There is a penalty. It's called the doctrine of laches, and it essentially says that if someone's behavior was damaging to you, but you opted to wait an unreasonable time before suing so that more damages would accrue, then you may forfeit the right to collect some or all of the compensation to which you would otherwise be entitled.
Now, it doesn't always work, because it's an affirmative defense, which means the defendant bears the initial burden to show that the plaintiff slept on their rights when they could have sued earlier. Some defendants look at that risk and opt to settle instead of trying it out on a jury.
"Notwithstanding the recent nuclear accident in Japan, among many others, and the rapid growth in energy and electricity from renewable sources, congressional Republicans continue to press for more nuclear energy funding while seeking deep cuts in renewable energy investments," said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. "One has to wonder 'what are these people thinking?'"
I have to wonder what he's thinking, because the best solution to US energy needs looking forward involves expansion of nuclear power as well as renewables. We still haven't really made a dent in the roughly half of US electricity production that comes from coal. And that huge base load need isn't going to be solved by intermittent power sources like solar or wind. Underfunding nuclear power development will only result in delays in bringing up safer newer plant designs.
If you really want to bring technological dominance back to the US, reduce or eliminate the corporate income tax. Right now, the US rate is crippling pretty much every industry that relies on large-cap businesses and forcing them outside the country.
What got me was his implication that because the change involved adding one letter to the code (the "s" in https), it shouldn't have made the difference between acceptance and rejection of the app.
All USPTO examiners must be US citizens. Many are naturalized, yes, but they're not "foreigners".
Under W, the USPTO hired thousands of additional examiners. Any underfunding was the result of Congress repeatedly raiding the USPTO's collected fees to spend them on other non-patent-related things (military, entitlements, blame whatever you want).
Some people feel that elections can be rigged and votes tampered with. One hacker, who goes by the name of Abhaxas, decided to prove that votes aren't secure by exposing parts of the Florida voting database. Said Abhaxas while posting the data, 'Who believes voting isn't tampered with?'
I think it's a lot more likely that the penis isn't making the noise at all. Yes, it's doing what they say it's doing, but the noise actually comes from the bug's screaming, either in sheer ecstasy or excruciating pain.
The problem is that the botnet operator can encrypt or cryptographically sign the updates they push, making it impossible to trick an infected node into accepting arbitrary updates.
The fact that the software maintains itself peer-to-peer is also its greatest weakness, because it allows any infected node to identify other infected nodes. So, you set up a number of honeypots and use those to identify infected machines. You then strongarm those machines' ISPs to disconnect their customers until they get their shit together.
Yes, the whole "strongarming the ISPs" thing is a flaw in the strategy since it hasn't really been successful to date, but I'm sure Microsoft can come up with a legal solution to that little hitch.
Actually, a public use (in the US) is applicable as prior art under 102(b) if it was more than one year prior, and under 102(a) if it was less than a year prior. The problem for examiners is that it can be difficult to find evidence that a public use actually contains the needed elements to formulate a rejection. Even with the availability of open source software, the amount of time that would need to be spent sifting through a large codebase far exceeds the time available to work on a case, and if it turns out that the open source solution does things differently, then all that time ends up essentially wasted.
Okay, then. Your homework, if you think you can do it better than the USPTO, is to write a proper rejection of any one claim in that patent under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Patent ownership isn't even necessarily a matter of public record. You *can* file with the USPTO to put a patent assignment on the record, and most corporations obtaining patent rights from their employees (who are the named inventors in the US - pretty much all foreign countries allow the corporations to apply for the patent directly) do so. But after that (and especially with patent trolls), it can be a lot of guesswork to figure out which shell company owns the patent, right up until someone files suit to assert the patent.
One could certainly make the argument that if patents are property, akin to real property, then keeping a record of ownership with the government should be required just as it is for real property. Personally, I think the process would benefit greatly from such transparency.
who don't have the emotional maturity to truly gauge the difference between right and wrong
It's not so much that they can't gauge the difference between right and wrong. People in their early teen years are easily able to make that distinction. It's that some of them lack the emotional maturity to reliably place other people's well-being above their own entertainment.
First I'd heard of it. Maybe I've been living under a Google Rock, but you'd think a company that specializes in advertising could Google Tell People About This Thing better.
No, because a re-exam is only performed when a requestor first shows that there is a "substantial new question of patentability". In other words, there is a selection bias that causes claims only to be re-examined when it is likely that at least some of them will be rejected. If a potential infringer can't dig up any prior art, they won't request a re-exam (or it won't be granted based on whatever bogus prior art they submit).
The backlog is a Bad Thing because it makes every patent a sort of mini-submarine patent. In the time it takes an application to get examined (often over 3 years to first office action, and sometimes 5 or more years until issuance), one of the applicant's competitors can develop a successful business based on what eventually winds up in the patent. That's bad for the patentee, of course, because it establishes a competitor in the public eye selling the same product, but it's also bad for the competitor, because they put a lot of work into that business and then get taken to the cleaners for infringing.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a penalty. It's called the doctrine of laches, and it essentially says that if someone's behavior was damaging to you, but you opted to wait an unreasonable time before suing so that more damages would accrue, then you may forfeit the right to collect some or all of the compensation to which you would otherwise be entitled.
Now, it doesn't always work, because it's an affirmative defense, which means the defendant bears the initial burden to show that the plaintiff slept on their rights when they could have sued earlier. Some defendants look at that risk and opt to settle instead of trying it out on a jury.
