I know you're joking (in part at least) but it's actually very difficult to describe things fully without reverting to patent-ese.
For example if two parts are connected in a way that they can move - the connection is important but the connection method is not - then mentioning a specific method limits your patent scope and means a competitor may be able to simply change the unimportant part to avoid your claim. Thus instead of "hinge" we have "rotatable connecting means" or less specific "flexible connecting means" or less specific "connecting means". Similarly "fixing means" covers screws, nails, glue, velcro (and the ways you never thought of).
In your coffee cup case you've limited yourself to ceramics and required that the liquid stimulate and are hot - simply "a convex container" is your broadest scope, but saucepans, glasses and spoons provide prior art. "a convex container having a supporting means comprising a substantially curved member" might be a good first stab at "a cup".
The claims are interpreted in the light of the description however and so metacode would be given it's normal meaning as understood by a notional skilled practioner OR the meaning illucidated in the description. If "metacode" is misleading , the patent examiner should however of requested a change to the claims to avoid them being misconstrued.
You're not supposed to read the claims. If the title/abstract mention documents then you assume that the patent covers any and all computer documents and is invalidated by Babbage's engine.[/sarcasm]
Interesting info though, not come across metacode maps before. Can imagine that this would be the internal.doc structure and account for a lot of the problems.
And any Open Office developers who happen to live in the U.S. - whose coding would be subject to U.S. patents - would do what exactly to avoid their liability for infringing the patent?
The devs are fine as long as they stay away from the relevant part of the XML code. Most of OOo is nothing to do with XML surely. IANA[Patent]L.
Also, the fact that they sued the richest software company in the world does not imply they'll go after individuals.
They don't have to "go after" you to make it illegal (patent infringement would be tortuous if you're being pedantic).
Publishers hold that it is natural for readers to pay what advertisers once did, just as cows have to make up the difference out of their own pockets when the price of milk falls.
They don't have pockets.
Instead you kill them and sell their meat (and other parts too)!
Thank God I have pockets, now all I need is some money to put in them.
1. Stop printing news on paper. 2. Give out electronic devices that update automatically and wirelessly 3. Bill the users of those electronic devices a small but non-trivial monthly rate (say, $14.99 with a 2-year subscription) 4. Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums. So a subscription to your paper also includes a subscription to the local sports magazine, dining guide, etc. 5. Work out a deal with Craigslist to deliver local classified ads for free.
Which sounds great but brings to mind those companies (all gone) that handed out free PCs with advertising systems embedded.
Once the "kindle" gets cracked and users stop paying what do you do then? The device is still valuable without the service, eg for book reading.
Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages?
The sad thing is that they will probably only allow Googlebot to crawl them, thereby disadvantaging any upstart search engines that might want to compete with Google. As much as I like Google, the fact that they are so big creates a "we only need to worry about Googlebot" mentality among website operators that is similar to "we only need to worry about working with Internet Explorer."
I think they'll have headlines and perhaps a brief intro paragraph / one-line summary and then a "log in to view" for the remainder of the article. Google et al. will get enough out of that to provide search - possibly with reduced rankings but probably not with the current algorithms weighted towards brand names and with news search being separate.
Google might cut a deal to have a paid news aggregation on their site where story click-throughs get a cut of the sign-up costs. Newspapers could run an internal bot (sending info direct to Google) or allow Googlebots by IP address (more likely).
What I don't know is whether a person who doesn't have *his* attorney present can get called to testify about the meeting. If so, and if there is such a person, then they're all up the creek.
Newspaper dude: Everyone sign this slip to say Fred here is your lawyer, he's also an MD so we'll say he's your doctor too. That way we can claim attorney-client and doctor-patient privilege for the meeting...
[Later]
Chairman/Attorney/MD for he is all things to all men: "My prognosis is you're going to die from lack of money. You need to buy me a yacht and add a paywall to your website..."
If your car's brakes go out and you hit a tree, do you sue the tree? No. Do you sue yourself? No. You sue Ford. They sold you a broken product. Same with M$. They told you it worked when you bought it, but it's broken. Make M$ responsible for fixing the damed problem.
And Ford ask you in court how often you had your brakes serviced.
I don't think MS (nor Ford) tell you that "it won't be hacked" (won't need brakes servicing) when you buy it. They more than likely disclaim all liabilities except those forceably applied by law.
How about this then: In 1965, we had the capability to destroy the planet several times over in a matter of a few hours. In 2005, we had the capability to destroy the planet several times over in a matter of a few hours. What exactly did we gain for our trillions of dollars spent between 1965 and 2005?
Perhaps the ability to win a war without destroying the planet?
And really...'illegal war'? What the hell is a LEGAL war? I do believe war is war, there is nothing legal or illegal about it.
