The important thing is to spare small businesses from the tax increase. A lot of small businesses are either simple proprietorships/partnerships or LLCs, for which the profits are taxed as an addition to personal income. Proprietors and partners will pay these taxes from the cash on hand of the business, meaning that the business has fewer resources to expand and hire more employees.
So go ahead and tax the $20M CEOs and such, but try to avoid placing the additional burden on small businesses.
Imperial ships do have shields. From the script of Return of the Jedi, the following occurs just after Rebel fighters destroy the geodesic sphere-looking things atop the Executor's bridge:
128 INT VADER'S STAR DESTROYER - BRIDGE
Admiral Piett and a commander stand at the window, looking out to the battle. They look concerned.
CONTROLLER Sir, we've lost our bridge deflector shield.
PIETT Intensify the forward batteries. I don't want anything to get through.
The commander is looking out of the window where a damaged Rebel fighter is out of control and heading directly toward the bridge.
PIETT Intensify forward firepower!
COMMANDER It's too late!
The Rebel pilot screams as his ship hits the Star Destroyer, causing a huge explosion. The giant battle ship loses control, crashes into the Death Star, and explodes.
The big difference between the two is that Star Trek has very little in the way of fighter craft. There isn't much in the way of Star Trek canon to establish whether ships in that universe would have difficulty going up against a squadron of fighters, but Voyager got the crap kicked out of it by a few dozen supposedly obsolete fighters in one episode because the fighters were moving too fast to get a reliable shot on them.
So what. My small company attempts to defend itself with one or a few little patents. The big boys crush me under dozens to hundreds, but hey I got a discount.
A broken system just got more broken.
It's no more broken under the new law than it was under the old one. At least under the new law, the increase in fees is offset by the micro-entity status discount.
Actually, the law also creates another class of patent applicant, the "micro entity", which gets a 75% discount on most fees. (Small entities already got a 50% discount.)
MEMS actually refers to any microscopic-scale electromechanical device, such as microscopic motors or other such devices, and not specifically to the device described in TFA.
Er... not exactly. Adding "using a computer" may sometimes help to make a patent eligible under 35 USC 101, but it generally won't help you with prior art unless the underlying technique is novel or non-obvious.
A patent can cover a substance itself, and you would have to license that patent during its term if you wanted to use your own novel and subsequently patented technique for synthesizing that substance. In such situations, you might cross-license both patents to each other, so that you can both use the technique to manufacture the substance, especially if your synthesis technique was much more cost-effective than theirs.
And I'm honestly not sure where you're going with the "second patent on the expiry of the first to get control in perpetuity", since you can't get two patents for the same thing. You could get a patent for a new technique of synthesizing a substance when you had a prior patent on the substance itself, but if someone else comes up with their own technique, you only have the original patent to protect you.
On a side note, EDTX's lock on patent troll lawsuits may be winding down. One provision in the new patent bill is that you can't join multiple defendants solely because the defendants happened to allegedly infringe the same patent (i.e., through separate unrelated actions). That, combined with other recent case law on venue shopping, will make it a lot easier for defendants to get a change of venue out of EDTX, especially when it's shown that the plaintiff's presence there is superficial.
35 USC 102/103: Not anticipated by or obvious in view of prior art
35 USC 112: Written description provided; description must enable one of ordinary skill to make and use the invention without undue experimentation; best mode of the invention must be disclosed
35 USC 101: Must be a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or improvement thereof; must have specific, substantial, and credible utility (meaning a vague assertion of usefulness, a pointless usefulness such as "use it as landfill", or an incredible usefulness such as "time travel" is not sufficient)
The two big stumbling blocks for a composition of matter that hasn't actually been produced yet are enablement and utility. But as long as they satisfy the statutory requirements, the fact that they haven't actually made any of it yet isn't a problem.
As others have commented, first to file doesn't apply if the research has been made public. Since universities rely on publish or perish, the most likely scenario is that anything produced through Intel funding will be considered prior art when an outside party then tries to patent it. Assuming that the software is GPL'd, then it must include the GPL required headers, etc. So, if somebody does try to usurp it, then the university can sue them for license violations.
Plus, open source is the best kind of publication in some respects, because it is a complete disclosure of the exact technique being used. Of course, a patent examiner will rarely have time to dig into source code to figure out if a claim can be rejected on that basis, so it's also important to provide other publication such as a conference or journal article.
Even worse, a big portion of the reason for the radio quiet zone is the Echelon facility at Sugar Creek. I hope she invested heavily in tin foil headwear.
