I know a lot of people wind up settling with Righthaven, but I fervently wish more people are taking it straight to Righthaven like the EFF and the Democratic Underground and set up an adverse precedent so every single time they bring another stupid case, they get smacked back down.
Then we should take all remaining spectrum and use the free market to reallocate it. Private interests that already own spectrum will be given every opportunity to own that spectrum, but if another party can show that they can do better with it, and pay for it, then there is way, within a free market, to justify giving away resources to a private firm that will not maximize the exploitation of that resource. If Google can use the spectrum to provide broadband that we can stream music over, why should we allow some private to waste the public resource to be yet another radio station playing top 40 music.
You do realize, of course, that what you describe isn't a description of a free market? Indeed, you are describing the antithesis of a free market - you're describing a monopoly being created with respect to a portion of the spectrum.
Peter King has struck me as one of those guys who can rationalize away everything he does. Sure, to some people, it would seem like creating a Public Safety network by hobbling the military's usage of the 420-440 MHz block would seem highly inconsistent, but not so for Peter King. Same thing with his current hearings on the how American Muslims are becoming radicalized. Some people would think that it would be highly hypocritical of him to open public hearings on radicalism in Islam considering that for decades, he was a supporter and backer of the Irish Republican Army, a terrorist organization that killed 3500 people in 3 decades and were involved with Libyan terrorists funded by the Gaddafi regime. But nope, Peter King sees no hypocrisy at work.
The West Wing had a quote from Toby Ziegler that essentially sums up how I feel about this:
Toby Ziegler: "We're flying in a Lockheed Eagle series L1011. It came off the line 20 months ago. It carries a Sim-5 Transponder tracking system. Are you telling me I can still flummox this thing with something I bought at Radio Shack?"
Firefox suffers from its constant desire to meet or beat Chrome and the gajillion UI features Google throws into the browser every other day. It's too bad, really, because it's gone way off-mission. I'll still use it over Chrome, any day (because I don't trust a company that makes its money by tracking my web movements and my web browsing habits to keep its mitts off of my web movements and browsing habits), but I don't recommend Firefox as enthusiastically as I used to back in the day.
I've been using FF4 since one of the earlier betas (I think beta 4?) and so I've seen the new features as it comes in. Is it me or does a lot of the new features, especially the UI features seem completely unnecessary? I've only used app-tabs maybe once and Panorama twice just to see what they do, and after that, I completely disregarded them. I haven't used Sync at all. Is this experience common with other Firefox power users? Or am I just being a bit of a Luddite in not using them?
What you suggested is already part of the US Patent System.
Third parties are allowed to cite prior art to the USPTO for a patent application where the prior art is believed to have a bearing on the patentability of the application. Similarly, for already issued patents, third parties may also request an ex parte reexamination of issued patents on the basis of prior art references that is believed to have a bearing on the validity of the patent.
I'm sure someone's going to start asking whether a First-To-File system affects the prior art doctrine and whether it means big companies can steal ideas from open source projects and patenting them. Let's dispense with some misconceptions.
Misconception 1: This destroys the prior art system. * This isn't true. A prior art will still cause an application to be denied under 35 USC 102. This means that if any sort of prior art is published (i.e. available to the public) that would anticipate or render an application invalid, it would still operate to render the application unpatentable. Remember, the law requires all patents to be "novel" and "nonobvious".
Misconception 2: This would mean big companies can steal ideas from open source projects and file applications on them. * This isn't true either. The open source project would function as prior art against the later application. Even though there is a first to file system, it doesn't mean that the first person to file can steal ideas that were out there and use it as their own.
The first to file system only really works in a very specific context - where you have two inventors who filed an application on almost identical types of inventions within a short period of time. Under the current system, there has to be a very fact-intensive and time consuming process of determining who was the first inventor - which means going through years of lab notebooks and correspondences to pin out the priority between two applicants. This is very expensive, very time consuming, and it's also taxing on the court system and the USPTO. A First to File system makes it much easier - priority can be determined within seconds of looking at the filing date.