I'd imagine an "illegal war" is one without honour. Like a fight, if you tell someone you're going to fight them and let them face you off like a man, don't use underhand tactics (concealed weapon), give quarter and accept their surrender then you have acted honourably. If you instead rush up and stab the person in the back without any hint of quarrel - that is dishonourable.
I agree with the GP, labeling a release 2.0.0 (without saying "Beta" or "RC") and then saying it's not ready for daily use by end users is kind of stupid.
Its a platform release. For developers and integrators. They want a release too, you know:)
End users are not the only reason to release software.
2.0.0-dev then... I have to agree with the parent post - this was incredibly annoying with KDE4.0 why did they then decide to annoy everyone again with their development non-release worthy code labelled as a release.
Problem 1: Not testing that the laptops would be able to play the dvds before launching it all into space.
They didn't bother testing the telescope if reports here (a couple of days ago) of the mirror being improperly ground are correct - that cost $2billion or so, why bother testing a laptop.
Surely if you use MS Windows (I'm guessing that's the OS as I think it'd be mentioned otherwise) then you've bought a license to watch DVDs (as WMP is included)?
If it's a case of the seller not being licensed to sell a copy of a decoder then can you not just compile that part yourself (personal non-commercial use of patented technology being allowed).
I can't see under what law _you_ could be prosecuted here as a decoder shouldn't be a copyrightable item.
There are a few cement roads (built apparently as emergency runways for the Second World War) near my parent's home - they've stood up pretty well. The problem with cement (and there are a few sections of cement motorway in the UK still) is that it's very noisy - which presumably means it is rougher and wears your tyres very quickly?
Not just quick dry... All cement is an exothermic reaction. And would people SERIOUSLY stop calling concrete cement. Roads are made of concrete, which is a mixture of cement, aggregate, and water. Cement is only the binder of the mix.
Yeah, it's like people calling a coffee-infused-water and milk admixture just "coffee".
Or we could put solar panels on roofs and convert the sunlight, that would ordinarily be converted to heat, into electricity which I am sure we could find a use for.
That of course will retain the heat within our local system as eventually the electrical energy will be turned back to heat - black body radiation not withstanding.
Yes, as you say the situation for writers,/versus/ artists, seems more favourable. I perhaps overshot in trying to give balance. Companies, like the PRS, try to paint all their members as poor individual composers scraping by on dried crusts.. no one mentions the huge media conglomerates that take a more than ample portion of the pie.
And -- best of all -- it's money that the record label doesn't get to touch.
Only if you own the copyright on your music. Which writers initially give up to the publishers.
"PRS for Music is a not-for-profit membership society. Music creators - writers, composers, publishers - join PRS for Music and give us permission to license to use of their music."
Which musicians making a living from selling music do not have publishers? They for example say things like:
"Collecting societies, like PRS for Music, exist to simplify the arrangement between the millions of music-users who require permission and the music creators who can provide a licence."
They define publishers as "music creators". On the whole very few professional music creators (the people who actually make the music) can provide a license. The publishing companies, Sony / Warner / EMI et al., own the rights and hence collect the royalty payments.
Then you could have said "the evidence TC presented is hearsay at best" rather than claiming there was none.
Only if I wanted to lose a fight about semantics.
"What they have presented as evidence is hearsay at best". Still they have presented evidence, ignoring it doesn't further your argument.
The only options as I see it are that Last.fm were done over by CBS selling user info to RIAA, or TC's informant was nobbled by someone with a huge grudge.
Or someone at TC has made up the story for any variety of reasons.
"as I see it" - yes someone at TC could have just made it up. But that's not how I see it. That would be risking a large libel suit for no gain other than malevolence in itself. Perhaps you know the TC people personally, I don't, but their actions don't appear to be needlessly libellous in generally.
Ethanol was an idea that sounded okay at first, but clearly doesn't scale, and we need to stop screwing around with it and put our focus into things that show more promise.
Do you know the most efficient fuel? None at all. Design living around distribution and production rather than consumption and excess and we'll be fine (provided we can get the parents with 2-3 kids to stop producing more).
Slashdot Mirror
Get a friend to pass around a rumor that he caught you watching a porn clip and masturbating onto the keyboard. Nobody will ask for it anymore.
Get him to say it was on the bus on the way to college and they won't even talk to you any more.
Problem solved.
I know you're joking (in part at least) but it's actually very difficult to describe things fully without reverting to patent-ese.
For example if two parts are connected in a way that they can move - the connection is important but the connection method is not - then mentioning a specific method limits your patent scope and means a competitor may be able to simply change the unimportant part to avoid your claim. Thus instead of "hinge" we have "rotatable connecting means" or less specific "flexible connecting means" or less specific "connecting means". Similarly "fixing means" covers screws, nails, glue, velcro (and the ways you never thought of).
