Probably most companies will make a profit
on
Star Wars Sickout
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Probably most employees, particularly Star Wars fans, are not a net contributor to their companies. Likely the big sickout will save these companies money rather than hurt them.
I think yours is, however the first of a flood of predictions predicting a flood of articles.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be
on
Pac-Man Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
Probably most people who still play Pacman do it over a couple of beers with a sad tear in the eye.
In this fast changing world it is nice to find something familiar from the 80s that you can do without getting busted or hurting that crook knee. I get my kicks by walking down to the hen house and gathering some freshly laid eggs, but I figure most NYC apartments don't feature a hen house.
Regular "new idea" patent: You have to prove that this is a new way of doing something.
Design patent: registers a shape/style/whatever. I expect the Apple patent is one of these.
FTFUSPTO: Definition of a Design
A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.
The Patent Law provides for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. A design patent protects only the appearance of the article and not its structural or utilitarian features. The principal statutes (United States Code) governing design patents are:
35 U.S.C. 171
35 U.S.C. 173
35 U.S.C. 102
35 U.S.C. 103
35 U.S.C. 112
35 U.S.C. 132
The rules (Code of Federal Regulations) pertaining to the drawing disclosure of a design patent application are:
37 CFR 1.84
37 CFR 1.152
37 CFR 1.121
The following additional rules have been referred to in this guide:
37 CFR 1.3
37 CFR 1.63
37 CFR 1.153
A copy of these laws and rules are included in the Appendix of this guide.
The practice and procedures relating to design patent applications are set forth in chapter 1500 of the Manual of Examining Procedure (MPEP). Inquiries relating to the sale of the MPEP should be directed to the Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Telephone: 202-512-1800.
Types of Designs and Modified Forms
An ornamental design may be embodied in an entire article or only a portion of an article, or may be ornamentation applied to an article. If a design is directed to just surface ornamentation, it must be shown applied to an article in the drawings, and the article must be shown in broken lines, as it forms no part of the claimed design.
A design patent application may only have a single claim. 37 CFR 1.153. Designs that are independent and distinct must be filed in separate applications since they cannot be supported by a single claim. Designs are independent if there is no apparent relationship between two or more articles. For example, a pair of eyeglasses and a door handle are independent articles and must be claimed in separate applications. Designs are considered distinct if they have different shapes and appearances even though they are related articles. For example, two vases having different surface ornamentation creating distinct appearances must be claimed in separate applications. However, modified forms, or embodiments of a single design concept may be filed in one application. For example, vases with only minimal configuration differences may be considered a single design concept and both embodiments may be included in a single application. An example of modified forms appears in Appendix II.
The Difference Between Design and Utility Patents
In general terms, a "utility patent" protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a "design patent" protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance. While utility and design patents afford legally separate protection, the utility and ornamentality of an article are not easily separable. Articles of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics.
Since air friction is proportional to the cube of speed, your high speed driving has a huge impact.
Air friction at 90kph is only 0.9^^3 = 73% that of air friction at 100kph. In your case, 90mph vs 70mph = 90^^3/70^^3 = 212% ie more than double the air resistance.
At low speeds, air friction does not contribute significantly because of this effect.
There is a big difference between funding and donations. Funding really means getting someone to commit to paying $xxx for the software to be developed, while donations mean releasing the finished software then asking people to make micropayments etc.
I develop OSS. I was lucky in getting funding up front, but now that the software is shipping and in use there is no funding coming in for ongoing support and maintenance. I asked an OSS developer whether they get any cash from their "begging" on their web page. They say they only get a couple of hundred bucks a year from that.
At the end of the day, people don't pay for what they value. They pay for what they have to pay for. You don't pay for air.
Sometimes you can make some money out of selling non-GPL licenses to your OSS. That only works if you hold all copyrights.
Otherwise, OSS is often very difficult stuff to fund. In part this is due to the immaturity of the user base. People feel cheated if they pay for free stuff. In time, people might come to freely pay for stuff that they benefit from (like the way many people happily pay extra for organic produce: not only because it tastes better but also because it is ethical to support it).