FTS: "Considering that these leaps in eye candy are only possible with the current state of PC graphics, we wonder how long consoles will be the target platform for development of blockbuster games.""
PCs have, for the most part, outclassed consoles in terms of graphics for years. For most games which are available on the consoles and PC, the PC version will almost always feature higher resolutions and better textures and other graphical bells and whistles (even in cases of console ports). However, pure graphical power isn't why people buy consoles and not PCs. People buy consoles because it's cheaper (at least, it's cheaper than buying a state of the art video card every two years), it's accessible, and its better integrated with their home theatres. I think consoles will stay the target platform for blockbuster games for a long time.
First Line of the Article: "A new technology from Intel called ray tracing could bring lifelike images and improved 3D effects to games on tablets and other mobile devices."
HAL-9000: What is going to happen? Dave: Something wonderful. HAL-9000: I'm afraid. Dave: Don't be. We'll be together. HAL-9000: Where will we be? Dave: Where I am now.
Well, I don't mean fantasy as in elves or magic or whatnot. I mean genres that lends itself to allowing the reader or viewer or player to fantasize themselves into the position of the protagonist or protagonists.
I always figured that videogames treat sex two dimensionally because much of video games cater to fantasy escapism as its main draw. It's really no different from any other fantasy escapism outlet. If you look at high fantasy books of the last couple of decades, you'll see the exact same amount of treatment of sex and impossibly proportioned women. Same thing with comic books. On the women's side, it's no different from romance novels (with the impossibly built shirtless men on the covers), soap operas (although to a lesser degree) and all sorts of other similar stuff. They appeal to the idea in us of the quick cathartic thrill that we can fantasize ourselves into, and very few people fantasize about marriage, children and getting a mortgage.
But, it's so appropriate. Ask a lot of the Astronauts and Engineers at NASA what inspired them as children to work for NASA and in space and you will get a pretty good percentage of people citing how they, as kids, sat around a tiny television set in the late 60s or early 70s watching Captain Kirk, Dr. McCoy and Mr. Spock explore the galaxy.
I can't think of a better or more appropriate way to send off the Discovery as it goes home. (There is a little bit of me in the back of my head that wished that the Space Shuttle Enterprise made it to space - then Shatner's sendoff would be even more appropriate.)
GPS tracking like in the US would be a great deal more difficult in China, I'd think. Unlike the US, which is predominately done by cellular service contracts so that it's easy to make a 1-to-1 match from the subscriber to the phone to the GPS location tagging, China handles most cell phones by means of pre-paid SIM cards. A person's telephone number and IMSI can change quite often, from month to month or whenever they run out of minutes. Tracking it by the phones themselves isn't assured, either, since phones can be extremely cheap in China and can be replaced pretty easily.
I think the network operators and ISP's solution to those high bandwidth users is to cap bandwidth, shape traffic, enforce download/upload caps - pretty much anything short of actually spending money on designing a future network.
You get a generic trademark when a product or service has become so ubiquitous in the field that the mark's name comes to represent the field rather than a specific company's product. (For example, escalators, or zippers, or Pilates.) I don't think Apple's argument that Windows is generic really flies very well. When the word "Windows" or "Microsoft Windows" are said, it creates a very clear image of what is being discussed - specifically, Microsoft's own operating system. However, when you say the word "App Store", I think that conjures up images of just about any sort of app stores that we have nowadays - Palm's, Blackberry's, Windows Phone's Android's, etc. Even though none of the other companies precisely use the term "App Store" in their product's name, the mark itself immediately conjures up the entire field instead of Apple's specific App Store service.
Slashdot Mirror
I know a lot of people wind up settling with Righthaven, but I fervently wish more people are taking it straight to Righthaven like the EFF and the Democratic Underground and set up an adverse precedent so every single time they bring another stupid case, they get smacked back down.