In your coffee cup case you've limited yourself to ceramics and required that the liquid stimulate and are hot - simply "a convex container" is your broadest scope, but saucepans, glasses and spoons provide prior art. "a convex container having a supporting means comprising a substantially curved member" might be a good first stab at "a cup".
The claims are interpreted in the light of the description however and so metacode would be given it's normal meaning as understood by a notional skilled practioner OR the meaning illucidated in the description. If "metacode" is misleading , the patent examiner should however of requested a change to the claims to avoid them being misconstrued.
You're not supposed to read the claims. If the title/abstract mention documents then you assume that the patent covers any and all computer documents and is invalidated by Babbage's engine.[/sarcasm]
Interesting info though, not come across metacode maps before. Can imagine that this would be the internal .doc structure and account for a lot of the problems.
And any Open Office developers who happen to live in the U.S. - whose coding would be subject to U.S. patents - would do what exactly to avoid their liability for infringing the patent?
The devs are fine as long as they stay away from the relevant part of the XML code. Most of OOo is nothing to do with XML surely. IANA[Patent]L.
Also, the fact that they sued the richest software company in the world does not imply they'll go after individuals.
They don't have to "go after" you to make it illegal (patent infringement would be tortuous if you're being pedantic).
Publishers hold that it is natural for readers to pay what advertisers once did, just as cows have to make up the difference out of their own pockets when the price of milk falls.
They don't have pockets.
Instead you kill them and sell their meat (and other parts too)!
Thank God I have pockets, now all I need is some money to put in them.
I call it "The Kindle does Cable:"
1. Stop printing news on paper.
2. Give out electronic devices that update automatically and wirelessly
3. Bill the users of those electronic devices a small but non-trivial monthly rate (say, $14.99 with a 2-year subscription)
4. Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums. So a subscription to your paper also includes a subscription to the local sports magazine, dining guide, etc.
5. Work out a deal with Craigslist to deliver local classified ads for free.
Which sounds great but brings to mind those companies (all gone) that handed out free PCs with advertising systems embedded.
Once the "kindle" gets cracked and users stop paying what do you do then? The device is still valuable without the service, eg for book reading.
Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages?
The sad thing is that they will probably only allow Googlebot to crawl them, thereby disadvantaging any upstart search engines that might want to compete with Google. As much as I like Google, the fact that they are so big creates a "we only need to worry about Googlebot" mentality among website operators that is similar to "we only need to worry about working with Internet Explorer."
I think they'll have headlines and perhaps a brief intro paragraph / one-line summary and then a "log in to view" for the remainder of the article. Google et al. will get enough out of that to provide search - possibly with reduced rankings but probably not with the current algorithms weighted towards brand names and with news search being separate.
Google might cut a deal to have a paid news aggregation on their site where story click-throughs get a cut of the sign-up costs. Newspapers could run an internal bot (sending info direct to Google) or allow Googlebots by IP address (more likely).
What I don't know is whether a person who doesn't have *his* attorney present can get called to testify about the meeting. If so, and if there is such a person, then they're all up the creek.
Newspaper dude: Everyone sign this slip to say Fred here is your lawyer, he's also an MD so we'll say he's your doctor too. That way we can claim attorney-client and doctor-patient privilege for the meeting ...
[Later]
Chairman/Attorney/MD for he is all things to all men: "My prognosis is you're going to die from lack of money. You need to buy me a yacht and add a paywall to your website ..."
Buy only products made 100% in the US with 100% US made components. If it doesn't say "Made in USA" you can't buy it.
You're in for a huge surprise.
You should be able to eat and clothe yourself though probably at a higher cost than you'd usually expend.
It may come as a shock but a car is not essential to being self-sufficient.
If your car's brakes go out and you hit a tree, do you sue the tree? No. Do you sue yourself? No. You sue Ford. They sold you a broken product. Same with M$. They told you it worked when you bought it, but it's broken. Make M$ responsible for fixing the damed problem.
And Ford ask you in court how often you had your brakes serviced.
I don't think MS (nor Ford) tell you that "it won't be hacked" (won't need brakes servicing) when you buy it. They more than likely disclaim all liabilities except those forceably applied by law.
How about this then: In 1965, we had the capability to destroy the planet several times over in a matter of a few hours. In 2005, we had the capability to destroy the planet several times over in a matter of a few hours. What exactly did we gain for our trillions of dollars spent between 1965 and 2005?
Perhaps the ability to win a war without destroying the planet?
And really...'illegal war'? What the hell is a LEGAL war? I do believe war is war, there is nothing legal or illegal about it.
I'd imagine an "illegal war" is one without honour. Like a fight, if you tell someone you're going to fight them and let them face you off like a man, don't use underhand tactics (concealed weapon), give quarter and accept their surrender then you have acted honourably. If you instead rush up and stab the person in the back without any hint of quarrel - that is dishonourable.
Who are the "US and THEM"?
