A technological revolution like the web opens the door to hundreds of new possibilities. Different people will come up with the same ideas within a short space of time. It should not benefit someone to have thought of something slightly before anyone else, and then be able to charge anyone else who comes up with the same idea at a later date.
Yeah, but that is the idea behind the patent system, and that's what has rewarded inventors for approximately 225 years during which the US rose from a colony to what is arguably world economic dominance. Of course, it's not entirely due to the patent system, but the US patent system is apparently so fundamentally flawed that it has contributed to our position of global leadership. It isn't a very convincing argument.
I think the greatest conflict lies in the fact that the rate of development of new ideas with the internet, software, computers, etc. is so radically different than it was for steel machining, manufacturing, or non-IC electronics. I think your comment also implies this, to some extent. The inventors are more numerous and more prolific and they want their patents in due process - meanwhile the legislation and courts are doing a poor job of clearly defining what subjects are patentable and how to unerringly classify a particular application as a patentable subject. (Lundgren, anybody? I didn't see anything on Slashdot about this case and it was easily the most incredible sign of our times - far more jaw-dropping than all of Amazon's patents)
And as a result of more prolific inventors, resulting from the internet, new technologies, instant global communication and collaboration, etc., and you have a huge increase in both the volume and scope of applications going to the patent office. It's hard enough to simply classify those new applications, let alone search for, find, analyze, and apply the prior art.
And just to make it fun, you have sites like Slashdot foam at the mouth every couple of weeks. I've even read TFA and haven't seen one mention of what Amazon's new patent numbers actually are. I'd estimate that 1 in 100 Slashdotters know more than 3 true facts about how the patent system actually works, but that doesn't slow down the editorializing. If you go back through my post history, you'll find dozens of attempts to cite actual information, which is alternatively met with -1 Flamebait or +5 Informative. There's no consistent desire for enlightenment in the software community - the vast, vast majority of people are more interested in blind hate based on misunderstanding and ignorance.
And it's really, really easy to marginalize those people.
Anyway, I'm way off the topic of your post, but that's how it goes. My point is that people who work in IP and patents pretty unanimously see problems with the patent system as applied to computer and software technology, but those problems are almost always completely different than the ranting from groups like Slashdot. Slashdotters easily conclude that it is because patent examiners are retarded - and never think of considering how little they actually know about the patent system. As a result, the problems that Slashdotters have with the patent system will very likely never be addressed because the larger flaw is in the origin of those perceived problems.
This "invention" is so frickin' obvious that one of those brain-dead zombies from "Night of the Living Dead" could have invented it.
Great. That has absolutely nothing to do with the legal concept of "obvious" as defined by 35 USC 103, Graham v. Deere, or any other legal precedent defining patentability.
This is crap, it's nothing, it's not an "invention," it doesn't deserve a patent, and Amazon should be fined for filing a ficticious patent application.
A compelling argument, sir. I must point out, however, that you don't appear to have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Ficticious patent application? Did you just make that up? What does that even mean? Nobody is required to submit a prototype of their invention - certainly there are thousands of "ficticious" applications if that's your definition. Where are you getting your legal concept of "invention"? I'm sincerely interested - I've read hundreds of pages of court decisions, the manual of patent examining procedure, picked apart 37 CFR and 35 USC, but I'm interested in where you came up with your definition. It certainly sounds ficticious to me.
Because hey, maybe I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Perhaps there should be a limit on the amount of time that can pass between when an idea goes into use and when the patent application is submitted. That doesn't address the silliness of this patent, but at least it would have eliminated it.
35 USC 102(b) states:
Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
Therefore, there is a 12 month time limit on when the idea goes into public use and when the patent application can be filed. If that 12 month period is proven to have expired, it's called a statutory bar on patentability and it's extremely difficult, in many cases impossible, to achieve any patent protection for the concept.
Contrary to popular thought, some of the best beer out there is American. Arrogant Bastard Ale and Storm King Stout, anybody?
No thanks.