OK, I'd love for there to be a cure for cancer, but I suspect that more likely this is just the perfect bunch of buzzwords to hype for funding, IPO or whatever. nanoxxx: tick; cure for cancer: tick.
The last cure-for-cancer stock I watched were Cell Pathways. Lovely rollercoaster stock. Perfect for pump and dump of IPO share options etc.
Your possums are different. They're also a native species which makes them less invasive. In NZ the possums were introduced from Australia. In Australia there are predators and food is relatively scarce. New Zealand has no predator species for possums and they thrive.Possums strip vegitation and eat birds eggs. Since NZ has no real predators, the birds breed slowly. This means they are threatened by possums. NZ has approx 70million possums. Sure we run over a few, but not that many.
One of the ways MS "adds value" to their offerings is to add in third party stuff into their base package. They've added mail, web browsing, editors etc to their base OS offering. There is nothing stopping them adding virus scanning etc. If Symantec's stuff was delivered for free by MS, then Symantec will surely die.
I know a bloke who's actually done this, but automated it. The USB cam sees the fly and a laser pointer dot. Servo motors are controlled to put the dot on the fly, then splat!
Unless these cell phones start getting bad virii soon, Symantec will start to lose money. Hopefully, for Symantec, those benign virii will get modified into nasy ones by skript kiddies etc, prompting sales of Symantec mobile protection products.
don't buy the "less noble than 'real hunting' concept
No doubt from one that has never been hunting and frozen his balls off or gone one-on-one with a wild pig.
Still, I guess there could be some useful things to do with internet hunting. In many places there are various pest species. iHunters could help shoot 'em up and also help pay for pest elimination. For instance, here in New Zealand we have possums introduced from Australia http://www.invasive-animals.org.nz/possum/ I kill about 50 of these a year and still they come... I would not mind a couple of ihunters setting up camp at my place so long as they don't shoot the kids and sheep.
How can they control offshore shhoting? Breed rabits etc in some shit-hole and charge your credit card.
Of course most likely you'd not be really killing real animals, any more than you're talking to an innocent teen when you dial 0900-VIRGIINS. Instead you'd pay your $50 or whatever and the whole shooting would be mocked up, probably from Discovery channel footage. That way a few thousand cyberhunters get to "shoot" the same bambi and nobody really gets hurt except a few credit cards.
Microsoft already gets most of its useful "innovations" from buying startups (and let's face it relative to Microsoft just about *everyone* is a start up). So, to Microsoft, this makes great sense: Seed the startups with the technology you want to develop, then buy up any that show promise. This is vastly cheaper and more effective than doing your own inhouse development.
I'm sure there's small print that prevents the company from selling out to MS enemies.
For the start-ups, it looks good too. They have some sort of Microsoft "special relationship"/endorsement/whatever that they can wave in front of the venture capitalists. Someone is always going to get screwed over, but it isn't the start ups or MS.
C'mon foks it is so obvious... The real SCOX ploy has been to get the cash in SCO into the McBride family trust. Darl's brother is the major fee earning lawyer on the SCO side. Darl's mission is to get all the SCO cash into his brother's account. All the games being played are just to keep this game going long enough to transfer the funds in an honest/legal fashion. It is not material whether SCO wins or loses the IBM battle. All that matters is to keep the game rolling.
For Darl this is the perfect present from IBM: A lawyer can charge a near infinite amount to sift through 80GB of info.
If parent's reasoning is correct, then we have an out for all crimes. "I became a burglar because I could pick locks but there are no locksmithing jobs." Bullshit mate!
Criminals, particularly skilled and intelligent ones, don't just turn to crime to keep from starving. They do it for the rush or because they find regular work boring etc.
At the end of the day, there is no real difference between phishers than pick-pockets, except that phishers are cowardly and do things remotely (and so avoid - mostly - getting caught).
This is like something that was tried a while ago using graphical passwords.
The system sends a list of images (people's faces) to the user and the user chooses one. The benefits of this are: 1) People remembeer faces better than passwords. Don't forget their password during a vacation. 2) An face is very easy to recognise, but very hard to describe. This makes it very difficult to steal or give away the password (on purpose, under duress or by mistake [including phishing]).