Then we should take all remaining spectrum and use the free market to reallocate it. Private interests that already own spectrum will be given every opportunity to own that spectrum, but if another party can show that they can do better with it, and pay for it, then there is way, within a free market, to justify giving away resources to a private firm that will not maximize the exploitation of that resource. If Google can use the spectrum to provide broadband that we can stream music over, why should we allow some private to waste the public resource to be yet another radio station playing top 40 music.
You do realize, of course, that what you describe isn't a description of a free market? Indeed, you are describing the antithesis of a free market - you're describing a monopoly being created with respect to a portion of the spectrum.
Peter King supported, financially and politically, people who murdered and maimed women and children. He has no moral high ground.
Well, my number was wrong. Apparently, the IRA was responsible for something like 1800 murders, 600 of which were civilians. They're still terrorists.
Peter King has struck me as one of those guys who can rationalize away everything he does. Sure, to some people, it would seem like creating a Public Safety network by hobbling the military's usage of the 420-440 MHz block would seem highly inconsistent, but not so for Peter King. Same thing with his current hearings on the how American Muslims are becoming radicalized. Some people would think that it would be highly hypocritical of him to open public hearings on radicalism in Islam considering that for decades, he was a supporter and backer of the Irish Republican Army, a terrorist organization that killed 3500 people in 3 decades and were involved with Libyan terrorists funded by the Gaddafi regime. But nope, Peter King sees no hypocrisy at work.
What an awful person.
The West Wing had a quote from Toby Ziegler that essentially sums up how I feel about this:
Toby Ziegler: "We're flying in a Lockheed Eagle series L1011. It came off the line 20 months ago. It carries a Sim-5 Transponder tracking system. Are you telling me I can still flummox this thing with something I bought at Radio Shack?"
Firefox suffers from its constant desire to meet or beat Chrome and the gajillion UI features Google throws into the browser every other day. It's too bad, really, because it's gone way off-mission. I'll still use it over Chrome, any day (because I don't trust a company that makes its money by tracking my web movements and my web browsing habits to keep its mitts off of my web movements and browsing habits), but I don't recommend Firefox as enthusiastically as I used to back in the day.
I've been using FF4 since one of the earlier betas (I think beta 4?) and so I've seen the new features as it comes in. Is it me or does a lot of the new features, especially the UI features seem completely unnecessary? I've only used app-tabs maybe once and Panorama twice just to see what they do, and after that, I completely disregarded them. I haven't used Sync at all. Is this experience common with other Firefox power users? Or am I just being a bit of a Luddite in not using them?
The water is evaporated in the process of cooling the data center, apparently.
What you suggested is already part of the US Patent System.
Third parties are allowed to cite prior art to the USPTO for a patent application where the prior art is believed to have a bearing on the patentability of the application. Similarly, for already issued patents, third parties may also request an ex parte reexamination of issued patents on the basis of prior art references that is believed to have a bearing on the validity of the patent.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200.htm
Algorithms are unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101, so both scenarios are inapplicable.
Then the patent is invalid on the basis of 35 USC 102(f):
"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented."
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2137.htm#sect2137
I'm sure someone's going to start asking whether a First-To-File system affects the prior art doctrine and whether it means big companies can steal ideas from open source projects and patenting them. Let's dispense with some misconceptions.
Misconception 1: This destroys the prior art system.
* This isn't true. A prior art will still cause an application to be denied under 35 USC 102. This means that if any sort of prior art is published (i.e. available to the public) that would anticipate or render an application invalid, it would still operate to render the application unpatentable. Remember, the law requires all patents to be "novel" and "nonobvious".
Misconception 2: This would mean big companies can steal ideas from open source projects and file applications on them.
* This isn't true either. The open source project would function as prior art against the later application. Even though there is a first to file system, it doesn't mean that the first person to file can steal ideas that were out there and use it as their own.
The first to file system only really works in a very specific context - where you have two inventors who filed an application on almost identical types of inventions within a short period of time. Under the current system, there has to be a very fact-intensive and time consuming process of determining who was the first inventor - which means going through years of lab notebooks and correspondences to pin out the priority between two applicants. This is very expensive, very time consuming, and it's also taxing on the court system and the USPTO. A First to File system makes it much easier - priority can be determined within seconds of looking at the filing date.