Beats me where these are from, but try St. Peters Porter or Original Flag Porter. (Original Flag may be US? Regardless, it beats any of the numerous US porters I've tried.) Any stout must top the standards of that category - Guiness, Murphy's, etc., and Storm King didn't do it for me. Even Rasuputin Imperial Stout was a more interesting drink. There are about 9 million different competitors in the ale category. It's hard for me, personally, to hand the #1 award to Arrogant Bastard, but it isn't a bad choice.
This case is constantly thrown around as being an example of frivolity since nobody actually bothers to look into the details. People who actually do the research typically view it as a very fair ruling.
Right, right. But see, you happen to know what you're talking about, and you're talking about it on Slashdot. Now we cue proverbs about casting pearls before swine, etc., and pen some cynical post about idiots on the internet.
Then, predictably, a few ACs will respond with barely coherent one-liners, someone will get moderated +5 Informative or -1 Flamebait (hint: they're the same thing on Slashdot) and then some community college drop-out will share some dime store philosophy.
Eventually, the entire internet can be replaced by a very short script.
Me? I'm just the cynical oh-so-clever guy who thinks his cynicism makes him witty. So the fuck what?
By the way - thanks for explaining the McDonald's coffee thing. Someone should write a thesis on belligerent ignorance regarding that story. I've read the factual explanation no fewer than 5 times over the years, yet some people insist on the fantasy version. Eventually the urban legend must be replaced by the real version, since the truth is hardly a secret. Right?
Woah, holy crap. I think my cynicism failed me for a second. This ignorance will never die. Seriously, man, why try?
Yes, yes, and one of these to combine the resulting 10 stacks of paper! Brilliant plan!
(Ok, so I'm being a smart ass, but seriously, how would you combine the output from 10 printers efficiently?)
This is also interesting to me because it's not uncommon for me to print 500 pages in a single day, and I share a printer with ~35 similar people. There's nothing worse than waiting 25 minutes for someone else's 500 pages to print.
What the fuck kind of damages are you going to seek
Punitive damages? Idiot.
I can't even imagine how much of my brain I'd have to disengage before I could make a completely absurd argument while calling someone else an idiot.
Punitive damages? Do you even believe yourself? I promised myself I wasn't going to reply, yet again, to the hurricane of retardedness in this thread, but you, sir, deserve a medal. Punitive damages.
If you go to Wikipedia and read their summary of the origin of the concept of "tortious interference", dating back to 1707, you will recognize how retarded your suggestion is. If I disrupt your ink cartridge refilling business, you can seek damages. If I happen to merely refill my own ink cartridges, you're a dipshit for thinking I owe you money, patent or no patent.
Anyway, happy Labor Day. You've made my day. The average level of insight has been dragged down by your three word post, making it that much easier to be a genius around here. Thanks.
It is unlikely that Lexmark will bring a patent infringement suit against an individual end user for refilling his or her printer cartridge, but that does not mean that they are unable to do so.
Lexmark can sue me for killing the CEO's dog, regardless of whether the CEO has a dog or whether I've ever been in the same time zone as the dog. But they aren't going to, because it's absurd, frivilous, and there's no chance of success.
You're perfectly free to infringe a patent for personal use. The instant you engage in business, however, you're going to be in hot water.
Feh, my other reply is an overreaction. A combination for being moderated "flamebait" for stating truth and your reply, which missed my point, being +5 Interesting. I apologize for the overreaction.
However, if there are no damages to win in court, you're not going to be sued. Lexmark can't force you to buy their products or pay for their refilling service. If you manage to refill your own ink cartridges in your home, you are infringing (as I stated and you confirmed), but you're perfectly free to do so.
Actually, patents do prohibit merely making or using the patented item/process regardless of whether it's for profit or not.
I would have been more accurate in saying, "You can infringe any patent you like for personal use." I'm well aware of the statute, and "personal use" is indeed infringing.
However, if it's not profitable, then there are no damages to be won in a courtroom. If I make it for my personal use, all you can argue is that I saved money, but you can't prove that I would have otherwise spent it on the patented product or service.
If you think there is some kind of personal use exemption, please cite the relevant U.S.C. section.
Ok.
35 U.S.C. 271. Infringement of patent (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
Read what I typed.
You can infinge every patent in the world so long as you do it for your own purposes.