"Notwithstanding the recent nuclear accident in Japan, among many others, and the rapid growth in energy and electricity from renewable sources, congressional Republicans continue to press for more nuclear energy funding while seeking deep cuts in renewable energy investments," said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. "One has to wonder 'what are these people thinking?'"
I have to wonder what he's thinking, because the best solution to US energy needs looking forward involves expansion of nuclear power as well as renewables. We still haven't really made a dent in the roughly half of US electricity production that comes from coal. And that huge base load need isn't going to be solved by intermittent power sources like solar or wind. Underfunding nuclear power development will only result in delays in bringing up safer newer plant designs.
If you really want to bring technological dominance back to the US, reduce or eliminate the corporate income tax. Right now, the US rate is crippling pretty much every industry that relies on large-cap businesses and forcing them outside the country.
Even Barack Obama and Bill Clinton favor a cut in the corporate tax rate.
Let me go get the popcorn.
I'm not sure how, but popcorn is probably bad for the environment.
What got me was his implication that because the change involved adding one letter to the code (the "s" in https), it shouldn't have made the difference between acceptance and rejection of the app.
All USPTO examiners must be US citizens. Many are naturalized, yes, but they're not "foreigners".
Under W, the USPTO hired thousands of additional examiners. Any underfunding was the result of Congress repeatedly raiding the USPTO's collected fees to spend them on other non-patent-related things (military, entitlements, blame whatever you want).
Verifiable != public
Some people feel that elections can be rigged and votes tampered with. One hacker, who goes by the name of Abhaxas, decided to prove that votes aren't secure by exposing parts of the Florida voting database. Said Abhaxas while posting the data, 'Who believes voting isn't tampered with?'
Mr. Green: Why is J. Edgar Hoover on your phone?
Wadsworth: He's on everybody else's! Why shouldn't he be on mine?
Also, no more hookers during work hours.
I think it's a lot more likely that the penis isn't making the noise at all. Yes, it's doing what they say it's doing, but the noise actually comes from the bug's screaming, either in sheer ecstasy or excruciating pain.
The problem is that the botnet operator can encrypt or cryptographically sign the updates they push, making it impossible to trick an infected node into accepting arbitrary updates.
The fact that the software maintains itself peer-to-peer is also its greatest weakness, because it allows any infected node to identify other infected nodes. So, you set up a number of honeypots and use those to identify infected machines. You then strongarm those machines' ISPs to disconnect their customers until they get their shit together.
Yes, the whole "strongarming the ISPs" thing is a flaw in the strategy since it hasn't really been successful to date, but I'm sure Microsoft can come up with a legal solution to that little hitch.
Actually, a public use (in the US) is applicable as prior art under 102(b) if it was more than one year prior, and under 102(a) if it was less than a year prior. The problem for examiners is that it can be difficult to find evidence that a public use actually contains the needed elements to formulate a rejection. Even with the availability of open source software, the amount of time that would need to be spent sifting through a large codebase far exceeds the time available to work on a case, and if it turns out that the open source solution does things differently, then all that time ends up essentially wasted.
Okay, then. Your homework, if you think you can do it better than the USPTO, is to write a proper rejection of any one claim in that patent under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Patent ownership isn't even necessarily a matter of public record. You *can* file with the USPTO to put a patent assignment on the record, and most corporations obtaining patent rights from their employees (who are the named inventors in the US - pretty much all foreign countries allow the corporations to apply for the patent directly) do so. But after that (and especially with patent trolls), it can be a lot of guesswork to figure out which shell company owns the patent, right up until someone files suit to assert the patent.
One could certainly make the argument that if patents are property, akin to real property, then keeping a record of ownership with the government should be required just as it is for real property. Personally, I think the process would benefit greatly from such transparency.
Did you buy your cat from a breeder/pet store, or adopt it from a shelter? Because only the former is addressed by this law.
who don't have the emotional maturity to truly gauge the difference between right and wrong
It's not so much that they can't gauge the difference between right and wrong. People in their early teen years are easily able to make that distinction. It's that some of them lack the emotional maturity to reliably place other people's well-being above their own entertainment.
They did it with Macrovision, after all.
the world needs benevolent black/grey hat hackers to dig up dirty laundry on the establishment,
And you pick LulzSec as the most capable group for this? Hilarious.
How is CCP killing their game with their own little NGE not "news for nerds"?
The idea is to build a clock that lasts that long, not pay for repairs and maintenance to run a clock for 10.000 years. RTFA
You'd think that kind of information would be in TFS so we know WTF they're talking about. OMGWTFBBQ.
First I'd heard of it. Maybe I've been living under a Google Rock, but you'd think a company that specializes in advertising could Google Tell People About This Thing better.
Sure, it is. It's the logical fallacy of not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.
No, because a re-exam is only performed when a requestor first shows that there is a "substantial new question of patentability". In other words, there is a selection bias that causes claims only to be re-examined when it is likely that at least some of them will be rejected. If a potential infringer can't dig up any prior art, they won't request a re-exam (or it won't be granted based on whatever bogus prior art they submit).
The backlog is a Bad Thing because it makes every patent a sort of mini-submarine patent. In the time it takes an application to get examined (often over 3 years to first office action, and sometimes 5 or more years until issuance), one of the applicant's competitors can develop a successful business based on what eventually winds up in the patent. That's bad for the patentee, of course, because it establishes a competitor in the public eye selling the same product, but it's also bad for the competitor, because they put a lot of work into that business and then get taken to the cleaners for infringing.