[c]laims which are broad enough to read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable even though they also read on nonobvious subject matter
He means that the specific details of the claim are not given. The claim could refer to doing a backup (I didn't study it properly incidentally) wherein a local computer recovers a folder from a remote computer. The folder name is the identifier, the folder content list is the list that is recovered. An additional file is added to the folder and the folder is sent back to the backup store. A filesystem is a database after all.
The claims also "read on" (ie cover the area of technology) to a system for marking boxes of pelts (animal skins) where chemical markers ("identifier") are used for a particular box ("list") and those identifiers are stored at a remote location. The id is used to find teh box, a new pelt is added and the box is returned. You need a computer in their somewhere but it's a "computer system" so it doesn't matter where (also computerisation is not enough to provide an inventive step).
So the claims "read on", define a monopoly over the above pelt example even though working this field is not the stated intention of the applicant.
That's not what I learnt in my time at UKIPO. Seriously that makes me so angry.
The rest of the reasoning in the FAQs isn't a great deal better and includes a deal of less obvious deception.
They make the point that revenues on _physical_ sales have been "characterised by a fast decline in physical sales (- 30% over the past five yeas[sic])". Notice there's a little word "physical", so internet sales aren't counted.
Then they make the point that: "One study[2] concluded that there was no systematic difference between prices of in-copyright and out-of copyright sound recordings. ". Again they don't note that downloading a copy of an out of copyright work will be free at source (barring network costs) for any work uploaded. You'd even be able to go into an internet cafe and download a load of recordings and burn them on a CD. That'd be maybe £2.50 for 200 songs? Where can I buy that in a shop?
The logic that concludes that one group having a 50 year term and another a 70 year term is inequitable is probably right. The conclusion that you should thus extend the term to 95 years is a vile indictment of the depths to which the claws of big business have sunk into the EU Commission.
To top it all they dismiss out of hand the Gowers Report and cunningly break the link - see here http://www.ipo.gov.uk/policy/policy-issues/policy-issues-gowers.htm (note to Google, the top hit is a broken link too!). See the third recommendation on "Balance" which says keep the 50 year term.
In return for these increased rights, will we get increased benefit to the public, ability to format shift (Recommendation 8 under "Flexibility" in Gowers above), etc., don't hold your breath.
The other report mentioned is not even available as a [broken] link, presumably it's not open to public scrutiny as it was commissioned by the BPI (a British RIAA type group, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Phonographic_Industry).
Any chance they could just do a dumb filter and exclude women with obviously female names? I'm really tired of getting spam about enlarging my [non-existent] penis, especially the more explicit ones. It would not 'give my partner more pleasure'.
Spammers everywhere are rewriting their filters so that now you get offers of \/1A6R/\ for your partner if your name appears to be female, they're also adding a note about how women too can use the drug.... that should make it better for you, no!?
"Worried your male associates lingam not as firm as it could be, ch33p |\/|EDs..."
If there argument is to protect the artists then they should have a period in which the rights (save moral rights) can be used as property (say 15 years) and then a period in which the ownership is restricted to the artist (say 5 years) but will enter the public domain without a registration. The artist can license the rights but not give them up completely, so they would retain rights to perform the work for example.
Seriously though they may not go for these periods, if it were genuinely to protect artists then the right would have to revert to those same artists.
Without laws hampering the freedom of movement an employee could just steal all the computers.
There's still contract law too. Granted it wouldn't entirely fix the situation as once the code was released you couldn't stop its propagation (you can't really now but the people are infringing international law by distributing it and so there is some deterrent). You could sue the employee for the loss based on a contractual agreement though (you'd be unlikely to win the value of the software back unless that employee was rich).
Surely losing your home and livelihood through breech of contract would be an equal deterrent to losing your home and livelihood through copyright infringement?
Don't let McCain get away with this bullshit. McCain is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of both conservative Republicans and moderates in terms of his actual positions and record.
Note: I couldn't care less who gets in I live in the UK and don't think it'll really make a difference here.
If you've half an eye on the web you'll see that Obama is heavily touted and promoted (eg on YouTube) and that he has the best group of hackers and marketeers on his side.
I wouldn't be at all suprised if this was an Obama-group sponsored posting: they are pissed that they're under scrutiny so they post this stuff so they can say "look how petty the other team are, they're just trying to hide X" (where X is some political thingy-me-jig).
IMO, Vista is Microsoft's version of New Coke or the Arch Deluxe (if any of you are old enough to remember them). Although the same could have been said about Windows ME.