What the fuck kind of damages are you going to seek when I infringe your patent for personal use?
On Slashdot, the Fox News of Patents, that is the $64,000 question. To anybody who works in the patent system, the answer is clearly not patent infringement.
Patents are published to provide disclosure to the public. You are perfectly free to perform any patented method or build any patented machine. You are not free, however, to use them to engage in business. You're even free to improve them and patent those improvements.
Sure, but what if it is labelled "spring water"? Then if the manufacturer holds any patents on the product (which may or may not be related to the type of water in it), they can claim that your refilling the bottle with tap water infringes their patent because you violated the box-wrap license.
No.
Slashdot, the Fox News of Patents, has vaguely summarized a short article and omitted details that would significantly diminish the outlandish headline.
You can infinge every patent in the world so long as you do it for your own purposes. However, you cannot do it for business. There's nothing in the article OR the licensing agreement that describes what you can or cannot do with the printer cartridge for personal use. Be creative.
This judgement says that you cannot engage in the business of refilling "one use only" cartridges, which apparently includes selling your used cartridges back to a refilling company. I personally find that bizarre, because you could easily "sell your junk" to a third party, who "sells his filtered junk" to a cartridge refilling company, and enforcing this judgement would be nigh impossible. Regardless, this has nothing to do with how you use or refill your printer cartridges - for personal use.
And they say US schools are bad at teaching geography. What's YOUR excuse? The miles-to-kilometers conversion is too tough? What's your excuse for such a fundamental lack of economics knowledge? Here's my point.
I'm not at all worried about paying $4 per gallon, personally. What I am concerned about is the fact that something like 90% of our economy does business by diesel truck. The US does not have rail infrastructure capacity to replace those trucks. If I can't afford gas, I'll carpool. Hey Mr. $2 per litre, what's your next brilliant bit of genius? Suggest truck drivers start to car pool? And they say US schools suck?
So if this 200% increase in our gasoline prices create a significant dent in our GDP, that will create a significant dent in our federal tax revenue at a crucial point in history where we NEED to invest huge sums into rail and mass transit infrastructure. We have wastelands bigger than France, Germany, or Spain. We're not talking about some quaint little train system for Delaware.
Here's a list of densely populated cities. Notice anything? Very few American cities there. I've never heard of the sub-1m population European cities, but I bet I could name a dozen US cities you've heard of that aren't on that list at all.
Yeah really, what are we whining about? It's just that our entire nation is ill-equipped for mass transportation, our entire economy depends on cheap gasoline, and our gas prices have doubled in the last year. Fuck all, why don't you just burn down your schools? If you're any indication of average, you're clearly not doing you any good.
In North America, people need personal vehicles due to the design of the infastructure, and the placement of essential services. This is particularly true for rural areas, and small cities to a lesser extent.
It's even true in big cities. I live in the DC Metro area, but because of my particular location, using mass transportation to commute to work would take 75-90 minutes one way. Driving my car takes 30 in the morning and 20 in the evening.
I'd love to live closer to work, but have you seen what the housing market is like around here? I'm paying about 45% of my income on rent and electricity. Living any closer will cost more in rent than I'd save by using mass transit, even with gas at $4 per gallon.
So all told, it just doesn't make sense for me to use mass transportation. It would involve at least 90 extra minutes per day (generously low-ball that at $50 per day) to save $100 in parking and $200 in gas per month. I would love to have effective mass transportation around here, inside the beltway with one of the best systems in the nation, but it isn't a reality. People who helpfully suggest that Americans should use more mass transit are completely out of touch with current reality in the US. We basically live in Sibera, except warmer, with a handful of large cities. Our existing mass transportation is effective for probably 5-10% of the population.
So I complain about the price of gas, but not much. I'm just thankful to have a job where I can afford it and a home that's not under 5 feet of water. Yes, we NEED much more mass transportation, but we can't implement a solution to the problem overnight any better than you could efficiently provide a subway to everybody living in Siberia. And this analysis ignores the unfortunate fact that something like 90% of all goods shipped in the US moves by diesel truck. It sucks, but again, we can't fix that by next weekend.