I'm a parent, I have a strong recollection of socialising with others in my village as a child. I never recall think of any group as an enemy.
I'm curious to know who the group is that I have to instill as "THEM" in my child next year?
I agree with the GP, labeling a release 2.0.0 (without saying "Beta" or "RC") and then saying it's not ready for daily use by end users is kind of stupid.
Its a platform release. For developers and integrators. They want a release too, you know :)
End users are not the only reason to release software.
2.0.0-dev then ... I have to agree with the parent post - this was incredibly annoying with KDE4.0 why did they then decide to annoy everyone again with their development non-release worthy code labelled as a release.
Problem 1: Not testing that the laptops would be able to play the dvds before launching it all into space.
They didn't bother testing the telescope if reports here (a couple of days ago) of the mirror being improperly ground are correct - that cost $2billion or so, why bother testing a laptop.
Surely if you use MS Windows (I'm guessing that's the OS as I think it'd be mentioned otherwise) then you've bought a license to watch DVDs (as WMP is included)?
If it's a case of the seller not being licensed to sell a copy of a decoder then can you not just compile that part yourself (personal non-commercial use of patented technology being allowed).
I can't see under what law _you_ could be prosecuted here as a decoder shouldn't be a copyrightable item.
There are a few cement roads (built apparently as emergency runways for the Second World War) near my parent's home - they've stood up pretty well. The problem with cement (and there are a few sections of cement motorway in the UK still) is that it's very noisy - which presumably means it is rougher and wears your tyres very quickly?
Not just quick dry... All cement is an exothermic reaction. And would people SERIOUSLY stop calling concrete cement. Roads are made of concrete, which is a mixture of cement, aggregate, and water. Cement is only the binder of the mix.
Yeah, it's like people calling a coffee-infused-water and milk admixture just "coffee".
PITA I tell y'.
Or we could put solar panels on roofs and convert the sunlight, that would ordinarily be
converted to heat, into electricity which I am sure we could find a use for.
That of course will retain the heat within our local system as eventually the electrical energy will be turned back to heat - black body radiation not withstanding.
We should erect a sun shade ....
Yes, as you say the situation for writers, /versus/ artists, seems more favourable. I perhaps overshot in trying to give balance. Companies, like the PRS, try to paint all their members as poor individual composers scraping by on dried crusts .. no one mentions the huge media conglomerates that take a more than ample portion of the pie.
And -- best of all -- it's money that the record label doesn't get to touch.
Only if you own the copyright on your music. Which writers initially give up to the publishers.
"PRS for Music is a not-for-profit membership society. Music creators - writers, composers, publishers - join PRS for Music and give us permission to license to use of their music."
Which musicians making a living from selling music do not have publishers? They for example say things like:
"Collecting societies, like PRS for Music, exist to simplify the arrangement between the millions of music-users who require permission and the music creators who can provide a licence."
They define publishers as "music creators". On the whole very few professional music creators (the people who actually make the music) can provide a license. The publishing companies, Sony / Warner / EMI et al., own the rights and hence collect the royalty payments.
PRS think 1 person is an audience and that them listening to the radio constitutes a performance ( http://www.prsformusic.com/playingbroadcastingonline/music_for_businesses/Pages/WhatisPRSforMusic.aspx ):
"There is no statutory minimum of people required to constitute an audience. However, in some cases, PRS for Music does not charge a licence fee to workplaces with a single (lone) worker."
Note that if that person listens to a CD instead they need both a PRS and a PPL license in addition to paying the price for the CD.
--- ./ have to strip out whitespace and make this unreadable?
Why does
Then you could have said "the evidence TC presented is hearsay at best" rather than claiming there was none.
Only if I wanted to lose a fight about semantics.
"What they have presented as evidence is hearsay at best". Still they have presented evidence, ignoring it doesn't further your argument.
The only options as I see it are that Last.fm were done over by CBS selling user info to RIAA, or TC's informant was nobbled by someone with a huge grudge.
Or someone at TC has made up the story for any variety of reasons.
"as I see it" - yes someone at TC could have just made it up. But that's not how I see it. That would be risking a large libel suit for no gain other than malevolence in itself. Perhaps you know the TC people personally, I don't, but their actions don't appear to be needlessly libellous in generally.
You're welcome to see it differently.
Ethanol was an idea that sounded okay at first, but clearly doesn't scale, and we need to stop screwing around with it and put our focus into things that show more promise.
Do you know the most efficient fuel? None at all. Design living around distribution and production rather than consumption and excess and we'll be fine (provided we can get the parents with 2-3 kids to stop producing more).
but having thousands of annoyed customers even more pissed off because of the fine print makes little long term economic sense.
Long term economic sense, something that every U.S. automaker has since when now?
Long term economic sense, something that every U.S. automaker^w^w^w the US has since when now?