One. The patent is truly unenforceable, and M$ is confident it can prove it in court.
I know this passes as interesting on Slashdot, and with a bar set this low, it truly is, but this challenging the validity of a patent is the first phase of any patent infringement suit. You're absolutely correct, but it's a little bewildering that this is informative. (It's not your fault; just an observation.)
Two. They want to set a precedent. If you fail to enforce a patent, and it (accidently) ends up in a standard that becomes pervasive. You can't be johnny come lately and start enforce it.
This is completely false, however. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what you can do with a patent, and the system was designed to be that way. Whether or not that's right or fair is another discussion, but you could never convince me that Microsoft considers changing the foundations of the patent system as a realistic goal.
Obviously if people knew the patent existed, they wouldn't have used it in JPEG, or companies like M$ would have only used JPEG if they were willing to pay the royalties.
Patents are public. The temporary monopoly is granted in return for public disclosure of the technology. Tax codes are tricky - you wouldn't engage in complicated commerce and then just hope you paid your taxes right. You'd hire an experienced accountant to make sure you aren't going to get burned. The patent system was created in the Constitution - it's been around awhile. If you work in technology but haven't paid for any experts to investigate your patent liability, it's a lot like doing your taxes with guesswork and prayers. Sooner or later, you're going to get burned (by the IRS or by some patent owner). Paying for those experts is a cost of doing business in the US.
The patent was public. If Microsoft didn't know about it, it's nobody's fault but their own.
If they had enforced the patent and asked for royalties 10-15 years ago it would be in limited use and no where near as valuable.
That was part of the original intent of the patent system. It's not an accident that you are not required to actively defend your patent. They were well aware that you could sit on it for 15 years and then cash in on an entire industry. Patents are public. A business that doesn't hire an IP lawyer is like a business that doesn't hire an accountant. Sooner or later you're going to get burned and if that happens because your business never investigated its liability, I have a difficult time placing the blame anywhere except squarely on the shoulders of your company.
We know the patent office is using a self-serving, legal definition of obviousness.
I'm not going to say that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, but the definition of "obvious" used by the USPTO was created by the judicial branch of government.
We are a helluva lot more qualified to talk about true obviousness in software than any lawyer.
You clearly have not read the sections of the MPEP I have cited. You are clearly not qualified to discuss the topic of obviousness in patents.
God knows why, but congress takes the patent office's advice on patent law (the foxes watching the hen house!) and the patent office could easily be a leader in bringing in new, more just law.
See above. The judicial branch of government creates case law that defines how the USPTO operates. This is an extremely basic concept. You haven't stumbled upon some insight with a clever colloqialism about the fox in the henhouse. Your statement is based on a completely erroneous basis.
In conclusion, I reiterate that you are completely unqualified to hold this discussion. It's not an insult; rather it's an invitation to exercise the wisdom of knowing one's bounds. If you'd like some very informative information, I'd be happy to provide some links.
Also, I'm not a patent lawyer. I'm a BSCS who took the time to educate himself about patent law before shooting off at the mouth.
No patent should be granted for any computer algorithm if the same or similar idea can "discovered" by an industry-selected board of programmers and architects.
WTF does that have to do with patentability? Before you reply using the word "obvious", read MPEP 2143-2144. Here's a start: MPEP 2143
Continue with the links at the bottom to read through the MPEP 2144. If you have not read and at least attempted to understand this text, you are not qualified to debate the topic of obviousness in the US patent system.
Get the IEEE or ACM to appoint 50 computer engineers. One, two, or three engineers are assigned to each (non-obvious) software patent candidate that comes in. They receive only a desciption of the problem the invention addresses, but no details of the invention itself. They have 24 hours to propose as many solutions to the problem as they can. If one is identical or "reasonably" close to the patent candidate, the patent fails.
That's not a bad idea. So you're giving 50 people roughly 3 work days to come up with the solution. Fuck government inefficiency, the USPTO gives 1 person 1 work day to get that amount of work done, and your solution doesn't even begin to address the legal question of "obviousness".
I'm not saying that you propose a bad idea, but rather you're proposing a solution to a radical misunderstanding of the problem. The USPTO has literally no legal jurisdiction over whether or not an idea was hard to come up with. It only has legal jurisdiction over whether the idea was legally obvious, a concept that is briefly described in MPEP 2143-2144.
I agree that your suggestion (and other like it) could benefit the US patent system, but you're addressing an issue that is completely beyond the USPTO's legal authority.
In general terms, having your collective dna stuck at the bottom of a gravity well relying on the "stability" of a single biosphere is not a a good long term policy.
Feh. All you've got to back that up is a bunch of analogies and a complete lack of hard evidence. You sure don't see anybody else out there doing any better than us, do you?
If I mod something funny as Insightful or Informative, it is because I love irony. I couldn't give a rat's ass about karma. I will post this with the karma bonus for no reason whatsoever.
Re:Most of these assumptions are too direct
on
Multi-layer LCD Displays
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Imagine two displays that render the exact same image, except in the areas where it's tracking your eyes or mouse, the images are more in phase while the rest of the screen goes out of phase.
Ok, and now let's imagine paying for 1 display and an API function that does a blur effect on areas that are not near the mouse. Your method requires a $1800 display. My method requires an API function and existing graphics hardware.
I think we won't see the real usefluness of this until it's had time for creative people to tinker with working examples of it, which is the case for most technology, really.