I'm not saying that the rest of the world must have sympathy for us, but just recognize that most of the suggestions we hear are completely insane. Yeah sure, I'll hop on my trusty mass transit from Gigantic Forest, Middle of Nowhere and ride it 45 miles to Nearest Big City, population 10,000. That describes 95% of the USA geographically. For all the flak the US education system takes, it appears that Europeans have trouble with foreign geography as well. We live in Siberia, except warmer and with a handful of big cities. WTF type of suggestion is "use mass transportation, quit whining"?
Well yeah, but I think we agree that it reflects on something. I just see this type of thing happen all the time on Slashdot and I find it pretty frustrating. I was once a pretty avid reader of Slashdot, owing in part to my degrees in CS and mathematics, but whenever I mention it to my colleages (I know work in intellectual property), it's always met with snickers and I'm compelled to make an excuse for it.
If such obvious stuff weren't moderated to +5 so frequently, it might help. I actually refrain from pointing out the obvious on some issues because of this tendancy to end up at +5. Maybe +5 Obvious would be a great new category.
"Science" is NOT the same as "fact" or "truth". It is a METHOD -- a PROCEDURE one follows in an attempt explain some event or phenomenon.
No offense to the original poster - he's entirely correct - but that this was modded +5 Insightful is why Slashdot is irrelevant to anybody but the rabid fans. While the poster is entirely correct, this statement is found in chapter 1 of most middle school science texts. If that's what passes for insightful at Slashdot, then my point is made - Slashdot is irrelevant.
It's also why I spend all of my mod points on "overrated" these days.
Honestly, I'd rather see our species go into space, master nano techonlogy, create new life forms, create robotics, and make our lives BETTER, mor ENJOYABLE, LONGER.
Now I'm embarrassed to admit that I've been trolled. Trolled by Kip Dynamite.
If you ask me, we could live our lives better, more enjoyable, and longer with health care and improved public education. Or, yeah, robots. If you're not trolling, let me suggest that you install a carbon monoxide detector in your home. Better, more enjoyable, and longer lives by developing robots. I can't believe I was trolled by bullshit that lame.
The point is, if all you do is make a buck, eventually you won't have any customers to make a buck from because like the Tabacco industry you kill your sources of income.
Dur, and I'll have a lot of bucks. This is why I hate hippies but I'm glad they exist. People with your level of insight into economics make significantly easier for otherwise unimpressive people to excel.
so whats the point?
To own better things than you can afford. Fuck off. Freshman-level economics is not "insightful", it's "poorly educated". Go save the world. I have some wealth to accumulate. When you're done, if you're well behaved, I'll toss you a nickel.
Saving the world is profitable. In fact its more profitable to save the world than to destroy it because the profits as sustainable over long periods of time.
Right. And nobody is in that business because:
a) nobody can grasp how brilliant the plan is, or
b) it's crap.
If you save the world, you save your competitors. If you raise your profits, you defeat your competition and the world will end.. but not tomorrow.
What is with all the half-cooked idealism on Slashdot recently? No seriously, you go save the world for sustainable profits. I'll make a buck. We'll meet back here in 6 (hours|months|years|decades) and see which one of us is ahead.
Well, yes, I think a strong case can be made that obeying an evil law (and I do think censorship is evil) is itself evil.
Right, right, and Google's corporate motto aside, you continue expecting corporations to save the world from evil and I'll continue expecting them to make money. One of us will eventually come to grips with the reality in which we both live, the other one will have been right all along.
So uh, should we start counting the days until Google saves the Chinese people from their government? How about you do that because I'm not terribly interested..
Yeah, with numbers like this, it's pretty clear I'm wrong - there is a serious boot loader flaw with the x86/IBM clone platform that needs to be fixed.
Who was being petty? I was responding to a guy who was scolding someone for using a boot loader instead of coming up with a new BIOS. I was being reasonable. If you figure out who was being petty, think about letting me know... then think about whether or not I care.
My GOD you are unimaginative. It's so upsettingly obvious for everyone outside the x86 world that the lot of us are just plain laughing when this issue is brought up.
For a weekend project, I was planning on rebuilding the OS on a spare PC I have.
