In fairness, the bill institutes "derivation proceedings", in which someone can assert that someone else's patented invention was actually derived from their own invention and wasn't original to the patentee. This is similar to today's "interference" proceedings, except the complainant gets to file a petition to directly initiate such proceedings. The derivation proceedings would initially take place before the USPTO rather than in court, decreasing litigation costs (at least initially, as the results may be appealable to the Federal Circuit).
This is essentially what's meant by "first inventor to file", as opposed to simply "first to file". If two inventors independently come up with the same invention, then the one who makes it to the office first wins.
Similar to the "put periods anywhere in your e-mail address" and "put a + followed by anything" features offered by Google, this Hotmail feature will soon be exploited by forum spammers to create a multitude of e-mail addresses without having to solve captchas.
One of the few weapons that forum maintainers have in their anti-spam arsenal is to be able to collaboratively blacklist e-mail addresses, IP addresses, and usernames. This feature would further hinder blacklisting by e-mail address, in a manner even worse than the easily detectable ones that Gmail offers.
It's written by some random blogger who doesn't appear to have credentials in analysis of journalism trends, and all he really does is prognosticate doom and gloom for a new product without (a) evidence to indicate imminent failure or (b) allowing the new product to test itself in the marketplace. I could get the same level and quality of information from reading the comments to the/. thread that reported on The Daily going live in the first place.
In fairness, how should they prove that Google's accusations are false? This is the same reason that innocence should be considered the default conclusion until guilt is proven, because it may not be possible to prove one's innocence.
What's really needed here is an impartial, verifiable, third-party confirmation or refutation of Google's test results. Of course, if Microsoft really was scraping Bing Bar users' Google searches before, they may stop now, making third-party results inconclusive at best.
How is this really any different from, say, exploiting a dupe bug in a MMOG? That sort of thing has been done before, but most people would consider being banned from the game to be an appropriate punishment. Why does this case escalate to the level of criminal charges of fraud?
I take it that is a Masters of Science, except how you can manage to get a graduate Masters degree in Science from a school of Journalism in a single year is an interesting concept in its own right.
Some schools have programs where you begin taking graduate-level coursework in your senior or even junior year of undergraduate study, and you begin whatever work is required for your thesis around the same time. The graduate-level courses generally fulfill elective requirements for your undergraduate degree as well as requirements for your graduate degree. The end result is that it only takes about one additional year to fulfill the requirements of a Master's degree.
Sending all your users through a single point of transmission, and thereby making all your users look as though they have the same IP address, makes your ISP a haven for spammers.
If you have enough legitimate users behind your single IP, forum/blog/game/whatever admins will be reluctant to block that IP, since they'd be blocking a lot of real potential users as well. Reporting spammers to you becomes more difficult as well, since all their reports will list that single IP, and neither they nor you will have any means for determining which of your customers was actually spamming.
The result is that spammers will be able to use your ISP with relative impunity.
Perhaps with enough publicity from this case, the "members" of Slashdot will realize that using a straw man argument is not useful activism. Unfortunately, it's more likely that the various police involved will be targeted next, along with their supporters, families, and farmers.
I personally know about 30 people that have automatic scripts on their MythTV boxes that automatically upload TV shows the second they are done recording and the commercials have been flagged and removed.
I know it's not logically sound to blame those people for why we can't have nice things like a CableCARD reader on the PCI bus with open source software, because the content cabal was contemplating the ramifications of that sort of thing even before MythTV was written. But what those people are doing does tend to support the content cabal's argument that such restrictions have value.
the energy stored per kilogram is much lower than current lithium batteries.
For a non-plug-in hybrid, it doesn't really matter that much. What you're really after is a buffer to take up otherwise wasted energy and re-dispense it at the earliest available opportunity. The key isn't so much overall capacity - you just want something that can be charged and discharged fast enough and efficiently enough to satisfy the needs of normal city driving.
So our F-117A gets shot down by a Yugoslav-made SAM, based on a Soviet design, in Serbia ten years ago. The F-117A was already close to 20 years old at the time, and it was retired in 2008. This is definitely the tech I want to be copying for my state-of-the-art stealth aircraft.
So, why exactly are we concerned that the J-20 will give the F-22 or F-35 a run for their money? We already know that the F-22 can splash (in mock combat) F-15s and F-16s with missiles before the F-22 is even detected. If the Chinese merely copied stealth tech from the F-117A and (apparently) photos of the F-35, is it really going to have good enough stealth to stand up against the F-22 or even just the F-35 in actual combat?