Sure it is good that people can spend their time doing OSS work, but is this really good for OSS?
I don't know what the Oz job market is like, but if you can't get a job, then why? Surely the best programmers have no problems finding a job. Does this mean that the average quality of OSS programming will decline?
Amazon, Microsoft, and many others stack up their patents like cold war super powers building up weapons. The idea is that so long as you don't fall too far behing in the arms race you can hold your position.
To an extent, the people locked in the game are almost, but not quite, the victims. You can't reasonably say fsckit I'm not playing the patent game any longer - the others would be onto you like a pack of hungry street dogs attacking a weakened comrade. The USPTO loves the fact that they're processing heaps of patents and generating nice revenue. It makes them look powerful and important. Like the arms race, the only people that won out of it were the arms suppliers - not the recers themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably most employees, particularly Star Wars fans, are not a net contributor to their companies. Likely the big sickout will save these companies money rather than hurt them.
I think yours is, however the first of a flood of predictions predicting a flood of articles.
In this fast changing world it is nice to find something familiar from the 80s that you can do without getting busted or hurting that crook knee. I get my kicks by walking down to the hen house and gathering some freshly laid eggs, but I figure most NYC apartments don't feature a hen house.
Game over:eeweewee wawa
Regular "new idea" patent: You have to prove that this is a new way of doing something.
Design patent: registers a shape/style/whatever. I expect the Apple patent is one of these.
FTFUSPTO: Definition of a Design A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture. The Patent Law provides for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. A design patent protects only the appearance of the article and not its structural or utilitarian features. The principal statutes (United States Code) governing design patents are: 35 U.S.C. 171 35 U.S.C. 173 35 U.S.C. 102 35 U.S.C. 103 35 U.S.C. 112 35 U.S.C. 132 The rules (Code of Federal Regulations) pertaining to the drawing disclosure of a design patent application are: 37 CFR 1.84 37 CFR 1.152 37 CFR 1.121 The following additional rules have been referred to in this guide: 37 CFR 1.3 37 CFR 1.63 37 CFR 1.153 A copy of these laws and rules are included in the Appendix of this guide. The practice and procedures relating to design patent applications are set forth in chapter 1500 of the Manual of Examining Procedure (MPEP). Inquiries relating to the sale of the MPEP should be directed to the Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Telephone: 202-512-1800. Types of Designs and Modified Forms An ornamental design may be embodied in an entire article or only a portion of an article, or may be ornamentation applied to an article. If a design is directed to just surface ornamentation, it must be shown applied to an article in the drawings, and the article must be shown in broken lines, as it forms no part of the claimed design. A design patent application may only have a single claim. 37 CFR 1.153. Designs that are independent and distinct must be filed in separate applications since they cannot be supported by a single claim. Designs are independent if there is no apparent relationship between two or more articles. For example, a pair of eyeglasses and a door handle are independent articles and must be claimed in separate applications. Designs are considered distinct if they have different shapes and appearances even though they are related articles. For example, two vases having different surface ornamentation creating distinct appearances must be claimed in separate applications. However, modified forms, or embodiments of a single design concept may be filed in one application. For example, vases with only minimal configuration differences may be considered a single design concept and both embodiments may be included in a single application. An example of modified forms appears in Appendix II. The Difference Between Design and Utility Patents In general terms, a "utility patent" protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a "design patent" protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance. While utility and design patents afford legally separate protection, the utility and ornamentality of an article are not easily separable. Articles of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics.
At low speeds, air friction does not contribute significantly because of this effect.
I develop OSS. I was lucky in getting funding up front, but now that the software is shipping and in use there is no funding coming in for ongoing support and maintenance. I asked an OSS developer whether they get any cash from their "begging" on their web page. They say they only get a couple of hundred bucks a year from that.
At the end of the day, people don't pay for what they value. They pay for what they have to pay for. You don't pay for air.
Sometimes you can make some money out of selling non-GPL licenses to your OSS. That only works if you hold all copyrights.
Otherwise, OSS is often very difficult stuff to fund. In part this is due to the immaturity of the user base. People feel cheated if they pay for free stuff. In time, people might come to freely pay for stuff that they benefit from (like the way many people happily pay extra for organic produce: not only because it tastes better but also because it is ethical to support it).