I was just about to install a flexible boot loader. Tell me more about your better BIOS. I'm sure I'll be enjoying it this evening instead of the dumb old boot loader I was about to install.
Oh wait, you weren't solving a problem, you were merely suggesting an entirely new platform. Oh, oh ho ho ha ha, silly me. Yes, honestly, why isn't it that all these stupid people don't develop a completely new architecture to deal with every nuanced problem that arises? Surely, sir, you are a genius.
Inferior steel and poor maintainance (rust) is the reason why fairly new merchant vessels are still routinely disappearing.
This statement simplifies the problem to the point of being incorrect. I don't profess to have nearly the wealth of knowledge as the parent poster, but I have recently read and recommend The Outlaw Sea by William Langewiesche, which examines the modern merchant marine in fascinating detail.
Strength of materials or maintenance procedures has basically nothing to do with the loss of merchant ships in modern times, except for the banal observation that both are involved when a ship sinks. So is water. The cause is closer to deregulation and an unchecked free market in the shipping industry.
I don't think that a NASA-developed plastic space ship is going to experience deregulation or rampant capitalism. It seems pretty likely to me that someone is going to, oh, I don't know, check to see if the material is suitable for use in space before building a space craft from it. Just tossing that out there. By Slashdot standards, I'm probably insightful.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but that is the idea behind the patent system, and that's what has rewarded inventors for approximately 225 years during which the US rose from a colony to what is arguably world economic dominance. Of course, it's not entirely due to the patent system, but the US patent system is apparently so fundamentally flawed that it has contributed to our position of global leadership. It isn't a very convincing argument.
I think the greatest conflict lies in the fact that the rate of development of new ideas with the internet, software, computers, etc. is so radically different than it was for steel machining, manufacturing, or non-IC electronics. I think your comment also implies this, to some extent. The inventors are more numerous and more prolific and they want their patents in due process - meanwhile the legislation and courts are doing a poor job of clearly defining what subjects are patentable and how to unerringly classify a particular application as a patentable subject. (Lundgren, anybody? I didn't see anything on Slashdot about this case and it was easily the most incredible sign of our times - far more jaw-dropping than all of Amazon's patents)
And as a result of more prolific inventors, resulting from the internet, new technologies, instant global communication and collaboration, etc., and you have a huge increase in both the volume and scope of applications going to the patent office. It's hard enough to simply classify those new applications, let alone search for, find, analyze, and apply the prior art.
And just to make it fun, you have sites like Slashdot foam at the mouth every couple of weeks. I've even read TFA and haven't seen one mention of what Amazon's new patent numbers actually are. I'd estimate that 1 in 100 Slashdotters know more than 3 true facts about how the patent system actually works, but that doesn't slow down the editorializing. If you go back through my post history, you'll find dozens of attempts to cite actual information, which is alternatively met with -1 Flamebait or +5 Informative. There's no consistent desire for enlightenment in the software community - the vast, vast majority of people are more interested in blind hate based on misunderstanding and ignorance.
And it's really, really easy to marginalize those people.
Anyway, I'm way off the topic of your post, but that's how it goes. My point is that people who work in IP and patents pretty unanimously see problems with the patent system as applied to computer and software technology, but those problems are almost always completely different than the ranting from groups like Slashdot. Slashdotters easily conclude that it is because patent examiners are retarded - and never think of considering how little they actually know about the patent system. As a result, the problems that Slashdotters have with the patent system will very likely never be addressed because the larger flaw is in the origin of those perceived problems.
Great. That has absolutely nothing to do with the legal concept of "obvious" as defined by 35 USC 103, Graham v. Deere, or any other legal precedent defining patentability.
This is crap, it's nothing, it's not an "invention," it doesn't deserve a patent, and Amazon should be fined for filing a ficticious patent application.
A compelling argument, sir. I must point out, however, that you don't appear to have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Ficticious patent application? Did you just make that up? What does that even mean? Nobody is required to submit a prototype of their invention - certainly there are thousands of "ficticious" applications if that's your definition. Where are you getting your legal concept of "invention"? I'm sincerely interested - I've read hundreds of pages of court decisions, the manual of patent examining procedure, picked apart 37 CFR and 35 USC, but I'm interested in where you came up with your definition. It certainly sounds ficticious to me.