In fairness, a hallmark of Al Qaeda is to blow something up, wait for first responders to arrive, and then blow it up again. So, securing the area might reduce loss of life in the event there were a second bomb.
The problem is that running TV shows on TV means that you're trying to monetize through advertising. Nerds aren't interested in that, partly because advertising is mostly geared toward the low-hanging fruit, i.e., stupid people. These shows can be monetized, but you have to monetize through DVD sales, Netflix, iTunes, etc. In other words, the consumer becomes the customer, and you're selling the TV show directly to them instead of to advertisers.
Yes, there are some nerds who will refuse to pay, instead downloading shared copies of them. But many nerds actually have money because they're intelligent and successful, and they understand that a TV show that is sold directly to them requires that they pay into it in order for it to remain viable. Is it enough to reach critical mass without first running the shows on regular TV? Who knows, as those sorts of sales/profit figures aren't easy to come by unless you're an industry insider.
But if there is enough interest in direct-to-DVD/download/rental sci-fi that has the high production values of current TV sci-fi, it could work - the question becomes, how do you market those shows directly to the viewer if you don't have TV as a platform for doing so?
Really, the only scenario meriting retaliation for its own sake is the one in which both you and your opponent are script kiddies, because the Internet is really just one big e-peen contest.
I love reading the stories posted by the readership about all of the odd systems found stuck in closets and under desks which nobody knows what are doing.
Well, with regard to Congress, there are roughly 535 of them at any given time.
If you're going to go on that old exception about algorithms and "all software is math," then that argument has lost many times and is unlikely to ever succeed.
It succeeded in part in In re Abele. It also succeeded in cases focused more on formalistic hoops, like In re Warmerdam or In re Lowry, and we never did find out whether Beauregard claims would pass judicial muster. SCOTUS avoided the question in Bilski v. Kappos, and AFAIK, has yet to address the question directly.
Initial delays during prosecution are generally the fault of the USPTO, mainly because the application sits in a queue for a long time waiting for an examiner to get to them. That's why there's been a big push for the office to shorten the time to first action. But the longer prosecution takes, generally speaking, the more that delay can be placed on the applicant and/or their attorney.
For instance, once you file a response to the first office action, the examiner has about two months to submit another office action in response to your response. But you can take up to six months to file that response (paying a fee if you take more than three months). Also, if you take only incremental steps in amending your claims, or you argue against a rejection in one response without amending and then amend in your subsequent response when the examiner doesn't buy your argument, then prosecution will take longer. Those delays are mostly generated based upon the applicant's/attorney's decisions in how to prosecute the application, and are sort of a trade-off between eventual issued claim scope and the quickness with which the application gets passed to issue.
When you're talking about 8 years in prosecution, you're almost certainly talking about a long initial pendency (3.5 years is about the max right now) plus an appeal plus several office actions and responses. Half of that 8 years results at least indirectly from the applicant's decision to fight tooth-and-nail for every bit of claim scope that they're going for. (Note that there's a sizable backlog for appeals, but attorneys know about this, and they can advise their clients on the resulting delays from appealing rather than just amending the claims.)
Also note that delays created by the office beyond a certain point get credited to the applicant with a patent term adjustment, meaning that the actual term of the patent is 20 years from effective filing date plus those extra days. There are numerous issued patents with patent term adjustments over 1000 days, most of which arises from the application working its way through the initial backlog.
Finally, the complexity of an application doesn't necessarily cause an increase in time spent in prosecution. While applications are divided up by subject matter to be processed by different art units (essentially departments or workgroups covering one particular field), and different art units have different pendencies, those pendencies are dependent more on changes in the number of applications filed in those fields over the past several years compared to the amount of hiring that the managers in those art units have chosen (or have been permitted by their bosses) to do. What you see is that the hot areas of technology these days are also the more complicated ones, so lagging employment in the corresponding art units results in an increase in pendency for those applications.
Slashdot Mirror
In fairness, the bill institutes "derivation proceedings", in which someone can assert that someone else's patented invention was actually derived from their own invention and wasn't original to the patentee. This is similar to today's "interference" proceedings, except the complainant gets to file a petition to directly initiate such proceedings. The derivation proceedings would initially take place before the USPTO rather than in court, decreasing litigation costs (at least initially, as the results may be appealable to the Federal Circuit).
