Yeah, no kidding. Where I work, I started out with two weeks seven years ago, and have just worked myself up to three weeks. There are companies with more generous vacation policies, sure... but not that much better. Not fifty days better. I don't know where the GP lives, but I doubt it's in the U.S.
I'd like to know just what percentage of customers actually returned those particular models, compared to cameras recalled for other, less-revealing defects.
Did the other company develop their product independently? If so, then why should they not be able to distribute it as well
Yes, they did develop it independently but that's utterly irrelevant. The point of having a patent is to prevent someone from distributing technology which they do not have the legal right to distribute, because someone else has already patented it and told them they couldn't. Hence the term "limited monopoly". In this case, the court agreed that the infringement was blatant and obvious (although not necessarily intentional, just incidental) and that they couldn't sell their product in the U.S. without the patent-holder's permission.
Some years ago I received a patent on an industrial data acquisition system. I spent about two weeks on my part of the patent submission, including (gagh!) flow charts and a very clear, concise description of the software, and the subsystems it controlled. It was then submitted in a batch with several related patent applications from the company for whom I was consulting at the time.
Their patent attorney actually called me long distance just to say how pleased he was with the clarity of the write-up... he said that most of the documentation he received was written by functional illiterates on the back of napkins and tablecloths. What impressed me was that when he finished legalizing my text, it was at least as clear as what I originally submitted, and because of the language he added was even more robust from a legal perspective. The patent was granted in very short order (it was a very specialized piece of technology anyway) and the software was a key component of the patent but it was not a "software patent."
It held up in court as well: a British outfit tried to ship infringing equipment into the United States, but a court order literally stopped them on the docks (these systems weighed several tons) until they re-engineered their technology. It was a case where the patent system worked as it is supposed to work: a limited monopoly on a novel invention was granted, a competitor infringed on the patent, and the courts stopped the infringement. The vendor in question didn't even argue, as I understand it: just took the stuff back and re-designed certain parts of it. Sure, that cost them some money... but we invented the stuff first and patented it.
I guess my point is that if I were a patent examiner I would look askance at any patent that has the appearance of being deliberately obfuscated, or isn't extremely specific. That, in fact, should be a good reason to reject any first attempt at an application. "Nice try, dude... now go back, strip out the crap and submit it again. Oh, and tighten things up a little this time." Let's face it: examiners have only so much time to spend on each submission, and because of the number of overbroad and outright fraudulent submissions are even more limited. Their first step should be to simply spit back any paperwork that isn't clearly and logically presented, regardless of the subject matter. Maybe if they start getting more critical of needless complexity in patent applications, really stupid patents will become more, well... obvious.
new software companies may find it advantageous to figure out open source models for software that they would otherwise have released under a proprietary license.
Other way around, I'd say. If the potentially-patented aspect to your software is something obvious (like using a mouse click to buy something) then yes, you might be right since it would be obvious if you were infringing even if your source were closed. However, if your software uses some patented algorithm (yes, I know, that's a hideous turn of phrase) then odds are you'd never risk releasing the source, so you could probably infringe forever and nobody would ever know.
That is really the greatest threat to open source software from software patents: the fact that it is substantially easier to determine if an open source package is infringing. In a litigious environment, it's easy to say, "why take the risk?"
So far as DOJ scrutiny is concerned, does anyone know if the DOJ has ever charged a large corporation with an antitrust violation for using a patent portfolio to suppress competition, given that that is the intended function of patents?
Given that some societies have used non-Latin characters for thousands of years, is this a bit late in coming?
I would put it thus: "Given that the Internet has been around for only a tiny fraction of those thousands of years, this is actually happening dangerously fast."
{sigh} Just another example of politics overriding engineering reality.
I noticed that at Bennigan's some years ago, and most other restaurants that insist on embarrassing their customers by having their staff stand around singing some stupid song at the top of their lungs while holding a candle-bearing cupcake in their hands have come up with their own songs. Although, come to think of it I was at a major restaurant on my last birthday, and they sang the regular Happy Birthday melody and lyrics. I suppose I should have reported them to the copyright police, but I enjoyed the cupcake.
This is one of the only times that I'm proud to be an American.