Because hey, maybe I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
35 USC 102(b) states:
Therefore, there is a 12 month time limit on when the idea goes into public use and when the patent application can be filed. If that 12 month period is proven to have expired, it's called a statutory bar on patentability and it's extremely difficult, in many cases impossible, to achieve any patent protection for the concept.
No thanks.
Beats me where these are from, but try St. Peters Porter or Original Flag Porter. (Original Flag may be US? Regardless, it beats any of the numerous US porters I've tried.) Any stout must top the standards of that category - Guiness, Murphy's, etc., and Storm King didn't do it for me. Even Rasuputin Imperial Stout was a more interesting drink. There are about 9 million different competitors in the ale category. It's hard for me, personally, to hand the #1 award to Arrogant Bastard, but it isn't a bad choice.
Right, right. But see, you happen to know what you're talking about, and you're talking about it on Slashdot. Now we cue proverbs about casting pearls before swine, etc., and pen some cynical post about idiots on the internet.
Then, predictably, a few ACs will respond with barely coherent one-liners, someone will get moderated +5 Informative or -1 Flamebait (hint: they're the same thing on Slashdot) and then some community college drop-out will share some dime store philosophy.
Eventually, the entire internet can be replaced by a very short script.
Me? I'm just the cynical oh-so-clever guy who thinks his cynicism makes him witty. So the fuck what?
By the way - thanks for explaining the McDonald's coffee thing. Someone should write a thesis on belligerent ignorance regarding that story. I've read the factual explanation no fewer than 5 times over the years, yet some people insist on the fantasy version. Eventually the urban legend must be replaced by the real version, since the truth is hardly a secret. Right?
Woah, holy crap. I think my cynicism failed me for a second. This ignorance will never die. Seriously, man, why try?
(Ok, so I'm being a smart ass, but seriously, how would you combine the output from 10 printers efficiently?)
This is also interesting to me because it's not uncommon for me to print 500 pages in a single day, and I share a printer with ~35 similar people. There's nothing worse than waiting 25 minutes for someone else's 500 pages to print.
Punitive damages? Idiot.
I can't even imagine how much of my brain I'd have to disengage before I could make a completely absurd argument while calling someone else an idiot.
Punitive damages? Do you even believe yourself? I promised myself I wasn't going to reply, yet again, to the hurricane of retardedness in this thread, but you, sir, deserve a medal. Punitive damages.
If you go to Wikipedia and read their summary of the origin of the concept of "tortious interference", dating back to 1707, you will recognize how retarded your suggestion is. If I disrupt your ink cartridge refilling business, you can seek damages. If I happen to merely refill my own ink cartridges, you're a dipshit for thinking I owe you money, patent or no patent.
Anyway, happy Labor Day. You've made my day. The average level of insight has been dragged down by your three word post, making it that much easier to be a genius around here. Thanks.
Lexmark can sue me for killing the CEO's dog, regardless of whether the CEO has a dog or whether I've ever been in the same time zone as the dog. But they aren't going to, because it's absurd, frivilous, and there's no chance of success.
You're perfectly free to infringe a patent for personal use. The instant you engage in business, however, you're going to be in hot water.
However, if there are no damages to win in court, you're not going to be sued. Lexmark can't force you to buy their products or pay for their refilling service. If you manage to refill your own ink cartridges in your home, you are infringing (as I stated and you confirmed), but you're perfectly free to do so.
I would have been more accurate in saying, "You can infringe any patent you like for personal use." I'm well aware of the statute, and "personal use" is indeed infringing.
However, if it's not profitable, then there are no damages to be won in a courtroom. If I make it for my personal use, all you can argue is that I saved money, but you can't prove that I would have otherwise spent it on the patented product or service.
Ok.
35 U.S.C. 271. Infringement of patent (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
Read what I typed.
You can infinge every patent in the world so long as you do it for your own purposes.
What the fuck kind of damages are you going to seek when I infringe your patent for personal use?
SLASHDOT - THE FOX NEWS OF PATENTS
On Slashdot, the Fox News of Patents, that is the $64,000 question. To anybody who works in the patent system, the answer is clearly not patent infringement.