Ok, fair enough. This is just like the way the world changed when someone put TWO CD-ROM drives in ONE computer, except you had two independent, functional, useful CD-ROM drives. This looks like an $1800 way to have almost 1 useful display.
While I won't comment on the practical applications of this monitor, your comment shows a lack of understanding about photography. Since the camera taking the picture can only take one in 2 dimensions, the true dimensiality of the monitor cannot be grasped through a photo.
Wait, so a camera doesn't steal my soul? No seriously, I'd love to hear your explanation of how "the true dimensiality of the monitor" actually works. Here's what I suggest:
Take two transparencies, such as for an overhead projector.
Fill both of the transparencies with a bunch of text.
Put one transparancy on top of the other. Vary the distance between the two from 0-10 cm.
Eat some paint chips and explain how this is an improvement over looking at the transparencies one at a time.
QED. Cameras DO STEAL YOUR SOUL. Nice try, smarty, but I think it is YOU who shows a lack of understanding about photography.
The practical applications that Puredepth advertises for its MLD displays are vast and far-reaching. In any application that would benefit from greater information density (such as backgrounds with changing overlays, work areas with tool palettes, etc.), the MLD adds true depth to what would usually be a simulated effect. The effect is truly amazing, especially when compared with a standard 2D display.
As you can see, this device is a GREAT benefit to the vast and far-reaching applications that would benefit from it. We could name them, but we'll settle for describing them abstractly. Suppose you have an application where you need to stack crap on top of other crap so that you can't read any of it. Well, this device is exactly what you need!
Seriously, take a look at the screenshot of this thing running:
In that pic, you can read everything, but it is clear that if you use your computer for things like text, this would be a nearly unusable monitor.
I love the article's conclusion:
Also, the technology, once refined, could be applied to displays with many layers, allowing for even more complex three-dimensional diagrams, such as skyscraper floor-plans, or "data clouds" with more than merely two levels within the depth hierarchy.[Poster's note: HOLY CRAP A 3D DISPLAY? THAT WOULD CHANGE THE WORLD IF it wasn't 25 years old.] Yet another possibility would be to juxtapose two or more different display formats in the same manner. Using a combination of standard LCD displays with super-bright OLED displays might lead to some interesting effects, making the distinguishing factors between layers consist of more factors than merely depth.
As innovators, I tip my hat to Puredepth, and I truly hope to see more products from them in the future.
You should optimize the time of your optimization so that you optimize the effects of that optimization. Optimizing at an inopportune opportunity will result in an unoptimized optimization. Just remember to use your optimization optimizer to find the best opportunity to optimize!
It's trivial, really. Hierarchial optimization is like SO basic. Don't forget to optimize your optimization optimizer! There's nothing more embarrassing than missing the optimum opportunity to optimize your code because your optimization optimizer took too long to execute!
The Republican party has had an enormous organization with under-the-radar modes of disseminating information for the last 40 years. The recent talk radio battle between left & right is a new thing only for the left - conservative talk radio has been around for ages. Door to door and mass mailings are the Republicans strong suite and have been for years.
With that backdrop, I think it's hardly surprising that the right would work to protect blogging and the internet. We've seen it at work already with the James Guckert incident, and I believe the Swift Boat Veterans were significantly organized through the internet.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican party firmly believes it can simply defeat their opposition in this arena as they have in the past with the mass mailings, door to door, and talk radio. In any event, I'd believe it's voodoo zombie mind control that's behind this before I'd believe it's "civic duty". The only guy who strikes me as being infected with that malaise is John McCain.
By the way, what does being a former Democrat have to do with a civic duty? You can kill someone with kindness or a bullet. Either way, he's dead.
(My source for all the Republican organization stuff is The Daily Show - so sue me. Offtopic, but I'm very interested in one of the several recent books about the Republican PR machine - anybody have a particular suggestion?)
Are we looking for prior art that does exactly what is claimed or are we looking for its individual components and show why it does not take any hard thought to combine them to what is claimed?
Well, you have really grasped the crux of what it takes to legally prove obviousness. To prove obviousness, you MUST have references that show the parts that can be combined to completely show exactly what is claimed. You MUST have documented "motivation" for combining them - Reference B gives you a documented reason in the text for using it. There are additional requirements and some wrangling that can be done, but for at least 90% of the time, what I've said is completely necessary (though not necessarily sufficient.)
Both from the text you refered me to earlier, and from what you say here, I get the feeling that prior art and obviousness can only be proven at the same time, in which case I wonder, why are new (as in not pre-existing) and non-obviousness seperate requirements if you can basicly only disprove the later if you can disprove the first?
Again, I think you see that "obviousness" is not NEARLY as powerful as the public, in general, believes. The concept of obvious rejections exists almost strictly to reject situations where the inventor can say, "Well, technically, it's never been done before," because what was painted red (for no good reason) was painted blue (for no good reason). It has nothing to do with "how hard it was to come up with the idea", as so many people (and the dictionary) would have you believe.
It is also the necessary measuring stick for patentability when someone improves something. There are a million ways to improve a microchip, but in the end, it's still "a microchip" - the improved one is not a new creation. The concept of "obviousness" allows for invention regarding something that already exists. Again, it has nothing to do with "how hard it was to come up with the idea".
The only link between "how hard it was to come up with" and the legal definition of obviousness is in cases where it WAS easy to come up with because Book A shows half the invention and Book B shows the other half, including reasons why you would want to do what Book B is showing. If you can't show that evidence, it doesn't matter how hard it was to come up with the idea. It might be literally obvious, but it's not legally obvious.
