Is there case law to support this? Because it seems to me that (in the US, anyway) since the exclusive right is duplication, that the infringing act is completed when the duplication occurs, and so the infringement is not ongoing.
In this particular case, though, uploading the file to a cloud would constitute another duplication, and if the file was obtained through infringement initially, the new duplication would be another infringement.
Well, he says "by 2029", so that's just the conservative end of his prediction. Could be sooner. He already says that mind uploading will be possible around 2030, though, and once you have that, you can just simulate the brain of someone who knows two languages and get the answer to any translation problem, so his prediction would have to be earlier than that.
He also says the technological singularity will happen around 2045, so maybe we shouldn't waste our time working on machine translation in the meantime.
That's not an option. Even if you put off a case, eventually working on that specific case will become a requirement, and you take penalties to your "workflow" performance metric for continuing to put it off. Eventually, your workflow will become so low that you will get fired for it.
That statement is made by someone who clearly doesn't know what patent examining is like. Next time the USPTO is hiring (probably in the fall), feel free to sign up.
Examining a patent is essentially trying to prove the nonexistence of something. All you can really do is keep searching for it. But a patent examiner also has to meet production goals, which means you have to move on to the next case eventually.
Better yet, the patent was filed in April 1999. It says it's a continuation-in-part from October 1997, but a ton of stuff was changed from the parent patent, and a claim doesn't get the benefit of the earlier filing date in a CIP if the claim covers stuff that wasn't disclosed in the parent.
If LulzSec went after the culprit on their own, then it's only their necks in the noose if they get caught (revenge or no, they're still committing a crime). But if Sega contacts them, then Sega becomes complicit, and their lawyers will probably have a thing or two to say about that.
Don't forget that three Democrats joined in with six Republicans to file suit in the DC District Court seeking an injunction against continued action in Libya. So it's not just Republicans opposing this.
Also, the problem isn't that Obama is dropping bombs in Libya. It's that he is continuing to take this action without seeking Congressional approval, and is about one day away from being in full violation of the law. Why does he not just twist some arms in Congress to get approval for this, and then everyone will be happy?
And even at that, there's no indication that you can extract any real information out of the readings (thoughts, intentions, etc).
Classifier technology is already advanced enough that making this jump shouldn't be too difficult. The real limitations are (a) the amount of data to be processed and (b) the resolution of the sensors.
Part of the problem, though, is that you really have to understand how re-exams work in order to provide substantive suggestions on how to streamline them. If you speak in generalities and try to grind an axe over software patents, I suspect your comments will find their way to the round file.
The RFC by the USPTO is limited in scope to restructuring the re-exam process for increased efficiency, quality, and throughput. Comments on this process will need to be framed by the current statute and case law built on the statute, because the USPTO cannot change the statute by itself. Instead, this is talking about changing internal procedure as well as possibly changing the regulations (37 CFR).
There are two differences. One, he didn't use a prefab microprocessor - he built one from gates, counters, etc. And two, his website hasn't collapsed from the slashdotting.
Repeat after me: This is not a patent. This is not a patent. This is not a patent.
This is a patent application. It hasn't been examined yet. It doesn't grant any exclusive rights to the applicant. The claimed invention may very well be obvious - time will tell what the examiner is able to dig up.
I think they probably mean "square" in the construction sense - that is, two things (such as Spongebob's edges) are considered square when they are orthogonal.
They can't freeze a head to last. They don't do it fast enough to preserve the cell walls, and they have a horrible history of being able to maintain the temperature.
Cite some references, please?
Also, even if it's not 100% perfect, you're guaranteed never to come back if you have yourself incinerated or you let yourself rot in the ground.
This is really just a Chicken Little story by someone who apparently didn't bother to read the statute before freaking out.
The bill amends 18 USC 2319(b), which refers specifically to violations of 17 USC 506(a)(1)(A), which reads:
[Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed] for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
So this doesn't apply to little Susie lip-synching her favorite Bieber song and posting it to YouTube.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there case law to support this? Because it seems to me that (in the US, anyway) since the exclusive right is duplication, that the infringing act is completed when the duplication occurs, and so the infringement is not ongoing.
In this particular case, though, uploading the file to a cloud would constitute another duplication, and if the file was obtained through infringement initially, the new duplication would be another infringement.
I always wondered what the tin foil hat says.
Damn. Mine only says crumple-crumple-crumple.