Patents are published to provide disclosure to the public. You are perfectly free to perform any patented method or build any patented machine. You are not free, however, to use them to engage in business. You're even free to improve them and patent those improvements.
No.
Slashdot, the Fox News of Patents, has vaguely summarized a short article and omitted details that would significantly diminish the outlandish headline.
You can infinge every patent in the world so long as you do it for your own purposes. However, you cannot do it for business. There's nothing in the article OR the licensing agreement that describes what you can or cannot do with the printer cartridge for personal use. Be creative.
This judgement says that you cannot engage in the business of refilling "one use only" cartridges, which apparently includes selling your used cartridges back to a refilling company. I personally find that bizarre, because you could easily "sell your junk" to a third party, who "sells his filtered junk" to a cartridge refilling company, and enforcing this judgement would be nigh impossible. Regardless, this has nothing to do with how you use or refill your printer cartridges - for personal use.
And they say US schools are bad at teaching geography. What's YOUR excuse? The miles-to-kilometers conversion is too tough? What's your excuse for such a fundamental lack of economics knowledge? Here's my point.
I'm not at all worried about paying $4 per gallon, personally. What I am concerned about is the fact that something like 90% of our economy does business by diesel truck. The US does not have rail infrastructure capacity to replace those trucks. If I can't afford gas, I'll carpool. Hey Mr. $2 per litre, what's your next brilliant bit of genius? Suggest truck drivers start to car pool? And they say US schools suck?
So if this 200% increase in our gasoline prices create a significant dent in our GDP, that will create a significant dent in our federal tax revenue at a crucial point in history where we NEED to invest huge sums into rail and mass transit infrastructure. We have wastelands bigger than France, Germany, or Spain. We're not talking about some quaint little train system for Delaware.
Here's a list of densely populated cities. Notice anything? Very few American cities there. I've never heard of the sub-1m population European cities, but I bet I could name a dozen US cities you've heard of that aren't on that list at all.
Yeah really, what are we whining about? It's just that our entire nation is ill-equipped for mass transportation, our entire economy depends on cheap gasoline, and our gas prices have doubled in the last year. Fuck all, why don't you just burn down your schools? If you're any indication of average, you're clearly not doing you any good.
It's even true in big cities. I live in the DC Metro area, but because of my particular location, using mass transportation to commute to work would take 75-90 minutes one way. Driving my car takes 30 in the morning and 20 in the evening.
I'd love to live closer to work, but have you seen what the housing market is like around here? I'm paying about 45% of my income on rent and electricity. Living any closer will cost more in rent than I'd save by using mass transit, even with gas at $4 per gallon.
So all told, it just doesn't make sense for me to use mass transportation. It would involve at least 90 extra minutes per day (generously low-ball that at $50 per day) to save $100 in parking and $200 in gas per month. I would love to have effective mass transportation around here, inside the beltway with one of the best systems in the nation, but it isn't a reality. People who helpfully suggest that Americans should use more mass transit are completely out of touch with current reality in the US. We basically live in Sibera, except warmer, with a handful of large cities. Our existing mass transportation is effective for probably 5-10% of the population.
So I complain about the price of gas, but not much. I'm just thankful to have a job where I can afford it and a home that's not under 5 feet of water. Yes, we NEED much more mass transportation, but we can't implement a solution to the problem overnight any better than you could efficiently provide a subway to everybody living in Siberia. And this analysis ignores the unfortunate fact that something like 90% of all goods shipped in the US moves by diesel truck. It sucks, but again, we can't fix that by next weekend.
I'm not saying that the rest of the world must have sympathy for us, but just recognize that most of the suggestions we hear are completely insane. Yeah sure, I'll hop on my trusty mass transit from Gigantic Forest, Middle of Nowhere and ride it 45 miles to Nearest Big City, population 10,000. That describes 95% of the USA geographically. For all the flak the US education system takes, it appears that Europeans have trouble with foreign geography as well. We live in Siberia, except warmer and with a handful of big cities. WTF type of suggestion is "use mass transportation, quit whining"?