Well, I'm an American too, and I'm proud of what my country once was. I'm less proud of what it has become. All I can say is... enjoy it while it lasts.
Yes, but there have been many others that were struck down by the Courts as unConstitutional and/or overbroad... the Child Online Protection Act, for one.
Not that I wouldn't mind a little RICO being applied to the RIAA.
Well, they probably wouldn't like it in the U.S. much then. We've been seeing a lot of such laws and ideas lately. Besides, I gather it's hard to get a good vegemite sandwich here.
Well, honestly book publishers aren't all that much better, and are just as hooked on their "rights" as any other media company. But yeah, in principle I tend to agree with you. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The very ability of the big multinationals to influence, hell, to set public policy in different countries according to their own agendas is what is truly unnerving.
It wouldn't be so bad if all it took to pove to my bank that I'm me was a number or word, as long as that number or word is secret, and only used for that purpose, so that it has a decent chance of staying secret.
And, more importantly, could be changed if it ever became compromised. If you didn't have the ability to change that "secret number", it would be no better than a biometric authentication system that depends upon some supposedly unique aspect of your body.
Social Security numbers wouldn't be so bad if you could change them every couple of months. The fact there is a permanently assigned number that can be easily accessed by anyone and aid in authenticating someone is what's so dangerous.
More specifically, there needs to be a lottery among incredibly beautiful women with exceptional breasts. Basically, if you win the lottery you don't have to get pregnant by a highly-intelligent but socially inept nerd. If you lose (and let's face it, very very few people ever win a lottery) well... better check out these pictures of all the nerds in your area. Pick one.
Slashdot Mirror
porn and spam go hand in hand.
I think there's a paper towel or two involved as well.
Yeah, no kidding. Where I work, I started out with two weeks seven years ago, and have just worked myself up to three weeks. There are companies with more generous vacation policies, sure ... but not that much better. Not fifty days better. I don't know where the GP lives, but I doubt it's in the U.S.
It's deliberate, calculated, evil terminology designed to mislead the computer using masses into giving up their rights.
... not that the current Administration is any better.
And what organization is better suited to the task than Microsoft
I'd like to know just what percentage of customers actually returned those particular models, compared to cameras recalled for other, less-revealing defects.
There is no such thing as "Trusted Computing". There are only degrees of untrusted computing.
Did the other company develop their product independently? If so, then why should they not be able to distribute it as well
Yes, they did develop it independently but that's utterly irrelevant. The point of having a patent is to prevent someone from distributing technology which they do not have the legal right to distribute, because someone else has already patented it and told them they couldn't. Hence the term "limited monopoly". In this case, the court agreed that the infringement was blatant and obvious (although not necessarily intentional, just incidental) and that they couldn't sell their product in the U.S. without the patent-holder's permission.
AI is making computers behave like they do in movies.
I read that somewhere.
Some years ago I received a patent on an industrial data acquisition system. I spent about two weeks on my part of the patent submission, including (gagh!) flow charts and a very clear, concise description of the software, and the subsystems it controlled. It was then submitted in a batch with several related patent applications from the company for whom I was consulting at the time.
... he said that most of the documentation he received was written by functional illiterates on the back of napkins and tablecloths. What impressed me was that when he finished legalizing my text, it was at least as clear as what I originally submitted, and because of the language he added was even more robust from a legal perspective. The patent was granted in very short order (it was a very specialized piece of technology anyway) and the software was a key component of the patent but it was not a "software patent."
... but we invented the stuff first and patented it.
... now go back, strip out the crap and submit it again. Oh, and tighten things up a little this time." Let's face it: examiners have only so much time to spend on each submission, and because of the number of overbroad and outright fraudulent submissions are even more limited. Their first step should be to simply spit back any paperwork that isn't clearly and logically presented, regardless of the subject matter. Maybe if they start getting more critical of needless complexity in patent applications, really stupid patents will become more, well ... obvious.