I looked up the Arch Deluxe thinking it most be some strange, monstrous franken-burger. It's a bacon cheeseburger with tomato, lettuce, onions, mayo-mustard and ketchup... what's deluxe about that?
I'd have thought they had a test model, possibly a virtual one, that they feed the instructions into first. That way they could reduce the risk of malfunction due to poor instructions being sent.
The current methodology sounds to much like how I code. Send the instructions (hit compile) and wait and see whether the outcome is favourable or not... seems a bit slapdash.
Presumably they are using some sort of higher level language and didn't realise that it translated into "rotate wrist rotator Cw beyond allowed limits"?
Firefox isn't some holy grail of awesome, and that as far as features for the end-user are concerned, IE is just as good these days.
You see this site is "for nerds" (I prefer to be called a geek, but what-the-hey). This means we're bothered about coding standards and interoperability and the like. So IE7 is still considered poor (compared to FF, Op, Konq, Saf) as it doesn't work well with standards compliant code. It's an order of magnitude better than IE6, but it's still not at the level of the other mainstream browsers.
Plus people here tend to look down on commercial enterprise that just rips off OSS innovations and doesn't add anything back. IE7 does add a couple of things but they aren't mainstream web interface features.
Seriously though, I usually just put my laptop bag, with the laptop inside it (the most important bit) across my front door so that I have to pick it up to open the door.
See I do those sorts of things. 'cept I then have forgotten somethings else, turn around, go inside and leave the laptop inside.
[...] software that hasn't been out for even a few months and you're complaining it has shortcomings and some things missing? Stop press, news at 11.
This was a.0 release. Feature complete, ready to run, that's what 4.0 means! They tried to pull some weird-ass marketing thing to get "the community" to adopt early and accelerate development.
If I wanted marketing crap I'd buy Vista. All this does is paint KDE in teh same light as MS Windows, you can't use a release, wait for teh service pack (.1), except here we have to wait for the.2 release to have a usable "desktop".
Now I applaud the KDE guys for their work.
My first go was something like this: how to add apps to the kicker? how to add anything to the desktop? how to use the app-menu without wanting to smash the computer in? perhaps I can use the run-dialog, no? why's it crashing so often? how do I view the desktop? how to get the admin version of systemsettings?... oh well maybe they got plasmoids working, oh maybe not? download some more, no? Erm,...
Then I retried Gnome for the first time in 6 years or so, then I reverted back to KDE3 and got worried that KDE no longer had a future.
4.0 was pre-alpha, to dress it as anything else was IMHO a disservice to the team. On this basis, it's great, shows a lot of promise. KDE-4.1 is maybe a beta, but probably still alpha as some things are pushed to 4.2 (beta). So it looks like 4.3 will be an actual release a user can use. WTF!
I'm sticking with it, I like it for my internet terminal, just a user relations nightmare - but then KDE probably don't really care (should they?) same as no-one cares to allow you to create a HTML email template in KMail. "Do it yourself if you're that bothered". Fork off!
My first use of KDE4 I simply thought "this is not KDE". It was easier picking up Vista having used KDE3 than it was picking up KDE4. I think I still go with that: no kicker, no desktop, a less functional file manager... it's something, it will be great I'm sure. It's not KDE, perhaps "OS K"?
How do they know that the 'daughter' publishing this information is really this woman's daughter at all, and not a jealous friend who wasn't invited?
Perhaps it's was the photos in the "daughter's" publication on bebo. Maybe it was the contacting of the friends alleged to have attended. Perhaps even the communications with friends of the family.?
Who can tell? I bet she hired ninjas to sneak in and take photos of the building. Made a replica, hired look-a-likes for the girls friends and took pics of them debauching themselves. Then she, this jilted friend, paid off the family and neighbours to ensure the press would be fooled. Finally hacking into bebo and establishing the account of the so-called "daughter".
That's gotta be how it happened.
No, hang on, I reckon the family hired an actress to pretend to be a jilted friend and hire some ninjas...
Yeah, that's gotta be it.
[The press lie, but this isn't really a case of that, this is a case of someone lying about themselves.]
Publishing something does not make it a fact. It simply makes it published.
In which case it would be clear that the newspapers aren't claiming this as fact and there's no case to answer.
If on the other hand you're trying to claim some difference between online publication and publication on paper then I think you've taken a serious wrong turn.