Well, he says "by 2029", so that's just the conservative end of his prediction. Could be sooner. He already says that mind uploading will be possible around 2030, though, and once you have that, you can just simulate the brain of someone who knows two languages and get the answer to any translation problem, so his prediction would have to be earlier than that.
He also says the technological singularity will happen around 2045, so maybe we shouldn't waste our time working on machine translation in the meantime.
Does it really matter? Unless you're planning on sweeping the streets for gold yourself, nobody cares whether the story is true or not.
Become a Congressman of other high-ranking government official. Best fucking care you can get.
Congressmen are covered under FEHB, meaning they get the exact same health care benefits that every single federal employee gets.
If it's not done then don't sign off on it.
That's not an option. Even if you put off a case, eventually working on that specific case will become a requirement, and you take penalties to your "workflow" performance metric for continuing to put it off. Eventually, your workflow will become so low that you will get fired for it.
Not mentioned in the story is that he now has super-human jumping ability.
But only in one leg.
That statement is made by someone who clearly doesn't know what patent examining is like. Next time the USPTO is hiring (probably in the fall), feel free to sign up.
Examining a patent is essentially trying to prove the nonexistence of something. All you can really do is keep searching for it. But a patent examiner also has to meet production goals, which means you have to move on to the next case eventually.
Better yet, the patent was filed in April 1999. It says it's a continuation-in-part from October 1997, but a ton of stuff was changed from the parent patent, and a claim doesn't get the benefit of the earlier filing date in a CIP if the claim covers stuff that wasn't disclosed in the parent.
If LulzSec went after the culprit on their own, then it's only their necks in the noose if they get caught (revenge or no, they're still committing a crime). But if Sega contacts them, then Sega becomes complicit, and their lawyers will probably have a thing or two to say about that.
Don't forget that three Democrats joined in with six Republicans to file suit in the DC District Court seeking an injunction against continued action in Libya. So it's not just Republicans opposing this.
Also, the problem isn't that Obama is dropping bombs in Libya. It's that he is continuing to take this action without seeking Congressional approval, and is about one day away from being in full violation of the law. Why does he not just twist some arms in Congress to get approval for this, and then everyone will be happy?
The next sound you hear will be the Ass Police pounding on your back door.
And even at that, there's no indication that you can extract any real information out of the readings (thoughts, intentions, etc).
Classifier technology is already advanced enough that making this jump shouldn't be too difficult. The real limitations are (a) the amount of data to be processed and (b) the resolution of the sensors.
Part of the problem, though, is that you really have to understand how re-exams work in order to provide substantive suggestions on how to streamline them. If you speak in generalities and try to grind an axe over software patents, I suspect your comments will find their way to the round file.
Nobody "invented" the personal computer.
No one user wrote me. I'm worth millions of their man-years.
You make a good point. Maybe none of us should be impressed unless the formation of a new universe is somehow involved.
The RFC by the USPTO is limited in scope to restructuring the re-exam process for increased efficiency, quality, and throughput. Comments on this process will need to be framed by the current statute and case law built on the statute, because the USPTO cannot change the statute by itself. Instead, this is talking about changing internal procedure as well as possibly changing the regulations (37 CFR).
He still used a microprocessor in an integrated circuit.
Really? Which one did he use?
There are two differences. One, he didn't use a prefab microprocessor - he built one from gates, counters, etc. And two, his website hasn't collapsed from the slashdotting.
Repeat after me: This is not a patent. This is not a patent. This is not a patent.
This is a patent application. It hasn't been examined yet. It doesn't grant any exclusive rights to the applicant. The claimed invention may very well be obvious - time will tell what the examiner is able to dig up.
It should search never. The address bar is for typing in addresses. If you want to search, type something in the search bar.
I think they probably mean "square" in the construction sense - that is, two things (such as Spongebob's edges) are considered square when they are orthogonal.
Reverted 432,272 edits as vandalism.
They can't freeze a head to last. They don't do it fast enough to preserve the cell walls, and they have a horrible history of being able to maintain the temperature.
Cite some references, please?
Also, even if it's not 100% perfect, you're guaranteed never to come back if you have yourself incinerated or you let yourself rot in the ground.
This is really just a Chicken Little story by someone who apparently didn't bother to read the statute before freaking out.
The bill amends 18 USC 2319(b), which refers specifically to violations of 17 USC 506(a)(1)(A), which reads:
So this doesn't apply to little Susie lip-synching her favorite Bieber song and posting it to YouTube.