Their patent attorney actually called me long distance just to say how pleased he was with the clarity of the write-up
It held up in court as well: a British outfit tried to ship infringing equipment into the United States, but a court order literally stopped them on the docks (these systems weighed several tons) until they re-engineered their technology. It was a case where the patent system worked as it is supposed to work: a limited monopoly on a novel invention was granted, a competitor infringed on the patent, and the courts stopped the infringement. The vendor in question didn't even argue, as I understand it: just took the stuff back and re-designed certain parts of it. Sure, that cost them some money
I guess my point is that if I were a patent examiner I would look askance at any patent that has the appearance of being deliberately obfuscated, or isn't extremely specific. That, in fact, should be a good reason to reject any first attempt at an application. "Nice try, dude
It's, well ... ah, don't get me started on this subject. Forget it.
new software companies may find it advantageous to figure out open source models for software that they would otherwise have released under a proprietary license.
Other way around, I'd say. If the potentially-patented aspect to your software is something obvious (like using a mouse click to buy something) then yes, you might be right since it would be obvious if you were infringing even if your source were closed. However, if your software uses some patented algorithm (yes, I know, that's a hideous turn of phrase) then odds are you'd never risk releasing the source, so you could probably infringe forever and nobody would ever know.
That is really the greatest threat to open source software from software patents: the fact that it is substantially easier to determine if an open source package is infringing. In a litigious environment, it's easy to say, "why take the risk?"
So far as DOJ scrutiny is concerned, does anyone know if the DOJ has ever charged a large corporation with an antitrust violation for using a patent portfolio to suppress competition, given that that is the intended function of patents?
Given that some societies have used non-Latin characters for thousands of years, is this a bit late in coming?
I would put it thus: "Given that the Internet has been around for only a tiny fraction of those thousands of years, this is actually happening dangerously fast."
{sigh} Just another example of politics overriding engineering reality.
And as applications such as mobile Skype take hold, data and voice use will become indistinguishable.
Not if the Baby Bells and the likes of SBC/AT&T have anything to say about it.
Well, they'll probably just do a CSI-style "reverse algorithmic" that'll just clean it right up.
Actually, I think I'd rather like to see with the adult entertainment industry would do with this one.
I noticed that at Bennigan's some years ago, and most other restaurants that insist on embarrassing their customers by having their staff stand around singing some stupid song at the top of their lungs while holding a candle-bearing cupcake in their hands have come up with their own songs. Although, come to think of it I was at a major restaurant on my last birthday, and they sang the regular Happy Birthday melody and lyrics. I suppose I should have reported them to the copyright police, but I enjoyed the cupcake.
Because it wasn't on the five o'clock news, I guess.
This is one of the only times that I'm proud to be an American.
... enjoy it while it lasts.
Well, I'm an American too, and I'm proud of what my country once was. I'm less proud of what it has become. All I can say is
Yes, but there have been many others that were struck down by the Courts as unConstitutional and/or overbroad ... the Child Online Protection Act, for one.
Not that I wouldn't mind a little RICO being applied to the RIAA.
Well, they probably wouldn't like it in the U.S. much then. We've been seeing a lot of such laws and ideas lately. Besides, I gather it's hard to get a good vegemite sandwich here.
Well, honestly book publishers aren't all that much better, and are just as hooked on their "rights" as any other media company. But yeah, in principle I tend to agree with you. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The very ability of the big multinationals to influence, hell, to set public policy in different countries according to their own agendas is what is truly unnerving.
That's a good question. This link has some interesting info: Happy Birthday
US IT Workforce Unimpressed With Tech Czar.
It wouldn't be so bad if all it took to pove to my bank that I'm me was a number or word, as long as that number or word is secret, and only used for that purpose, so that it has a decent chance of staying secret.
And, more importantly, could be changed if it ever became compromised. If you didn't have the ability to change that "secret number", it would be no better than a biometric authentication system that depends upon some supposedly unique aspect of your body.
Social Security numbers wouldn't be so bad if you could change them every couple of months. The fact there is a permanently assigned number that can be easily accessed by anyone and aid in authenticating someone is what's so dangerous.
More specifically, there needs to be a lottery among incredibly beautiful women with exceptional breasts. Basically, if you win the lottery you don't have to get pregnant by a highly-intelligent but socially inept nerd. If you lose (and let's face it, very very few people ever win a lottery) well ... better check out these pictures of all the nerds in your area. Pick one.
Counterclaims are an occupational hazard, although certainly enough of those might alter their behavior.
What they fear is obsolescence. Well, that and jail time. I think some of each is in store for these guys.