I guess suing one's own, minor, daughter probably doesn't make the same ch-ching sound.
And I'm guessing they're insured in some way against libel/defamation claims and their lawyers have confirmed that theirs a loophole that allows them to sue their daughter.
Look at it this way: If you're a reporter, and you tell your editor that "I've heard from a friend of a friend that this Hudson kid had a crazy party, can I do a story on it?" he'd say no. How should this be any different?
Except if the Editor reads Hudson's blog by RSS - it's like Hudson sending a letter to the Editor saying "I had this crazy party". Then (to continue the analogy with the real story) the Editor contacts Hudson, and his friends, and Hudson's family friends and looks at the pictures and they all confirm _Hudson's_own_story_.
It's not a friend-of-a-friend it's people actually verified to be at the event publically commenting on (publishing in fact) what they did - from the horses mouth, snarf-fnar, as it were.
Really. You have a primary source - the party hosts report of the event within hours of it occuring. Including photos that corroborate the story. That's as close the "the scene" as you'll get without time travel.
You cross check with people reported to be there, all OK so far. But these are young adults so you decide to check some more.
You interview older adult friends of the family. Neighbours? Still checks out.
You cross check with details of owners of the property, past reports of parties, look into the character of the individual online.
All that checks out.
Now you're aware they _could_ be lying so that's why you report with lines like "In the words of Jodie on her Bebo page after the event" and "One partygoer [...] said".
If there's been defamation/libel it's by the daughter. You'll probably find that the family is insured against such losses and will take their insurers to the cleaners, allegedly.
Slashdot Mirror
He was caned every day? Which school was that? It must have been hell.
Presumably he's an orphan - no parent could surely countenance sending their child to be caned every day.
Assuming your retelling to be truthful then these people were probably not Christians, you understand that right?
[c]laims which are broad enough to read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable even though they also read on nonobvious subject matter
He means that the specific details of the claim are not given. The claim could refer to doing a backup (I didn't study it properly incidentally) wherein a local computer recovers a folder from a remote computer. The folder name is the identifier, the folder content list is the list that is recovered. An additional file is added to the folder and the folder is sent back to the backup store. A filesystem is a database after all.
The claims also "read on" (ie cover the area of technology) to a system for marking boxes of pelts (animal skins) where chemical markers ("identifier") are used for a particular box ("list") and those identifiers are stored at a remote location. The id is used to find teh box, a new pelt is added and the box is returned. You need a computer in their somewhere but it's a "computer system" so it doesn't matter where (also computerisation is not enough to provide an inventive step).
So the claims "read on", define a monopoly over the above pelt example even though working this field is not the stated intention of the applicant.
You need konqueror then I think. Yes it runs on windows now under KDE4, but I think they crippled it because it was too good.
See http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT4753761802.html for an example image of split browsing.
Crivens y' ken it does too.
Tha's hit th' nail reet on head, tha 's.
In a clear case of lying the EU commission would like to tell you that Copyright is not a monopoly!
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/508&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en#fnB3
That's not what I learnt in my time at UKIPO. Seriously that makes me so angry.
The rest of the reasoning in the FAQs isn't a great deal better and includes a deal of less obvious deception.
They make the point that revenues on _physical_ sales have been "characterised by a fast decline in physical sales (- 30% over the past five yeas[sic])". Notice there's a little word "physical", so internet sales aren't counted.
Then they make the point that: "One study[2] concluded that there was no systematic difference between prices of in-copyright and out-of copyright sound recordings. ". Again they don't note that downloading a copy of an out of copyright work will be free at source (barring network costs) for any work uploaded. You'd even be able to go into an internet cafe and download a load of recordings and burn them on a CD. That'd be maybe £2.50 for 200 songs? Where can I buy that in a shop?
The logic that concludes that one group having a 50 year term and another a 70 year term is inequitable is probably right. The conclusion that you should thus extend the term to 95 years is a vile indictment of the depths to which the claws of big business have sunk into the EU Commission.
To top it all they dismiss out of hand the Gowers Report and cunningly break the link - see here http://www.ipo.gov.uk/policy/policy-issues/policy-issues-gowers.htm (note to Google, the top hit is a broken link too!). See the third recommendation on "Balance" which says keep the 50 year term.
In return for these increased rights, will we get increased benefit to the public, ability to format shift (Recommendation 8 under "Flexibility" in Gowers above), etc., don't hold your breath.
