I guess we'll find out whether or not there is such a loophole, probably in the next month or two, since Snyder v. Phelps is awaiting a Supreme Court decision.
The key is that a re-exam is granted when the requestor presents evidence (i.e., prior art) indicating a "substantial new question of patentability". Usually, this means prior art that the PTO didn't have ready access to, such as something not published online.
Patent examination is not a perfect process. It's essentially an attempt to prove a negative (i.e., the prior art in question doesn't exist). The examiner can search for an increasingly long period of time, but the return on that increased time diminishes rapidly. Maybe there's one item of prior art out there somewhere, but if the examiner can't find it within the time allotted, it might as well not exist.
but exploiting fear in liberals is difficult compared to exploiting fear in conservatives
You have heard of Al Gore, yes? Or Michael Moore?
What about the recent campaign by MoveOn.org to "save public broadcasting" because of Republicans moving to cut off funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, despite the fact that public broadcasting as a whole gets only a small portion of its financing from the government?
People from across the political spectrum are open to FUD. The only real difference is which buttons you have to push.
Frankly, no browser extension will be suitable to the task of going after link farmers until Lethal Force over IP is developed and widely adopted; but, in the absence of robust LF/IP implementations, I suppose hitting them in the wallet will have to do....
As I understand it, there are concerns of collateral damage because of all the hosts behind Network Assassination Translation firewalls.
Boy, I tell you what, man, you got that there dang ol' FBI hangin' around yer house, them black helicopters goin' chopchopchopchopchop all over the place, man.
I don't really get the point of this article. As dozens of people have said above, who cares.
But if you accept the premise of the article as placing Anonymous somehow in control of something that was previously under the control of Israel, I would say, how stupid can you get? Mossad's most recently exposed assassination was fairly sloppy, but they did kill the guy. That's certainly not the kind of wrath I'd want to bring down on myself.
The problem is this: Before, Pandora was fundamentally motivated by a desire to provide a useful service to its listeners, such as introducing them to music they may never have heard before. This includes bands attached to indie non-RIAA labels, for example.
But with stockholders running the show, the primary motivation will be profit rather than service, and that means that the RIAA can manipulate them into playing more of their canned crap and less of the interesting stuff. The result: the listeners suffer.
Pandora is legit, and the RIAA already gets their metric ton of flesh from them (i.e., far more than a comparable terrestrial radio station would have to pay).
You remember Word for Mac, right? Even though Apple was pushing the only viable desktop OS/platform alternative to Windows/PC at the time (I'm talking well before Redhat, Ubuntu, and other distros made desktop Linux easy), Microsoft saw value in porting Word, etc., to the Mac. Was it because they supported choice between their own platform and Apple's? Of course not. It was because there was money to be made, and because it promoted MS dominance in office productivity software.
During the re-exam for the swing patent, the patentee amended claim 1 to include (1) elliptical motion of the swing, rather than sideways, and (2) yelling like Tarzan.
No joke. It's all right there, public record.
Incidentally, the claim was rejected over the prior art as well as being indefinite, because the full scope of "yelling like Tarzan" could not be ascertained.
In the specific case you're talking about, the issue isn't just that the PTO is overworked or underbrained. It's that those kinds of references are difficult or impossible to find in a search - you have to already know about the reference's existence and the stuff it contains in order to "find" it.
This sort of thing happens a lot with software patents, too. A product on the market will have some feature, but perhaps the product is not popular, or was discontinued, or the claim relies on details only provable by looking at the source code but the product is closed-source, etc. You can't search for this stuff. If they didn't patent the relevant technology or publish a scientific paper, it's not accessible. Sure, it would count as prior art, but examiners can only cite it if they can find it, and they have to cite references in order to reject claims.
The good news is that there are procedures aside from court that allow people to (spend money and) challenge issued patents. The ex parte re-exam process allows a person to submit specific prior art to the PTO and request a re-exam of an issued patent. There are certain legal requirements, and the submitter can't participate in the process once the re-exam is submitted (hence "ex parte"). The inter partes re-exam process, being more expensive, allows the submitter to participate in the re-exam process, and is typically used by an accused infringer as an avenue for narrowing or invalidating claims on the front end of getting sued.