They miss the point of why they're being sued. It's not because Android may or may not infringe on patents. It's because they're a competitor in an extremely lucrative market, and they'll still be a competitor - and a target - regardless of what OS their phones use.
2. (to actually be done before step 1) Purchase and place one of those antenna ball things, a fairly uncommon one in a striking color (yellow, orange, or neon pink all work well), and look for that.
This is a great idea, and I hope everyone follows your advice.
I was too young for these when they went out of business, but now I want some!
I was old enough to want them before they stopped making them, but too young to be able to afford them. Now that I have disposable income, look out, shelves! Prepare to be filled with half-finished projects.
You can find out for yourself by viewing the file wrapper at the USPTO's website, but to summarize:
It took just over 3 years before the first office action in the case was sent to the applicant. Unfortunately, this delay is currently pretty close to average for applications in this technology area. After that, the applicant had to amend the claims four times to get the application into condition for allowance, which resulted in the additional two years of delay.
Note, however, that the application was published as normal at 18 months after the effective filing date (or 6 months after the actual filing date in this case, because they claimed benefit to a provisional application that they filed).
Since TFA links to the pre-grant publication (with its at-publication-time-not-yet-examined claims) instead of the issued patent, here's the first issued independent claim:
A computer implemented system comprising: at least one processor that executes the following computer executable components stored on at least one computer readable medium:
a virtual reality generation component that emulates real-life activities of a guest that is remotely viewing a spectator event that takes place outside of a virtual environment into corresponding virtual activities of a virtual guest representation in the virtual environment; and
a presentation component that presents the virtual activities of the virtual guest representation to a user that is attending the spectator event as an in-person spectator, the presentation system to facilitate an interaction of the user with the virtual guest representation provided in the virtual environment as the guest is remotely viewing the spectator event.
Holy shit, people already tore your post to shreds the last time you posted it on account of you being wrong on numerous points. And you're repeating most of those wrong points in this thread, too. Why are you still here?
today maybe many apps on mobile phones may be implementing bubble sort in mobile phones applications.. but nobody got the patent on it.. I can file for a patent on "using the bubble sort patent in a mobile phone app".. similarly I can go through all the computer science books and start patenting all the various algorithms by appending "on a mobile device" to it.
First, the pending bill doesn't eliminate the one-year statutory bar that exists in current law. That is, if there is anticipatory prior art that was published more than a year before your filing date, then you can't get a patent on your invention. It doesn't matter whether it was a patent, scientific paper, book, magazine article, or what have you, as long as it was published.
Second, even by just adding "on a mobile device" to your claims, you're not going to get a patent on a well-known concept. At this point, it's clear that cell phones or other mobile devices are just small computers, so generically performing any well-known CS technique on them is subject to a finding of obviousness.
And why (it's to take away the burden from the patent office for having to google for prior art because a lot of patents were being overturned in lawsuits when it turned out that a simple google search would have brought up prior art.. thus humiliating the patent office).
Not true in the least. The fact that you don't know what you're talking about should be a clue to that. Gain an actual understanding of the current and proposed laws before you cast around these sorts of accusations.
If a disruptive student doesn't want to be there then they should be able to leave. Forcing them to be there is not helping them or anyone else who is trying to learn.
Take it to the next step and force them to leave if they're being disruptive. The worst thing about "No Child Left Behind" was the name. Some children should be left behind, because if we insist upon dragging them kicking and screaming through school, they're just going to take other kids with them into failure.
You can't copyright the word "tricorder". The app (according to the posts that someone else posted here) doesn't infringe on any copyrights of screen design or anything like that (and it looks more like the LCARS interface from TNG, which CBS holds no claim to - that would be Viacom, owners of Paramount).
There is only one live entry for a registered trademark for "tricorder", and that's held by Paul Allen's company named Kiha Software, which holds the trademark as it relates to mobile device programs.
So, where does CBS get the balls to get this app taken down?
One way to mitigate the influence of the SEO asshats is to purge +1's that are associated with accounts and/or IPs that are seen to offer a lot of +1's for known spam/linkfarm pages.
Slashdot Mirror
The important thing is to spare small businesses from the tax increase. A lot of small businesses are either simple proprietorships/partnerships or LLCs, for which the profits are taxed as an addition to personal income. Proprietors and partners will pay these taxes from the cash on hand of the business, meaning that the business has fewer resources to expand and hire more employees.