FTS:
"Considering that these leaps in eye candy are only possible with the current state of PC graphics, we wonder how long consoles will be the target platform for development of blockbuster games.""
PCs have, for the most part, outclassed consoles in terms of graphics for years. For most games which are available on the consoles and PC, the PC version will almost always feature higher resolutions and better textures and other graphical bells and whistles (even in cases of console ports). However, pure graphical power isn't why people buy consoles and not PCs. People buy consoles because it's cheaper (at least, it's cheaper than buying a state of the art video card every two years), it's accessible, and its better integrated with their home theatres. I think consoles will stay the target platform for blockbuster games for a long time.
First Line of the Article:
"A new technology from Intel called ray tracing could bring lifelike images and improved 3D effects to games on tablets and other mobile devices."
GAH!
You mean this?
HAL-9000: What is going to happen?
Dave: Something wonderful.
HAL-9000: I'm afraid.
Dave: Don't be. We'll be together.
HAL-9000: Where will we be?
Dave: Where I am now.
Well, even better than that, you might have an augmented reality device that might alert you to facial expressions and emotions in the future.
Well, I don't mean fantasy as in elves or magic or whatnot. I mean genres that lends itself to allowing the reader or viewer or player to fantasize themselves into the position of the protagonist or protagonists.
Although that was a pretty outstanding book.
I always figured that videogames treat sex two dimensionally because much of video games cater to fantasy escapism as its main draw. It's really no different from any other fantasy escapism outlet. If you look at high fantasy books of the last couple of decades, you'll see the exact same amount of treatment of sex and impossibly proportioned women. Same thing with comic books. On the women's side, it's no different from romance novels (with the impossibly built shirtless men on the covers), soap operas (although to a lesser degree) and all sorts of other similar stuff. They appeal to the idea in us of the quick cathartic thrill that we can fantasize ourselves into, and very few people fantasize about marriage, children and getting a mortgage.
But, it's so appropriate. Ask a lot of the Astronauts and Engineers at NASA what inspired them as children to work for NASA and in space and you will get a pretty good percentage of people citing how they, as kids, sat around a tiny television set in the late 60s or early 70s watching Captain Kirk, Dr. McCoy and Mr. Spock explore the galaxy.
I can't think of a better or more appropriate way to send off the Discovery as it goes home. (There is a little bit of me in the back of my head that wished that the Space Shuttle Enterprise made it to space - then Shatner's sendoff would be even more appropriate.)
What could be better than a watch that will stop working if you don't charge it every day or so?
GPS tracking like in the US would be a great deal more difficult in China, I'd think. Unlike the US, which is predominately done by cellular service contracts so that it's easy to make a 1-to-1 match from the subscriber to the phone to the GPS location tagging, China handles most cell phones by means of pre-paid SIM cards. A person's telephone number and IMSI can change quite often, from month to month or whenever they run out of minutes. Tracking it by the phones themselves isn't assured, either, since phones can be extremely cheap in China and can be replaced pretty easily.
I think the network operators and ISP's solution to those high bandwidth users is to cap bandwidth, shape traffic, enforce download/upload caps - pretty much anything short of actually spending money on designing a future network.
You get a generic trademark when a product or service has become so ubiquitous in the field that the mark's name comes to represent the field rather than a specific company's product. (For example, escalators, or zippers, or Pilates.) I don't think Apple's argument that Windows is generic really flies very well. When the word "Windows" or "Microsoft Windows" are said, it creates a very clear image of what is being discussed - specifically, Microsoft's own operating system. However, when you say the word "App Store", I think that conjures up images of just about any sort of app stores that we have nowadays - Palm's, Blackberry's, Windows Phone's Android's, etc. Even though none of the other companies precisely use the term "App Store" in their product's name, the mark itself immediately conjures up the entire field instead of Apple's specific App Store service.
This isn't about copyrights, this is about trademarks.