The other bad news is that only certain kinds of references - printed publications (meaning scientific papers, news articles, etc., as well as pre-grant patent application publications - who knows, maybe this includes published source code) and issued patents - that can be cited in re-exams. If you want your product that was "in public use" to count, someone has to get sued and convince the court to invalidate it. In fact, this is closely related to the big issue surrounding the pending Supreme Court case Microsoft v. i4i.
Yeah, but your version doesn't mention the lawyers. That's very important, mentioning the lawyers. People hate lawyers, and the Slashdot crowd especially hates corporate lawyers, so you'll get a bigger response by including them in the conspiracy.
I don't know whether the document itself gives enough grounds for a lawsuits
Filed by whom? Wikileaks? I seriously doubt that Assange and pals want to open their organization up to the kind of discovery likely to result from filing a lawsuit.
If it was American drivers faults, why then did we not see a rash of similar accidents with other manufacturers vehicles?
If you had R'ed TFA, you would have R'ed this:
"Unintended acceleration is not exclusive to Toyotas," [NHTSA deputy administrator Ron] Medford said, pointing out that two-thirds of the unintended acceleration reports the agency has received in recent years involved vehicles by other automakers.
The problem is, what happens if someone else (not a prisoner, not a guard) is near the facility and their phone starts communicating with the prison's tower? Monitoring their conversation would be an inadvertent violation of their rights. There would be a great potential for liability, right down to the point where people would *try* to make this happen just so they could sue.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we'll find out whether or not there is such a loophole, probably in the next month or two, since Snyder v. Phelps is awaiting a Supreme Court decision.
...when the driver spots a totally hot jogger on the sidewalk.
This, like so many other school programs, is an egregious violation of the students' rights.
Not so. Most parents would happily sign a release if it meant not having to go through truancy charges.
The key is that a re-exam is granted when the requestor presents evidence (i.e., prior art) indicating a "substantial new question of patentability". Usually, this means prior art that the PTO didn't have ready access to, such as something not published online.
Patent examination is not a perfect process. It's essentially an attempt to prove a negative (i.e., the prior art in question doesn't exist). The examiner can search for an increasingly long period of time, but the return on that increased time diminishes rapidly. Maybe there's one item of prior art out there somewhere, but if the examiner can't find it within the time allotted, it might as well not exist.
Representative King is more interested in having his name in the papers than representing the people.
Welcome to the United States, my friend! Enjoy your stay.
...is a list of skill bonuses for each class, and we can start rolling up characters!
but exploiting fear in liberals is difficult compared to exploiting fear in conservatives
You have heard of Al Gore, yes? Or Michael Moore?
What about the recent campaign by MoveOn.org to "save public broadcasting" because of Republicans moving to cut off funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, despite the fact that public broadcasting as a whole gets only a small portion of its financing from the government?
People from across the political spectrum are open to FUD. The only real difference is which buttons you have to push.
Frankly, no browser extension will be suitable to the task of going after link farmers until Lethal Force over IP is developed and widely adopted; but, in the absence of robust LF/IP implementations, I suppose hitting them in the wallet will have to do....
As I understand it, there are concerns of collateral damage because of all the hosts behind Network Assassination Translation firewalls.
Boy, I tell you what, man, you got that there dang ol' FBI hangin' around yer house, them black helicopters goin' chopchopchopchopchop all over the place, man.
Facebook didn't do anything wrong here because Facebook didn't do anything at all here. The group was split by the people running the group.
Actually, my quote might have been a bit misleading - I don't know how much the logistics cost, but we paid Kazakhstan $27 million for the material.
That's AJAX at work! It's like DRM for the web.
I don't really get the point of this article. As dozens of people have said above, who cares.
But if you accept the premise of the article as placing Anonymous somehow in control of something that was previously under the control of Israel, I would say, how stupid can you get? Mossad's most recently exposed assassination was fairly sloppy, but they did kill the guy. That's certainly not the kind of wrath I'd want to bring down on myself.