This is essentially what's meant by "first inventor to file", as opposed to simply "first to file". If two inventors independently come up with the same invention, then the one who makes it to the office first wins.
Similar to the "put periods anywhere in your e-mail address" and "put a + followed by anything" features offered by Google, this Hotmail feature will soon be exploited by forum spammers to create a multitude of e-mail addresses without having to solve captchas.
One of the few weapons that forum maintainers have in their anti-spam arsenal is to be able to collaboratively blacklist e-mail addresses, IP addresses, and usernames. This feature would further hinder blacklisting by e-mail address, in a manner even worse than the easily detectable ones that Gmail offers.
...reading this article?
It's written by some random blogger who doesn't appear to have credentials in analysis of journalism trends, and all he really does is prognosticate doom and gloom for a new product without (a) evidence to indicate imminent failure or (b) allowing the new product to test itself in the marketplace. I could get the same level and quality of information from reading the comments to the /. thread that reported on The Daily going live in the first place.
In fairness, how should they prove that Google's accusations are false? This is the same reason that innocence should be considered the default conclusion until guilt is proven, because it may not be possible to prove one's innocence.
What's really needed here is an impartial, verifiable, third-party confirmation or refutation of Google's test results. Of course, if Microsoft really was scraping Bing Bar users' Google searches before, they may stop now, making third-party results inconclusive at best.
How is this really any different from, say, exploiting a dupe bug in a MMOG? That sort of thing has been done before, but most people would consider being banned from the game to be an appropriate punishment. Why does this case escalate to the level of criminal charges of fraud?
Am I the only one who read that comment and the voice in my head sounded like Prof. Farnsworth?
Ohhh my, no!
I take it that is a Masters of Science, except how you can manage to get a graduate Masters degree in Science from a school of Journalism in a single year is an interesting concept in its own right.
Some schools have programs where you begin taking graduate-level coursework in your senior or even junior year of undergraduate study, and you begin whatever work is required for your thesis around the same time. The graduate-level courses generally fulfill elective requirements for your undergraduate degree as well as requirements for your graduate degree. The end result is that it only takes about one additional year to fulfill the requirements of a Master's degree.
Er... uh, pardon me, Ossifer... uh, can I finger your borrow a minute? *hic*
Sending all your users through a single point of transmission, and thereby making all your users look as though they have the same IP address, makes your ISP a haven for spammers.
If you have enough legitimate users behind your single IP, forum/blog/game/whatever admins will be reluctant to block that IP, since they'd be blocking a lot of real potential users as well. Reporting spammers to you becomes more difficult as well, since all their reports will list that single IP, and neither they nor you will have any means for determining which of your customers was actually spamming.
The result is that spammers will be able to use your ISP with relative impunity.
Kirk: 11A
Scott: 11A2B
Chekov: 1B2B3
Final code: 000 Destruct 0
Perhaps with enough publicity from this case, the "members" of Slashdot will realize that using a straw man argument is not useful activism. Unfortunately, it's more likely that the various police involved will be targeted next, along with their supporters, families, and farmers.
I personally know about 30 people that have automatic scripts on their MythTV boxes that automatically upload TV shows the second they are done recording and the commercials have been flagged and removed.
I know it's not logically sound to blame those people for why we can't have nice things like a CableCARD reader on the PCI bus with open source software, because the content cabal was contemplating the ramifications of that sort of thing even before MythTV was written. But what those people are doing does tend to support the content cabal's argument that such restrictions have value.
the energy stored per kilogram is much lower than current lithium batteries.
For a non-plug-in hybrid, it doesn't really matter that much. What you're really after is a buffer to take up otherwise wasted energy and re-dispense it at the earliest available opportunity. The key isn't so much overall capacity - you just want something that can be charged and discharged fast enough and efficiently enough to satisfy the needs of normal city driving.
In fact, anyone caught with a plastic bag was burned as a witch as plastic hadn't been invented yet.
Pics or it didn't happen.
So our F-117A gets shot down by a Yugoslav-made SAM, based on a Soviet design, in Serbia ten years ago. The F-117A was already close to 20 years old at the time, and it was retired in 2008. This is definitely the tech I want to be copying for my state-of-the-art stealth aircraft.
So, why exactly are we concerned that the J-20 will give the F-22 or F-35 a run for their money? We already know that the F-22 can splash (in mock combat) F-15s and F-16s with missiles before the F-22 is even detected. If the Chinese merely copied stealth tech from the F-117A and (apparently) photos of the F-35, is it really going to have good enough stealth to stand up against the F-22 or even just the F-35 in actual combat?