So go ahead and tax the $20M CEOs and such, but try to avoid placing the additional burden on small businesses.
Imperial ships do have shields. From the script of Return of the Jedi, the following occurs just after Rebel fighters destroy the geodesic sphere-looking things atop the Executor's bridge:
128 INT VADER'S STAR DESTROYER - BRIDGE
Admiral Piett and a commander stand at the window, looking out to the battle. They look concerned.
CONTROLLER
Sir, we've lost our bridge deflector shield.
PIETT
Intensify the forward batteries. I don't want anything to get through.
The commander is looking out of the window where a damaged Rebel fighter is out of control and heading directly toward the bridge.
PIETT
Intensify forward firepower!
COMMANDER
It's too late!
The Rebel pilot screams as his ship hits the Star Destroyer, causing a huge explosion. The giant battle ship loses control, crashes into the Death Star, and explodes.
The big difference between the two is that Star Trek has very little in the way of fighter craft. There isn't much in the way of Star Trek canon to establish whether ships in that universe would have difficulty going up against a squadron of fighters, but Voyager got the crap kicked out of it by a few dozen supposedly obsolete fighters in one episode because the fighters were moving too fast to get a reliable shot on them.
So what. My small company attempts to defend itself with one or a few little patents. The big boys crush me under dozens to hundreds, but hey I got a discount.
A broken system just got more broken.
It's no more broken under the new law than it was under the old one. At least under the new law, the increase in fees is offset by the micro-entity status discount.
I learned an important lesson about Microsoft that day.
What, that they're still up to the same old tricks that made them the multi-bazillion-dollar company that they are today?
What, in there, suggests this is the first, or only one?
Nothing. But then again, you were quoting from TFA, and not TFS, which is what I was addressing.
Actually, the law also creates another class of patent applicant, the "micro entity", which gets a 75% discount on most fees. (Small entities already got a 50% discount.)
MEMS actually refers to any microscopic-scale electromechanical device, such as microscopic motors or other such devices, and not specifically to the device described in TFA.
Er... not exactly. Adding "using a computer" may sometimes help to make a patent eligible under 35 USC 101, but it generally won't help you with prior art unless the underlying technique is novel or non-obvious.
A patent can cover a substance itself, and you would have to license that patent during its term if you wanted to use your own novel and subsequently patented technique for synthesizing that substance. In such situations, you might cross-license both patents to each other, so that you can both use the technique to manufacture the substance, especially if your synthesis technique was much more cost-effective than theirs.
And I'm honestly not sure where you're going with the "second patent on the expiry of the first to get control in perpetuity", since you can't get two patents for the same thing. You could get a patent for a new technique of synthesizing a substance when you had a prior patent on the substance itself, but if someone else comes up with their own technique, you only have the original patent to protect you.
On a side note, EDTX's lock on patent troll lawsuits may be winding down. One provision in the new patent bill is that you can't join multiple defendants solely because the defendants happened to allegedly infringe the same patent (i.e., through separate unrelated actions). That, combined with other recent case law on venue shopping, will make it a lot easier for defendants to get a change of venue out of EDTX, especially when it's shown that the plaintiff's presence there is superficial.
The requirements are:
35 USC 102/103: Not anticipated by or obvious in view of prior art
35 USC 112: Written description provided; description must enable one of ordinary skill to make and use the invention without undue experimentation; best mode of the invention must be disclosed
35 USC 101: Must be a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or improvement thereof; must have specific, substantial, and credible utility (meaning a vague assertion of usefulness, a pointless usefulness such as "use it as landfill", or an incredible usefulness such as "time travel" is not sufficient)
The two big stumbling blocks for a composition of matter that hasn't actually been produced yet are enablement and utility. But as long as they satisfy the statutory requirements, the fact that they haven't actually made any of it yet isn't a problem.
As others have commented, first to file doesn't apply if the research has been made public. Since universities rely on publish or perish, the most likely scenario is that anything produced through Intel funding will be considered prior art when an outside party then tries to patent it. Assuming that the software is GPL'd, then it must include the GPL required headers, etc. So, if somebody does try to usurp it, then the university can sue them for license violations.
Plus, open source is the best kind of publication in some respects, because it is a complete disclosure of the exact technique being used. Of course, a patent examiner will rarely have time to dig into source code to figure out if a claim can be rejected on that basis, so it's also important to provide other publication such as a conference or journal article.
Even worse, a big portion of the reason for the radio quiet zone is the Echelon facility at Sugar Creek. I hope she invested heavily in tin foil headwear.