The other report mentioned is not even available as a [broken] link, presumably it's not open to public scrutiny as it was commissioned by the BPI (a British RIAA type group, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Phonographic_Industry).
Any chance they could just do a dumb filter and exclude women with obviously female names? I'm really tired of getting spam about enlarging my [non-existent] penis, especially the more explicit ones. It would not 'give my partner more pleasure'.
Spammers everywhere are rewriting their filters so that now you get offers of \/1A6R/\ for your partner if your name appears to be female, they're also adding a note about how women too can use the drug .... that should make it better for you, no!?
"Worried your male associates lingam not as firm as it could be, ch33p |\/|EDs ..."
If there argument is to protect the artists then they should have a period in which the rights (save moral rights) can be used as property (say 15 years) and then a period in which the ownership is restricted to the artist (say 5 years) but will enter the public domain without a registration. The artist can license the rights but not give them up completely, so they would retain rights to perform the work for example.
Seriously though they may not go for these periods, if it were genuinely to protect artists then the right would have to revert to those same artists.
Without laws hampering the freedom of movement an employee could just steal all the computers.
There's still contract law too. Granted it wouldn't entirely fix the situation as once the code was released you couldn't stop its propagation (you can't really now but the people are infringing international law by distributing it and so there is some deterrent). You could sue the employee for the loss based on a contractual agreement though (you'd be unlikely to win the value of the software back unless that employee was rich).
Surely losing your home and livelihood through breech of contract would be an equal deterrent to losing your home and livelihood through copyright infringement?
Don't let McCain get away with this bullshit. McCain is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of both conservative Republicans and moderates in terms of his actual positions and record.
Note: I couldn't care less who gets in I live in the UK and don't think it'll really make a difference here.
If you've half an eye on the web you'll see that Obama is heavily touted and promoted (eg on YouTube) and that he has the best group of hackers and marketeers on his side.
I wouldn't be at all suprised if this was an Obama-group sponsored posting: they are pissed that they're under scrutiny so they post this stuff so they can say "look how petty the other team are, they're just trying to hide X" (where X is some political thingy-me-jig).
FWIW
IMO, Vista is Microsoft's version of New Coke or the Arch Deluxe (if any of you are old enough to remember them). Although the same could have been said about Windows ME.
I looked up the Arch Deluxe thinking it most be some strange, monstrous franken-burger. It's a bacon cheeseburger with tomato, lettuce, onions, mayo-mustard and ketchup ... what's deluxe about that?
From what I understand, patents are not supposed to be granted for ideas, or methods, only for implementations .
You understand wrongly.
I'd have thought they had a test model, possibly a virtual one, that they feed the instructions into first. That way they could reduce the risk of malfunction due to poor instructions being sent.
The current methodology sounds to much like how I code. Send the instructions (hit compile) and wait and see whether the outcome is favourable or not ... seems a bit slapdash.
Presumably they are using some sort of higher level language and didn't realise that it translated into "rotate wrist rotator Cw beyond allowed limits"?
Firefox isn't some holy grail of awesome, and that as far as features for the end-user are concerned, IE is just as good these days.
You see this site is "for nerds" (I prefer to be called a geek, but what-the-hey). This means we're bothered about coding standards and interoperability and the like. So IE7 is still considered poor (compared to FF, Op, Konq, Saf) as it doesn't work well with standards compliant code. It's an order of magnitude better than IE6, but it's still not at the level of the other mainstream browsers.
Plus people here tend to look down on commercial enterprise that just rips off OSS innovations and doesn't add anything back. IE7 does add a couple of things but they aren't mainstream web interface features.
Kinda like a high priced callgirl...and just as expensive to purchase.
But you only get to use windows for a couple of hours before you get a virus ... oh, wait ...
It would work just fine... But do you often take your desktop PC out for coffee?
She prefers tea.
um... you have a distro that doesn't hotplug all the necessary modules for you?
I think he means he doesn't want to compile/build all modules, just the ones that the system will use.
Seriously though, I usually just put my laptop bag, with the laptop inside it (the most important bit) across my front door so that I have to pick it up to open the door.
See I do those sorts of things. 'cept I then have forgotten somethings else, turn around, go inside and leave the laptop inside.
D'oh!
KDE 4.0 is the starting line, not the finishing line.
Isn't that the precise definition of BETA software?
Nope that would be alpha or pre-alpha.
[...] software that hasn't been out for even a few months and you're complaining it has shortcomings and some things missing? Stop press, news at 11.