The problem is this: Before, Pandora was fundamentally motivated by a desire to provide a useful service to its listeners, such as introducing them to music they may never have heard before. This includes bands attached to indie non-RIAA labels, for example.
But with stockholders running the show, the primary motivation will be profit rather than service, and that means that the RIAA can manipulate them into playing more of their canned crap and less of the interesting stuff. The result: the listeners suffer.
Pandora is legit, and the RIAA already gets their metric ton of flesh from them (i.e., far more than a comparable terrestrial radio station would have to pay).
The US helped remove a half ton of fissile material from Kazakhstan in 1993-94 in a covert project called Project Sapphire at a cost of $27 million.
You remember Word for Mac, right? Even though Apple was pushing the only viable desktop OS/platform alternative to Windows/PC at the time (I'm talking well before Redhat, Ubuntu, and other distros made desktop Linux easy), Microsoft saw value in porting Word, etc., to the Mac. Was it because they supported choice between their own platform and Apple's? Of course not. It was because there was money to be made, and because it promoted MS dominance in office productivity software.
I'm pretty sure the same lessons apply here.
During the re-exam for the swing patent, the patentee amended claim 1 to include (1) elliptical motion of the swing, rather than sideways, and (2) yelling like Tarzan.
No joke. It's all right there, public record.
Incidentally, the claim was rejected over the prior art as well as being indefinite, because the full scope of "yelling like Tarzan" could not be ascertained.
In the specific case you're talking about, the issue isn't just that the PTO is overworked or underbrained. It's that those kinds of references are difficult or impossible to find in a search - you have to already know about the reference's existence and the stuff it contains in order to "find" it.
This sort of thing happens a lot with software patents, too. A product on the market will have some feature, but perhaps the product is not popular, or was discontinued, or the claim relies on details only provable by looking at the source code but the product is closed-source, etc. You can't search for this stuff. If they didn't patent the relevant technology or publish a scientific paper, it's not accessible. Sure, it would count as prior art, but examiners can only cite it if they can find it, and they have to cite references in order to reject claims.
The good news is that there are procedures aside from court that allow people to (spend money and) challenge issued patents. The ex parte re-exam process allows a person to submit specific prior art to the PTO and request a re-exam of an issued patent. There are certain legal requirements, and the submitter can't participate in the process once the re-exam is submitted (hence "ex parte"). The inter partes re-exam process, being more expensive, allows the submitter to participate in the re-exam process, and is typically used by an accused infringer as an avenue for narrowing or invalidating claims on the front end of getting sued.
The other bad news is that only certain kinds of references - printed publications (meaning scientific papers, news articles, etc., as well as pre-grant patent application publications - who knows, maybe this includes published source code) and issued patents - that can be cited in re-exams. If you want your product that was "in public use" to count, someone has to get sued and convince the court to invalidate it. In fact, this is closely related to the big issue surrounding the pending Supreme Court case Microsoft v. i4i.
Yeah, but your version doesn't mention the lawyers. That's very important, mentioning the lawyers. People hate lawyers, and the Slashdot crowd especially hates corporate lawyers, so you'll get a bigger response by including them in the conspiracy.
I don't know whether the document itself gives enough grounds for a lawsuits
Filed by whom? Wikileaks? I seriously doubt that Assange and pals want to open their organization up to the kind of discovery likely to result from filing a lawsuit.
Is Hotfile complying with DMCA takedown requests?
If it was American drivers faults, why then did we not see a rash of similar accidents with other manufacturers vehicles?
If you had R'ed TFA, you would have R'ed this:
"Unintended acceleration is not exclusive to Toyotas," [NHTSA deputy administrator Ron] Medford said, pointing out that two-thirds of the unintended acceleration reports the agency has received in recent years involved vehicles by other automakers.
You don't create a new fucking word by prefixing "cyber-" to it.
Sure you do. It's called cyberneologism.
The problem is, what happens if someone else (not a prisoner, not a guard) is near the facility and their phone starts communicating with the prison's tower? Monitoring their conversation would be an inadvertent violation of their rights. There would be a great potential for liability, right down to the point where people would *try* to make this happen just so they could sue.