Oh here we go with the sweeping generalizations! Why don't you stick to what you know and just speak for yourself for a change, eh?
Wait a sec.. damnit!
If such obvious stuff weren't moderated to +5 so frequently, it might help. I actually refrain from pointing out the obvious on some issues because of this tendancy to end up at +5. Maybe +5 Obvious would be a great new category.
No offense to the original poster - he's entirely correct - but that this was modded +5 Insightful is why Slashdot is irrelevant to anybody but the rabid fans. While the poster is entirely correct, this statement is found in chapter 1 of most middle school science texts. If that's what passes for insightful at Slashdot, then my point is made - Slashdot is irrelevant.
It's also why I spend all of my mod points on "overrated" these days.
Hey, you never know. Maybe it was a sham attempt at getting moderated, maybe it reflected my cynical distaste for Slashdot's moderator system.
Now that the post is +5 Insightful, does it matter either way?
Now I'm embarrassed to admit that I've been trolled. Trolled by Kip Dynamite.
If you ask me, we could live our lives better, more enjoyable, and longer with health care and improved public education. Or, yeah, robots. If you're not trolling, let me suggest that you install a carbon monoxide detector in your home. Better, more enjoyable, and longer lives by developing robots. I can't believe I was trolled by bullshit that lame.
The point is, if all you do is make a buck, eventually you won't have any customers to make a buck from because like the Tabacco industry you kill your sources of income.
Dur, and I'll have a lot of bucks. This is why I hate hippies but I'm glad they exist. People with your level of insight into economics make significantly easier for otherwise unimpressive people to excel.
so whats the point?
To own better things than you can afford. Fuck off. Freshman-level economics is not "insightful", it's "poorly educated". Go save the world. I have some wealth to accumulate. When you're done, if you're well behaved, I'll toss you a nickel.
Right. And nobody is in that business because:
a) nobody can grasp how brilliant the plan is, or
b) it's crap.
If you save the world, you save your competitors. If you raise your profits, you defeat your competition and the world will end.. but not tomorrow.
What is with all the half-cooked idealism on Slashdot recently? No seriously, you go save the world for sustainable profits. I'll make a buck. We'll meet back here in 6 (hours|months|years|decades) and see which one of us is ahead.
Right, right, and Google's corporate motto aside, you continue expecting corporations to save the world from evil and I'll continue expecting them to make money. One of us will eventually come to grips with the reality in which we both live, the other one will have been right all along.
So uh, should we start counting the days until Google saves the Chinese people from their government? How about you do that because I'm not terribly interested..
Clearly x86 BIOS is dying
Who was being petty? I was responding to a guy who was scolding someone for using a boot loader instead of coming up with a new BIOS. I was being reasonable. If you figure out who was being petty, think about letting me know... then think about whether or not I care.
My GOD you are unimaginative. It's so upsettingly obvious for everyone outside the x86 world that the lot of us are just plain laughing when this issue is brought up.
For a weekend project, I was planning on rebuilding the OS on a spare PC I have.
I was just about to install a flexible boot loader. Tell me more about your better BIOS. I'm sure I'll be enjoying it this evening instead of the dumb old boot loader I was about to install.
Oh wait, you weren't solving a problem, you were merely suggesting an entirely new platform. Oh, oh ho ho ha ha, silly me. Yes, honestly, why isn't it that all these stupid people don't develop a completely new architecture to deal with every nuanced problem that arises? Surely, sir, you are a genius.
This statement simplifies the problem to the point of being incorrect. I don't profess to have nearly the wealth of knowledge as the parent poster, but I have recently read and recommend The Outlaw Sea by William Langewiesche, which examines the modern merchant marine in fascinating detail.
Strength of materials or maintenance procedures has basically nothing to do with the loss of merchant ships in modern times, except for the banal observation that both are involved when a ship sinks. So is water. The cause is closer to deregulation and an unchecked free market in the shipping industry.
I don't think that a NASA-developed plastic space ship is going to experience deregulation or rampant capitalism. It seems pretty likely to me that someone is going to, oh, I don't know, check to see if the material is suitable for use in space before building a space craft from it. Just tossing that out there. By Slashdot standards, I'm probably insightful.