This was a .0 release. Feature complete, ready to run, that's what 4.0 means! They tried to pull some weird-ass marketing thing to get "the community" to adopt early and accelerate development.
If I wanted marketing crap I'd buy Vista. All this does is paint KDE in teh same light as MS Windows, you can't use a release, wait for teh service pack (.1), except here we have to wait for the .2 release to have a usable "desktop".
Now I applaud the KDE guys for their work.
My first go was something like this: how to add apps to the kicker? how to add anything to the desktop? how to use the app-menu without wanting to smash the computer in? perhaps I can use the run-dialog, no? why's it crashing so often? how do I view the desktop? how to get the admin version of systemsettings? ... oh well maybe they got plasmoids working, oh maybe not? download some more, no? Erm, ...
Then I retried Gnome for the first time in 6 years or so, then I reverted back to KDE3 and got worried that KDE no longer had a future.
4.0 was pre-alpha, to dress it as anything else was IMHO a disservice to the team. On this basis, it's great, shows a lot of promise. KDE-4.1 is maybe a beta, but probably still alpha as some things are pushed to 4.2 (beta). So it looks like 4.3 will be an actual release a user can use. WTF!
I'm sticking with it, I like it for my internet terminal, just a user relations nightmare - but then KDE probably don't really care (should they?) same as no-one cares to allow you to create a HTML email template in KMail. "Do it yourself if you're that bothered". Fork off!
My first use of KDE4 I simply thought "this is not KDE". It was easier picking up Vista having used KDE3 than it was picking up KDE4. I think I still go with that: no kicker, no desktop, a less functional file manager ... it's something, it will be great I'm sure. It's not KDE, perhaps "OS K"?
How do they know that the 'daughter' publishing this information is really this woman's daughter at all, and not a jealous friend who wasn't invited?
Perhaps it's was the photos in the "daughter's" publication on bebo. Maybe it was the contacting of the friends alleged to have attended. Perhaps even the communications with friends of the family.?
Who can tell? I bet she hired ninjas to sneak in and take photos of the building. Made a replica, hired look-a-likes for the girls friends and took pics of them debauching themselves. Then she, this jilted friend, paid off the family and neighbours to ensure the press would be fooled. Finally hacking into bebo and establishing the account of the so-called "daughter".
That's gotta be how it happened.
No, hang on, I reckon the family hired an actress to pretend to be a jilted friend and hire some ninjas ...
Yeah, that's gotta be it.
[The press lie, but this isn't really a case of that, this is a case of someone lying about themselves.]
Publishing something does not make it a fact. It simply makes it published.
In which case it would be clear that the newspapers aren't claiming this as fact and there's no case to answer.
If on the other hand you're trying to claim some difference between online publication and publication on paper then I think you've taken a serious wrong turn.
Self-publication is still publication.
I guess suing one's own, minor, daughter probably doesn't make the same ch-ching sound.
And I'm guessing they're insured in some way against libel/defamation claims and their lawyers have confirmed that theirs a loophole that allows them to sue their daughter.
CH-CHING!
Look at it this way: If you're a reporter, and you tell your editor that "I've heard from a friend of a friend that this Hudson kid had a crazy party, can I do a story on it?" he'd say no. How should this be any different?
Except if the Editor reads Hudson's blog by RSS - it's like Hudson sending a letter to the Editor saying "I had this crazy party". Then (to continue the analogy with the real story) the Editor contacts Hudson, and his friends, and Hudson's family friends and looks at the pictures and they all confirm _Hudson's_own_story_.
It's not a friend-of-a-friend it's people actually verified to be at the event publically commenting on (publishing in fact) what they did - from the horses mouth, snarf-fnar, as it were.
Really. You have a primary source - the party hosts report of the event within hours of it occuring. Including photos that corroborate the story. That's as close the "the scene" as you'll get without time travel.
You cross check with people reported to be there, all OK so far. But these are young adults so you decide to check some more.
You interview older adult friends of the family. Neighbours? Still checks out.
You cross check with details of owners of the property, past reports of parties, look into the character of the individual online.
All that checks out.
Now you're aware they _could_ be lying so that's why you report with lines like "In the words of Jodie on her Bebo page after the event" and "One partygoer [...] said".
If there's been defamation/libel it's by the daughter. You'll probably find that the family is insured against such losses and will take their insurers to the cleaners, allegedly.
I wanted to view you picture but I had to go and get dressed first - dumpt said "no nudity allowed".