The more big companies, like Microsoft, are getting screwed over by bullshit software patents (instead of just using them to screw others over) the more likely they will push for patent reform.
Just for argument's sake, what are you going to say if Microsoft loses the suit, exhausts the appeals process, and pays the damages saying, "Yeah, you caught us fair and square. Win some, lose some."
It's only reasonable to expect Microsoft to fight an infringement suit tooth and nail. I'm afraid I don't see how this directly implies that they're going to push for patent reform. Even if I buy that bit of speculation, the greater gap is that Microsoft would lobby for a positive and fair patent reform.
Anyway, I'm just tossing in my two cents, but I don't see how this rationalization can reasonably support patent suits against Microsoft but denounce software patents in general.
So-called intellectual property is, in theory, a temporary monopoly granted for the sake of the public good. By granting the monopoly, the government provides economic incentives to creators. What, though, is the good to the public if the creators do not license their intellectual property?
The answer to that question is the public disclosure of the technology and the implicit offer of a temporary monopoly to anyone who can improve that technology in a non-obvious way.
Regardless of whether or not you buy into it or like the answer, it is what it is.
I would propose mandatory licensing of ALL intellectual property under standard terms. No patent holder would then be able to withhold permission to incorporate patented technologies; nor could they demand outrageous payments for their patent. They could not keep technologies off the market solely to keep from cannibalizing their existing sales.
This has been done in times of war when the Federal government deemed that the technology was relevant to the defense of the nation. I'm personally not opposed to a system along these lines, although I would suggest something more like the arbitration that the government does to settle labor disputes. If a potential licensee and a patent holder couldn't come to a reasonable agreement, then the potential licensee could request Federal arbitration, plead the case for a reasonable agreement, and if ultimately necessary, receive a deal through the Federal government. You'd obviously have to tinker with the rules for competitors forcing deals out of each other and it would cost a ton of money to establish the fair market value of technology (before it hits market) but I think it could all be ironed out.
I wouldn't touch the copyright issue. I know quite a lot about the patent system but I'm not an expert in copyright law. And yeah, the devil IS in the details.
There is really a lot predating the line you put there.
A document metafor can be implemented using a text only interface, it in no way requires a gui. It does require a full screen interface, but even on Unix those existed way before 1980.
Yeah, I know. The point is that to show something as obvious and have any chance of succeeding, you really need to say, "This guy does A, this guy does B and this is why it's cool. Combine A with B and you have exactly what is being claimed."
I know there is a lot of word processing software that goes way back. That's not the point - we're not trying to combine word processing with a computer. We're trying to find something along the lines of a WYSIWYG interface, because then it would be easier to show that it is obvious to implement a paper form (with a mandatory information mark) on a computer screen. (And let me point out that I didn't choose to go this direction. Were I to build an argument that this is obvious, I would have used an existing computer interface, complete with mandatory user-input at certain stages, and brought in something like curses, ncurses, or something teaching and showing the advantages of a GUI.)
I'm really glad to see someone who is honestly interested in finding out about this stuff. I understand the complaint that patents in software are, at times, self-defeating. I can't ignore the numbers, though. The patent office issues something like 1250-1500 patents per week, probably something like 35% of which are computer related. Let's be generous and say that we hear about 1 crazy patent per week. So they're not perfect, but I wouldn't paint as dismal a picture as a lot of people do.
Education was around during slavery. Only the wealthy received a quality education. The only education slaves got, were specific to on the job tasks. That's pretty much how it is today as well.
You are what is known as a pseudo-intellectual. You have taken a seemingly unusual stance on an issue (education today is just like slave education) and combine it with a patronizing, condescending attitude that implies that you are more informed than your audience.
The fact is that your clever opinion, that education today is just like slave education, is retarded. It is so appallingly devoid of merit that I won't justify it by responding to its substance. The reasons why your opinion is brain-puke are undeniably apparent to someone who has any reasonable semblance of perspective. If you disagree with my assessment, we both know why.
You have not earned a response from me regarding the substance of your opinion because it fails to meet the rather low standards for discussion among grown-ups. Perhaps you're more familiar referring to them as "big people". Either way, I've phrased my reply in a tone that you have earned. (Doesn't it suck to be judged by your merit rather than how special you think you are?) Your opinion is the type of dull self-gratification enjoyed by freshman college students and people with a deep need to feel special. I cannot help you in your quest - I couldn't care less for how special you are, and that God has granted you an avenue by which you might share your thoughts is obnoxious. I can only point out that objectively, your opinion is retarded.
You got that F for free. Please, please reply. I can't wait to hear what new insight (that every other pseudo-intellectual has already regurgitated countless times) you can share with me next.
And I haven't seen any comparison since you're all talking out of your asses. How about an empirical study published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal? Anyone got one of those?
*SMACK SMACK... SMACK*
This is SLASHDOT for Christ's sake! What in Hell's name were you babbling about?
Don't thank me. I just want everyone to know that I would expect a friend, a true friend, to do the same for me.
Its just like the day's of slavery here in the US.
Yeah!
Just like the days of slavery! But with free public education! And government scholarships for college! And federal grants for college! And a far more racially sensitive society! And pop culture! And many more churches! And many more gangs! Damnit man, you're ON to something here!