Sorry to burst your bubble, but those inflatable dolls have seen it all and don't impress easily!
But to have $100M problem like this must be bad no?
OK, I'd love for there to be a cure for cancer, but I suspect that more likely this is just the perfect bunch of buzzwords to hype for funding, IPO or whatever. nanoxxx: tick; cure for cancer: tick.
The last cure-for-cancer stock I watched were Cell Pathways. Lovely rollercoaster stock. Perfect for pump and dump of IPO share options etc.
Your possums are different. They're also a native species which makes them less invasive. In NZ the possums were introduced from Australia. In Australia there are predators and food is relatively scarce. New Zealand has no predator species for possums and they thrive.Possums strip vegitation and eat birds eggs. Since NZ has no real predators, the birds breed slowly. This means they are threatened by possums. NZ has approx 70million possums. Sure we run over a few, but not that many.
One of the ways MS "adds value" to their offerings is to add in third party stuff into their base package. They've added mail, web browsing, editors etc to their base OS offering. There is nothing stopping them adding virus scanning etc. If Symantec's stuff was delivered for free by MS, then Symantec will surely die.
I know a bloke who's actually done this, but automated it. The USB cam sees the fly and a laser pointer dot. Servo motors are controlled to put the dot on the fly, then splat!
That's also why we wear tall gumboots.... to hold the ewe's back legs.
Unless these cell phones start getting bad virii soon, Symantec will start to lose money. Hopefully, for Symantec, those benign virii will get modified into nasy ones by skript kiddies etc, prompting sales of Symantec mobile protection products.
No doubt from one that has never been hunting and frozen his balls off or gone one-on-one with a wild pig.
Still, I guess there could be some useful things to do with internet hunting. In many places there are various pest species. iHunters could help shoot 'em up and also help pay for pest elimination. For instance, here in New Zealand we have possums introduced from Australia http://www.invasive-animals.org.nz/possum/ I kill about 50 of these a year and still they come... I would not mind a couple of ihunters setting up camp at my place so long as they don't shoot the kids and sheep.
That's innovation for you!
Of course most likely you'd not be really killing real animals, any more than you're talking to an innocent teen when you dial 0900-VIRGIINS. Instead you'd pay your $50 or whatever and the whole shooting would be mocked up, probably from Discovery channel footage. That way a few thousand cyberhunters get to "shoot" the same bambi and nobody really gets hurt except a few credit cards.
I'm sure there's small print that prevents the company from selling out to MS enemies.
For the start-ups, it looks good too. They have some sort of Microsoft "special relationship"/endorsement/whatever that they can wave in front of the venture capitalists. Someone is always going to get screwed over, but it isn't the start ups or MS.
For Darl this is the perfect present from IBM: A lawyer can charge a near infinite amount to sift through 80GB of info.
Well that's how it looks to me anyway.
Criminals, particularly skilled and intelligent ones, don't just turn to crime to keep from starving. They do it for the rush or because they find regular work boring etc.
At the end of the day, there is no real difference between phishers than pick-pockets, except that phishers are cowardly and do things remotely (and so avoid - mostly - getting caught).
The system sends a list of images (people's faces) to the user and the user chooses one. The benefits of this are: 1) People remembeer faces better than passwords. Don't forget their password during a vacation. 2) An face is very easy to recognise, but very hard to describe. This makes it very difficult to steal or give away the password (on purpose, under duress or by mistake [including phishing]).
I don't know what the Oz job market is like, but if you can't get a job, then why? Surely the best programmers have no problems finding a job. Does this mean that the average quality of OSS programming will decline?
Geeks do your partiotic duty.
To an extent, the people locked in the game are almost, but not quite, the victims. You can't reasonably say fsckit I'm not playing the patent game any longer - the others would be onto you like a pack of hungry street dogs attacking a weakened comrade. The USPTO loves the fact that they're processing heaps of patents and generating nice revenue. It makes them look powerful and important. Like the arms race, the only people that won out of it were the arms suppliers - not the recers themselves.