In fairness, a hallmark of Al Qaeda is to blow something up, wait for first responders to arrive, and then blow it up again. So, securing the area might reduce loss of life in the event there were a second bomb.
The problem is that running TV shows on TV means that you're trying to monetize through advertising. Nerds aren't interested in that, partly because advertising is mostly geared toward the low-hanging fruit, i.e., stupid people. These shows can be monetized, but you have to monetize through DVD sales, Netflix, iTunes, etc. In other words, the consumer becomes the customer, and you're selling the TV show directly to them instead of to advertisers.
Yes, there are some nerds who will refuse to pay, instead downloading shared copies of them. But many nerds actually have money because they're intelligent and successful, and they understand that a TV show that is sold directly to them requires that they pay into it in order for it to remain viable. Is it enough to reach critical mass without first running the shows on regular TV? Who knows, as those sorts of sales/profit figures aren't easy to come by unless you're an industry insider.
But if there is enough interest in direct-to-DVD/download/rental sci-fi that has the high production values of current TV sci-fi, it could work - the question becomes, how do you market those shows directly to the viewer if you don't have TV as a platform for doing so?
I have to see what my favourite hollywood actress is doing with her hair this week
My guess: Brazilian wax.
Really, the only scenario meriting retaliation for its own sake is the one in which both you and your opponent are script kiddies, because the Internet is really just one big e-peen contest.
...when Hulkamania runs wild on your program schedule?
I don't see how Fringe could possibly compete with wrasslin' on Friday night. I mean, that's what hardcore sci-fi geeks are really after, right?
I love reading the stories posted by the readership about all of the odd systems found stuck in closets and under desks which nobody knows what are doing.
Well, with regard to Congress, there are roughly 535 of them at any given time.
Yet more proof that pollution has a VALUE and is worth MONEY.
Maybe we should switch our currency to the carbon standard, then.
If you're going to go on that old exception about algorithms and "all software is math," then that argument has lost many times and is unlikely to ever succeed.
It succeeded in part in In re Abele. It also succeeded in cases focused more on formalistic hoops, like In re Warmerdam or In re Lowry, and we never did find out whether Beauregard claims would pass judicial muster. SCOTUS avoided the question in Bilski v. Kappos, and AFAIK, has yet to address the question directly.
Initial delays during prosecution are generally the fault of the USPTO, mainly because the application sits in a queue for a long time waiting for an examiner to get to them. That's why there's been a big push for the office to shorten the time to first action. But the longer prosecution takes, generally speaking, the more that delay can be placed on the applicant and/or their attorney.
For instance, once you file a response to the first office action, the examiner has about two months to submit another office action in response to your response. But you can take up to six months to file that response (paying a fee if you take more than three months). Also, if you take only incremental steps in amending your claims, or you argue against a rejection in one response without amending and then amend in your subsequent response when the examiner doesn't buy your argument, then prosecution will take longer. Those delays are mostly generated based upon the applicant's/attorney's decisions in how to prosecute the application, and are sort of a trade-off between eventual issued claim scope and the quickness with which the application gets passed to issue.
When you're talking about 8 years in prosecution, you're almost certainly talking about a long initial pendency (3.5 years is about the max right now) plus an appeal plus several office actions and responses. Half of that 8 years results at least indirectly from the applicant's decision to fight tooth-and-nail for every bit of claim scope that they're going for. (Note that there's a sizable backlog for appeals, but attorneys know about this, and they can advise their clients on the resulting delays from appealing rather than just amending the claims.)
Also note that delays created by the office beyond a certain point get credited to the applicant with a patent term adjustment, meaning that the actual term of the patent is 20 years from effective filing date plus those extra days. There are numerous issued patents with patent term adjustments over 1000 days, most of which arises from the application working its way through the initial backlog.
Finally, the complexity of an application doesn't necessarily cause an increase in time spent in prosecution. While applications are divided up by subject matter to be processed by different art units (essentially departments or workgroups covering one particular field), and different art units have different pendencies, those pendencies are dependent more on changes in the number of applications filed in those fields over the past several years compared to the amount of hiring that the managers in those art units have chosen (or have been permitted by their bosses) to do. What you see is that the hot areas of technology these days are also the more complicated ones, so lagging employment in the corresponding art units results in an increase in pendency for those applications.
No kidding. It's a wonder the damn thing wasn't written in Fortran.