Seriously, what do you do in real life? Going out on a limb here and guessing college student first, second guess would be a job without heavy lifting or serious decision making responsibility. There's nothing wrong with either of those (or whatever you it is you do if my guesses are wrong) but uh, I'm not terribly inclined to take macro economic anti-capitalist slave-chain-rattling conspiracy ranting from someone who's not qualified, ya know? To convince me of your message, you gotta show me that you've got solid cred on the Pinko Liberal Arts streets. Uh, yo.
So you're saying you've got a friend? I can't help but notice your use of the singular possessive...
It's crap, tripe, purile and pointless.
HOLY COW TV IS CRAP?! Someone get this guy on Dateline! Jesus man, thanks for TELLING me!
In place of a TV, I have a library of over 2000 books.
You either had a gigantic TV or you buy some tiny ass books.
History, sciences, arts (H.R. Giger rules!), fiction, biographies, the list goes on.
I've heard of the Dewey Decimal system too. Quit being a showoff.
I've taken up writing (short stories written already, novel due soon) playing the guitar, building models, doing SCCA Solo II, and find the time not wasted by watching the boob tube to be so much more.....valuable, productive, enjoyable, you name it.
Ok, thanks for the invitation. Pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, and a plea for attention.
There was a video link on ebaumsworld recently which was a compliation of the crap that's currently on TV. I was appalled and it only reinforced my view that killing my TV in 1989 was a good thing.
This one time, in 1987, I saw a magazine catch on fire. That's all the proof I know that owning magazines will burn your house down.
I think you and I should get together sometime and put together model airplanes or something.
(I guess this is a flame or whatever but only if you have to take yourself so seriously that you can't laugh at yourself. Hm, gloating that you threw away your TV and bought 2000 books... Taking yourself too seriously to laugh at yourself... Screw it, I'll just take a hit on this one.)
I personally, with no intention to troll, feel that this is what happens when you let an American write English humour.
This sentence does not parse.
First, let's put that dependent clause where it belongs.
I personally feel, with no intention to troll, that this is what happens when you let an American write English humour.
Second, there is no coherent relationship between "I personally feel" and "with no intention to troll". What does "without intention to troll" actually mean? Perhaps you meant "without intention of trolling" or "without intending to troll"? I'll choose the latter. That resolved, what does it mean to feel, personally or otherwise, without intending to troll? Perhaps you meant, "I opine, without intending to troll". Now it is clear that you are publicly offering your opinion without intending to troll rather than thinking to yourself without intending to troll.
I opine, without intending to troll, that this is what happens when you let an American write English humour.
Brilliant!
I opine that this is what happens when you let an Englishman write English.
I work for the Department of Commerce and all of our computers were bought through yet-another supplier. I haven't looked the company up, but they appear to be your standard PC shop assembled machines, although they obviously had the capacity to provide my sub-organization of the DoC with 10,000ish machines.
Ever since interactive use of computers became an option, people have been using metafors for creating a user interface that an end user can actually understand.
Well, for a long time, a computer's user interface was wires and blinking lights. For awhile, it was push button. For awhile, it was punch cards. The command line interface still persists to this day and it doesn't come close to any real world metaphor that I'm aware of. I am a linux geek, but I wouldn't have a clue where to start looking for a honest-to-God document metaphor before 1990 or 1985. I guess I'd try to figure out what software used to run on X and what it looked like, or figure out how old the Amiga was. I grew up with a Commodore VIC-20 and it definitely did not have anything like a document metaphor in any of the of the software I saw.
In 1990 this concept had been around for at the very least some 20 years..
Yeah maybe, but a patent examiner in the US usually has about 10 hours to find all the prior art to make his case. Like I said earlier, the IBM highlighting patent was probably examined by someone whose expertise was graphics hardware, which would reasonably limit his familiarity with all the different types of user interfaces that were used over the years. Even if he was familiar with a lot of them, monochrome, hercules, and other low color displays were pretty much what you were dealing with. (I wonder when EGA and CGA were introduced, but I don't wonder enough to look it up.)
Combining those to allows you to switch something on and off as per the claim by MS.
Eh, we have a long discussion here. Which MS patent were we talking about?
It again is a logical consequence of 2 known things..
How computers work seems to fail explaining this, but both are inherent to binary logic.
You are right, but it takes more than the mere possibility that two facts could be combined to make something obvious. Here's the most specific link I can provide.
That and the next three sections explain the three basic components necessary to defeat a patent claim as obvious. As soon as you stray from what the references teach and into "the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art" you're pretty much bluffing (because the attorney can find an expert who will swear in an affidavit that he wouldn't know how to do it, and unless you (the patent examiner) likes working free overtime at the office, there really isn't anything you can do about that argument (this is one of the situations where you pretty much have to issue the patent and let it get straightened out in court - you're simply not paid to deal with that situation.)) The attorney's goal is get a patent at whatever the cost - the inventor rarely has any idea how screwed up the patent really is. If the attorney can get an expert to swear that he doesn't know left from right and thereby get a patent, believe me, it'll happen.
In your example, you have combined two facts that indeed produced the desired result, however neither of these facts even suggests a reason for combining them. The attorney would attack this as "impermissible hindsight" - you combined them simply because the inventor combined them and for no other reason. This part is discussed in MPEP 2143.01. (Bear in mind that I don't know what MS claim you're referring to. It would be permissible for an examiner to combine the two facts you cited without a reference, but only because, if challenged, we both know you could find an example of somebody doing exactly what you described. I am presuming that the claim involved an actual application of the result, and XORing a bit suggests exactly no applications, except maybe an oscillator.)