They miss the point of why they're being sued. It's not because Android may or may not infringe on patents. It's because they're a competitor in an extremely lucrative market, and they'll still be a competitor - and a target - regardless of what OS their phones use.
How many slashdot users can pass the same Turing Test?
How do you feel about how many slashdot users can pass the same Turing Test?
2. (to actually be done before step 1) Purchase and place one of those antenna ball things, a fairly uncommon one in a striking color (yellow, orange, or neon pink all work well), and look for that.
This is a great idea, and I hope everyone follows your advice.
Everyone.
I was too young for these when they went out of business, but now I want some!
I was old enough to want them before they stopped making them, but too young to be able to afford them. Now that I have disposable income, look out, shelves! Prepare to be filled with half-finished projects.
You can find out for yourself by viewing the file wrapper at the USPTO's website, but to summarize:
It took just over 3 years before the first office action in the case was sent to the applicant. Unfortunately, this delay is currently pretty close to average for applications in this technology area. After that, the applicant had to amend the claims four times to get the application into condition for allowance, which resulted in the additional two years of delay.
Note, however, that the application was published as normal at 18 months after the effective filing date (or 6 months after the actual filing date in this case, because they claimed benefit to a provisional application that they filed).
Since TFA links to the pre-grant publication (with its at-publication-time-not-yet-examined claims) instead of the issued patent, here's the first issued independent claim:
A computer implemented system comprising: at least one processor that executes the following computer executable components stored on at least one computer readable medium:
a virtual reality generation component that emulates real-life activities of a guest that is remotely viewing a spectator event that takes place outside of a virtual environment into corresponding virtual activities of a virtual guest representation in the virtual environment; and
a presentation component that presents the virtual activities of the virtual guest representation to a user that is attending the spectator event as an in-person spectator, the presentation system to facilitate an interaction of the user with the virtual guest representation provided in the virtual environment as the guest is remotely viewing the spectator event.
Holy shit, people already tore your post to shreds the last time you posted it on account of you being wrong on numerous points. And you're repeating most of those wrong points in this thread, too. Why are you still here?
today maybe many apps on mobile phones may be implementing bubble sort in mobile phones applications .. but nobody got the patent on it .. I can file for a patent on "using the bubble sort patent in a mobile phone app" .. similarly I can go through all the computer science books and start patenting all the various algorithms by appending "on a mobile device" to it.
First, the pending bill doesn't eliminate the one-year statutory bar that exists in current law. That is, if there is anticipatory prior art that was published more than a year before your filing date, then you can't get a patent on your invention. It doesn't matter whether it was a patent, scientific paper, book, magazine article, or what have you, as long as it was published.
Second, even by just adding "on a mobile device" to your claims, you're not going to get a patent on a well-known concept. At this point, it's clear that cell phones or other mobile devices are just small computers, so generically performing any well-known CS technique on them is subject to a finding of obviousness.
And why (it's to take away the burden from the patent office for having to google for prior art because a lot of patents were being overturned in lawsuits when it turned out that a simple google search would have brought up prior art .. thus humiliating the patent office).
Not true in the least. The fact that you don't know what you're talking about should be a clue to that. Gain an actual understanding of the current and proposed laws before you cast around these sorts of accusations.
If a disruptive student doesn't want to be there then they should be able to leave. Forcing them to be there is not helping them or anyone else who is trying to learn.
Take it to the next step and force them to leave if they're being disruptive. The worst thing about "No Child Left Behind" was the name. Some children should be left behind, because if we insist upon dragging them kicking and screaming through school, they're just going to take other kids with them into failure.
G. I don't have fingers, you insensitive clod!
Well.... apparently not. My bad.
Still, they're really stretching it to claim a copyright violation here.
You can't copyright the word "tricorder". The app (according to the posts that someone else posted here) doesn't infringe on any copyrights of screen design or anything like that (and it looks more like the LCARS interface from TNG, which CBS holds no claim to - that would be Viacom, owners of Paramount).
There is only one live entry for a registered trademark for "tricorder", and that's held by Paul Allen's company named Kiha Software, which holds the trademark as it relates to mobile device programs.
So, where does CBS get the balls to get this app taken down?
One way to mitigate the influence of the SEO asshats is to purge +1's that are associated with accounts and/or IPs that are seen to offer a lot of +1's for known spam/linkfarm pages.
It's for people who want to take that next step up from Verizon's craptacular home page.