "investigate brain differences associated with sexual orientation, paraphilias (or unusual sexual interests), and hypersexuality" and that's the part that has been discredited. It has no predictive abilities and, at present, is in the same realm as phrenology. That's not to say that calipers and other measuring technologies are discredited, but trying to use those measuring technologies for personality investigation is not science.
Or, to use your analogy, astrophotography is not discredited, but predicting someone's personality via astrology is, even if you use digital cameras to get really accurate positions of the planets when they were born.
by posting someone's lucrative writing gigs, attacking their thesis, without posting it, or having a scientific discussion.
You've committed a classic ad hominem.
Nope. The grandparent committed a classic argument ad authoritum - arguing that, because she has specific credentials, therefore her opinion is reliable. I countered by showing that her credentials are suspect, pointing out both that she has not been published in peer reviewed journals and that her thesis topic has been discredited.
You're welcome. HTH. HAND.
Debra W. Soh is an expert in neuroscience. (PhD in sexual neuroscience from the University of York.)
Yep. She's also an author for that esteemed peer review journal Playboy, and did her thesis on investigations of sexuality via fMRI, which has famously been used to detect emotions in a dead salmon.
It's factually accurate too, and it is biological -- hit a search engine you can find it across nearly every society to boot. So you're arguing against science now...
Hit a search engine and you can find a belief in a god across nearly every society. Does that make the existence of god "science"?
Arguentum ad populum is a fallacy for a reason.