Thanks for thanking for the explanation. As corny as it sounds, it really fills me with good feelings when Slashdot readers are genuinely interested in knowing more about the patent system we all love to hate.;)
I'm not going to act like an expert, but I notice that 1979-1981 has the highest rate of inflation for a multi-year period at the second link. The first link shows a rise in minimum wage every year from 1974-1981. That period shows a 76% increase in minimum wage (from $1.90 to $3.35) while the inflation for that entire period (1974-1981) looks like 74.8%.
Am I misreading some of this information or is there another, more relevant explanation?
Allowing a person to work a job which cannot possibly support them is equivalent to slavery.
No, it is not. Allowing a person to work any type of job is clearly distinct from slavery. Providing someone with a job which cannot possibly support him is crappy, but even that is not slavery.
Forcing someone to work a job that pays enough for two people is closer to slavery than allowing a person to work a job that doesn't support him.
Do you have an alternate solution to raising the minimum wage?
No, but clearly the minimum wage should be raised in response to, not in anticipation of, a higher cost of living, as you have said. A higher standard of living, however, does not approach placing a person into slavery.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this passes as interesting on Slashdot, and with a bar set this low, it truly is, but this challenging the validity of a patent is the first phase of any patent infringement suit. You're absolutely correct, but it's a little bewildering that this is informative. (It's not your fault; just an observation.)
Two. They want to set a precedent. If you fail to enforce a patent, and it (accidently) ends up in a standard that becomes pervasive. You can't be johnny come lately and start enforce it.
This is completely false, however. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what you can do with a patent, and the system was designed to be that way. Whether or not that's right or fair is another discussion, but you could never convince me that Microsoft considers changing the foundations of the patent system as a realistic goal.
Obviously if people knew the patent existed, they wouldn't have used it in JPEG, or companies like M$ would have only used JPEG if they were willing to pay the royalties.
Patents are public. The temporary monopoly is granted in return for public disclosure of the technology. Tax codes are tricky - you wouldn't engage in complicated commerce and then just hope you paid your taxes right. You'd hire an experienced accountant to make sure you aren't going to get burned. The patent system was created in the Constitution - it's been around awhile. If you work in technology but haven't paid for any experts to investigate your patent liability, it's a lot like doing your taxes with guesswork and prayers. Sooner or later, you're going to get burned (by the IRS or by some patent owner). Paying for those experts is a cost of doing business in the US.
The patent was public. If Microsoft didn't know about it, it's nobody's fault but their own.
If they had enforced the patent and asked for royalties 10-15 years ago it would be in limited use and no where near as valuable.
That was part of the original intent of the patent system. It's not an accident that you are not required to actively defend your patent. They were well aware that you could sit on it for 15 years and then cash in on an entire industry. Patents are public. A business that doesn't hire an IP lawyer is like a business that doesn't hire an accountant. Sooner or later you're going to get burned and if that happens because your business never investigated its liability, I have a difficult time placing the blame anywhere except squarely on the shoulders of your company.
I'm not going to say that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, but the definition of "obvious" used by the USPTO was created by the judicial branch of government.
We are a helluva lot more qualified to talk about true obviousness in software than any lawyer.
You clearly have not read the sections of the MPEP I have cited. You are clearly not qualified to discuss the topic of obviousness in patents.
God knows why, but congress takes the patent office's advice on patent law (the foxes watching the hen house!) and the patent office could easily be a leader in bringing in new, more just law.
See above. The judicial branch of government creates case law that defines how the USPTO operates. This is an extremely basic concept. You haven't stumbled upon some insight with a clever colloqialism about the fox in the henhouse. Your statement is based on a completely erroneous basis.
In conclusion, I reiterate that you are completely unqualified to hold this discussion. It's not an insult; rather it's an invitation to exercise the wisdom of knowing one's bounds. If you'd like some very informative information, I'd be happy to provide some links.
Also, I'm not a patent lawyer. I'm a BSCS who took the time to educate himself about patent law before shooting off at the mouth.
WTF does that have to do with patentability? Before you reply using the word "obvious", read MPEP 2143-2144. Here's a start:
MPEP 2143
Continue with the links at the bottom to read through the MPEP 2144. If you have not read and at least attempted to understand this text, you are not qualified to debate the topic of obviousness in the US patent system.
Get the IEEE or ACM to appoint 50 computer engineers. One, two, or three engineers are assigned to each (non-obvious) software patent candidate that comes in. They receive only a desciption of the problem the invention addresses, but no details of the invention itself. They have 24 hours to propose as many solutions to the problem as they can. If one is identical or "reasonably" close to the patent candidate, the patent fails.
That's not a bad idea. So you're giving 50 people roughly 3 work days to come up with the solution. Fuck government inefficiency, the USPTO gives 1 person 1 work day to get that amount of work done, and your solution doesn't even begin to address the legal question of "obviousness".
I'm not saying that you propose a bad idea, but rather you're proposing a solution to a radical misunderstanding of the problem. The USPTO has literally no legal jurisdiction over whether or not an idea was hard to come up with. It only has legal jurisdiction over whether the idea was legally obvious, a concept that is briefly described in MPEP 2143-2144.
I agree that your suggestion (and other like it) could benefit the US patent system, but you're addressing an issue that is completely beyond the USPTO's legal authority.
Explanation
Feh. All you've got to back that up is a bunch of analogies and a complete lack of hard evidence. You sure don't see anybody else out there doing any better than us, do you?
If I mod something funny as Insightful or Informative, it is because I love irony. I couldn't give a rat's ass about karma. I will post this with the karma bonus for no reason whatsoever.
Ok, and now let's imagine paying for 1 display and an API function that does a blur effect on areas that are not near the mouse. Your method requires a $1800 display. My method requires an API function and existing graphics hardware.
I think we won't see the real usefluness of this until it's had time for creative people to tinker with working examples of it, which is the case for most technology, really.
Ok, fair enough. This is just like the way the world changed when someone put TWO CD-ROM drives in ONE computer, except you had two independent, functional, useful CD-ROM drives. This looks like an $1800 way to have almost 1 useful display.
Wait, so a camera doesn't steal my soul? No seriously, I'd love to hear your explanation of how "the true dimensiality of the monitor" actually works. Here's what I suggest:
Take two transparencies, such as for an overhead projector.
Fill both of the transparencies with a bunch of text.
Put one transparancy on top of the other. Vary the distance between the two from 0-10 cm.
Eat some paint chips and explain how this is an improvement over looking at the transparencies one at a time.
QED. Cameras DO STEAL YOUR SOUL. Nice try, smarty, but I think it is YOU who shows a lack of understanding about photography.
The practical applications that Puredepth advertises for its MLD displays are vast and far-reaching. In any application that would benefit from greater information density (such as backgrounds with changing overlays, work areas with tool palettes, etc.), the MLD adds true depth to what would usually be a simulated effect. The effect is truly amazing, especially when compared with a standard 2D display.
As you can see, this device is a GREAT benefit to the vast and far-reaching applications that would benefit from it. We could name them, but we'll settle for describing them abstractly. Suppose you have an application where you need to stack crap on top of other crap so that you can't read any of it. Well, this device is exactly what you need!
Seriously, take a look at the screenshot of this thing running:
Stacking crap so you can't read it
In that pic, you can read everything, but it is clear that if you use your computer for things like text, this would be a nearly unusable monitor.
I love the article's conclusion:
Also, the technology, once refined, could be applied to displays with many layers, allowing for even more complex three-dimensional diagrams, such as skyscraper floor-plans, or "data clouds" with more than merely two levels within the depth hierarchy.[Poster's note: HOLY CRAP A 3D DISPLAY? THAT WOULD CHANGE THE WORLD IF it wasn't 25 years old.] Yet another possibility would be to juxtapose two or more different display formats in the same manner. Using a combination of standard LCD displays with super-bright OLED displays might lead to some interesting effects, making the distinguishing factors between layers consist of more factors than merely depth.
As innovators, I tip my hat to Puredepth, and I truly hope to see more products from them in the future.
You should optimize the time of your optimization so that you optimize the effects of that optimization. Optimizing at an inopportune opportunity will result in an unoptimized optimization. Just remember to use your optimization optimizer to find the best opportunity to optimize!
It's trivial, really. Hierarchial optimization is like SO basic. Don't forget to optimize your optimization optimizer! There's nothing more embarrassing than missing the optimum opportunity to optimize your code because your optimization optimizer took too long to execute!
With that backdrop, I think it's hardly surprising that the right would work to protect blogging and the internet. We've seen it at work already with the James Guckert incident, and I believe the Swift Boat Veterans were significantly organized through the internet.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican party firmly believes it can simply defeat their opposition in this arena as they have in the past with the mass mailings, door to door, and talk radio. In any event, I'd believe it's voodoo zombie mind control that's behind this before I'd believe it's "civic duty". The only guy who strikes me as being infected with that malaise is John McCain.
By the way, what does being a former Democrat have to do with a civic duty? You can kill someone with kindness or a bullet. Either way, he's dead.
(My source for all the Republican organization stuff is The Daily Show - so sue me. Offtopic, but I'm very interested in one of the several recent books about the Republican PR machine - anybody have a particular suggestion?)
Are we looking for prior art that does exactly what is claimed or are we looking for its individual components and show why it does not take any hard thought to combine them to what is claimed?
Well, you have really grasped the crux of what it takes to legally prove obviousness. To prove obviousness, you MUST have references that show the parts that can be combined to completely show exactly what is claimed. You MUST have documented "motivation" for combining them - Reference B gives you a documented reason in the text for using it. There are additional requirements and some wrangling that can be done, but for at least 90% of the time, what I've said is completely necessary (though not necessarily sufficient.)
Both from the text you refered me to earlier, and from what you say here, I get the feeling that prior art and obviousness can only be proven at the same time, in which case I wonder, why are new (as in not pre-existing) and non-obviousness seperate requirements if you can basicly only disprove the later if you can disprove the first?
Again, I think you see that "obviousness" is not NEARLY as powerful as the public, in general, believes. The concept of obvious rejections exists almost strictly to reject situations where the inventor can say, "Well, technically, it's never been done before," because what was painted red (for no good reason) was painted blue (for no good reason). It has nothing to do with "how hard it was to come up with the idea", as so many people (and the dictionary) would have you believe.
It is also the necessary measuring stick for patentability when someone improves something. There are a million ways to improve a microchip, but in the end, it's still "a microchip" - the improved one is not a new creation. The concept of "obviousness" allows for invention regarding something that already exists. Again, it has nothing to do with "how hard it was to come up with the idea".
The only link between "how hard it was to come up with" and the legal definition of obviousness is in cases where it WAS easy to come up with because Book A shows half the invention and Book B shows the other half, including reasons why you would want to do what Book B is showing. If you can't show that evidence, it doesn't matter how hard it was to come up with the idea. It might be literally obvious, but it's not legally obvious.
Just for argument's sake, what are you going to say if Microsoft loses the suit, exhausts the appeals process, and pays the damages saying, "Yeah, you caught us fair and square. Win some, lose some."
It's only reasonable to expect Microsoft to fight an infringement suit tooth and nail. I'm afraid I don't see how this directly implies that they're going to push for patent reform. Even if I buy that bit of speculation, the greater gap is that Microsoft would lobby for a positive and fair patent reform.
Anyway, I'm just tossing in my two cents, but I don't see how this rationalization can reasonably support patent suits against Microsoft but denounce software patents in general.
The answer to that question is the public disclosure of the technology and the implicit offer of a temporary monopoly to anyone who can improve that technology in a non-obvious way.
Regardless of whether or not you buy into it or like the answer, it is what it is.
I would propose mandatory licensing of ALL intellectual property under standard terms. No patent holder would then be able to withhold permission to incorporate patented technologies; nor could they demand outrageous payments for their patent. They could not keep technologies off the market solely to keep from cannibalizing their existing sales.
This has been done in times of war when the Federal government deemed that the technology was relevant to the defense of the nation. I'm personally not opposed to a system along these lines, although I would suggest something more like the arbitration that the government does to settle labor disputes. If a potential licensee and a patent holder couldn't come to a reasonable agreement, then the potential licensee could request Federal arbitration, plead the case for a reasonable agreement, and if ultimately necessary, receive a deal through the Federal government. You'd obviously have to tinker with the rules for competitors forcing deals out of each other and it would cost a ton of money to establish the fair market value of technology (before it hits market) but I think it could all be ironed out.
I wouldn't touch the copyright issue. I know quite a lot about the patent system but I'm not an expert in copyright law. And yeah, the devil IS in the details.
A document metafor can be implemented using a text only interface, it in no way requires a gui. It does require a full screen interface, but even on Unix those existed way before 1980.
Yeah, I know. The point is that to show something as obvious and have any chance of succeeding, you really need to say, "This guy does A, this guy does B and this is why it's cool. Combine A with B and you have exactly what is being claimed."
I know there is a lot of word processing software that goes way back. That's not the point - we're not trying to combine word processing with a computer. We're trying to find something along the lines of a WYSIWYG interface, because then it would be easier to show that it is obvious to implement a paper form (with a mandatory information mark) on a computer screen. (And let me point out that I didn't choose to go this direction. Were I to build an argument that this is obvious, I would have used an existing computer interface, complete with mandatory user-input at certain stages, and brought in something like curses, ncurses, or something teaching and showing the advantages of a GUI.)
I'm really glad to see someone who is honestly interested in finding out about this stuff. I understand the complaint that patents in software are, at times, self-defeating. I can't ignore the numbers, though. The patent office issues something like 1250-1500 patents per week, probably something like 35% of which are computer related. Let's be generous and say that we hear about 1 crazy patent per week. So they're not perfect, but I wouldn't paint as dismal a picture as a lot of people do.
That's pretty much how it is today as well.
You are what is known as a pseudo-intellectual. You have taken a seemingly unusual stance on an issue (education today is just like slave education) and combine it with a patronizing, condescending attitude that implies that you are more informed than your audience.
The fact is that your clever opinion, that education today is just like slave education, is retarded. It is so appallingly devoid of merit that I won't justify it by responding to its substance. The reasons why your opinion is brain-puke are undeniably apparent to someone who has any reasonable semblance of perspective. If you disagree with my assessment, we both know why.
You have not earned a response from me regarding the substance of your opinion because it fails to meet the rather low standards for discussion among grown-ups. Perhaps you're more familiar referring to them as "big people". Either way, I've phrased my reply in a tone that you have earned. (Doesn't it suck to be judged by your merit rather than how special you think you are?) Your opinion is the type of dull self-gratification enjoyed by freshman college students and people with a deep need to feel special. I cannot help you in your quest - I couldn't care less for how special you are, and that God has granted you an avenue by which you might share your thoughts is obnoxious. I can only point out that objectively, your opinion is retarded.
You got that F for free. Please, please reply. I can't wait to hear what new insight (that every other pseudo-intellectual has already regurgitated countless times) you can share with me next.
*SMACK SMACK... SMACK*
This is SLASHDOT for Christ's sake! What in Hell's name were you babbling about?
Don't thank me. I just want everyone to know that I would expect a friend, a true friend, to do the same for me.
Yeah!
Just like the days of slavery! But with free public education! And government scholarships for college! And federal grants for college! And a far more racially sensitive society! And pop culture! And many more churches! And many more gangs! Damnit man, you're ON to something here!
Seriously, what do you do in real life? Going out on a limb here and guessing college student first, second guess would be a job without heavy lifting or serious decision making responsibility. There's nothing wrong with either of those (or whatever you it is you do if my guesses are wrong) but uh, I'm not terribly inclined to take macro economic anti-capitalist slave-chain-rattling conspiracy ranting from someone who's not qualified, ya know? To convince me of your message, you gotta show me that you've got solid cred on the Pinko Liberal Arts streets. Uh, yo.
I don't recall asking...
I've seen some shows at friend's houses.
So you're saying you've got a friend? I can't help but notice your use of the singular possessive...
It's crap, tripe, purile and pointless.
HOLY COW TV IS CRAP?! Someone get this guy on Dateline! Jesus man, thanks for TELLING me!
In place of a TV, I have a library of over 2000 books.
You either had a gigantic TV or you buy some tiny ass books.
History, sciences, arts (H.R. Giger rules!), fiction, biographies, the list goes on.
I've heard of the Dewey Decimal system too. Quit being a showoff.
I've taken up writing (short stories written already, novel due soon) playing the guitar, building models, doing SCCA Solo II, and find the time not wasted by watching the boob tube to be so much more.....valuable, productive, enjoyable, you name it.
Ok, thanks for the invitation. Pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, and a plea for attention.
There was a video link on ebaumsworld recently which was a compliation of the crap that's currently on TV. I was appalled and it only reinforced my view that killing my TV in 1989 was a good thing.
This one time, in 1987, I saw a magazine catch on fire. That's all the proof I know that owning magazines will burn your house down.
I think you and I should get together sometime and put together model airplanes or something.
(I guess this is a flame or whatever but only if you have to take yourself so seriously that you can't laugh at yourself. Hm, gloating that you threw away your TV and bought 2000 books... Taking yourself too seriously to laugh at yourself... Screw it, I'll just take a hit on this one.)
This sentence does not parse.
First, let's put that dependent clause where it belongs.
I personally feel, with no intention to troll, that this is what happens when you let an American write English humour.
Second, there is no coherent relationship between "I personally feel" and "with no intention to troll". What does "without intention to troll" actually mean? Perhaps you meant "without intention of trolling" or "without intending to troll"? I'll choose the latter. That resolved, what does it mean to feel, personally or otherwise, without intending to troll? Perhaps you meant, "I opine, without intending to troll". Now it is clear that you are publicly offering your opinion without intending to troll rather than thinking to yourself without intending to troll.
I opine, without intending to troll, that this is what happens when you let an American write English humour.
Brilliant!
I opine that this is what happens when you let an Englishman write English.
Kindest regards, an American.
I work for the Department of Commerce and all of our computers were bought through yet-another supplier. I haven't looked the company up, but they appear to be your standard PC shop assembled machines, although they obviously had the capacity to provide my sub-organization of the DoC with 10,000ish machines.
If that's how you explain the remainder of your post, I'm inclined to agree.
Well, for a long time, a computer's user interface was wires and blinking lights. For awhile, it was push button. For awhile, it was punch cards. The command line interface still persists to this day and it doesn't come close to any real world metaphor that I'm aware of. I am a linux geek, but I wouldn't have a clue where to start looking for a honest-to-God document metaphor before 1990 or 1985. I guess I'd try to figure out what software used to run on X and what it looked like, or figure out how old the Amiga was. I grew up with a Commodore VIC-20 and it definitely did not have anything like a document metaphor in any of the of the software I saw.
In 1990 this concept had been around for at the very least some 20 years..
Yeah maybe, but a patent examiner in the US usually has about 10 hours to find all the prior art to make his case. Like I said earlier, the IBM highlighting patent was probably examined by someone whose expertise was graphics hardware, which would reasonably limit his familiarity with all the different types of user interfaces that were used over the years. Even if he was familiar with a lot of them, monochrome, hercules, and other low color displays were pretty much what you were dealing with. (I wonder when EGA and CGA were introduced, but I don't wonder enough to look it up.)
Combining those to allows you to switch something on and off as per the claim by MS.
Eh, we have a long discussion here. Which MS patent were we talking about?
It again is a logical consequence of 2 known things..
How computers work seems to fail explaining this, but both are inherent to binary logic.
You are right, but it takes more than the mere possibility that two facts could be combined to make something obvious. Here's the most specific link I can provide.
MPEP 2143
That and the next three sections explain the three basic components necessary to defeat a patent claim as obvious. As soon as you stray from what the references teach and into "the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art" you're pretty much bluffing (because the attorney can find an expert who will swear in an affidavit that he wouldn't know how to do it, and unless you (the patent examiner) likes working free overtime at the office, there really isn't anything you can do about that argument (this is one of the situations where you pretty much have to issue the patent and let it get straightened out in court - you're simply not paid to deal with that situation.)) The attorney's goal is get a patent at whatever the cost - the inventor rarely has any idea how screwed up the patent really is. If the attorney can get an expert to swear that he doesn't know left from right and thereby get a patent, believe me, it'll happen.
In your example, you have combined two facts that indeed produced the desired result, however neither of these facts even suggests a reason for combining them. The attorney would attack this as "impermissible hindsight" - you combined them simply because the inventor combined them and for no other reason. This part is discussed in MPEP 2143.01. (Bear in mind that I don't know what MS claim you're referring to. It would be permissible for an examiner to combine the two facts you cited without a reference, but only because, if challenged, we both know you could find an example of somebody doing exactly what you described. I am presuming that the claim involved an actual application of the result, and XORing a bit suggests exactly no applications, except maybe an oscillator.)
Thanks for thanking for the explanation. As corny as it sounds, it really fills me with good feelings when Slashdot readers are genuinely interested in knowing more about the patent system we all love to hate. ;)
Am I misreading some of this information or is there another, more relevant explanation?
No, it is not. Allowing a person to work any type of job is clearly distinct from slavery. Providing someone with a job which cannot possibly support him is crappy, but even that is not slavery.
Forcing someone to work a job that pays enough for two people is closer to slavery than allowing a person to work a job that doesn't support him.
Do you have an alternate solution to raising the minimum wage?
No, but clearly the minimum wage should be raised in response to, not in anticipation of, a higher cost of living, as you have said. A higher standard of living, however, does not approach placing a person into slavery.