Same attorney for both cases. The boat patent has a child application that went abandoned without being published, so I can't find out whether this is true through public means, but it's a good bet that there was an abstract filed in that case the same day as the playoff application, and the papers got mixed up.
No. A submarine patent is a patent issued on an application that was filed, or claims continuity to an effective filing date, before 8 June 1995, which means it gets a patent term of 17 years from the date of issue. The submarine strategy is then to keep the application pending (a relatively inexpensive proposition, given the potential profit) until an infringing product pops up in the marketplace, and then get the claims allowable, pay the issue fee, and sue.
Submarine patents were largely remedied by switching to a patent term of 20 years from the filing date (though there are still a very few applications still pending that have an effective filing date that gives them the old patent term). Now, if you keep your application pending for 20 years (plus patent term adjustments, a topic too complex to cover here), then when it issues, the term will already be expired.
As for the abstract not matching the invention, it's not really that great a loss, although the examiner should have objected to it. Patent searches are rarely done by flipping through abstracts. More often, they're done by classification along with keywords to search through the entire text of the patent. In this case, it's hard to tell why that abstract is attached to that application. It was probably a paperwork error, either on the part of the attorney getting their pages mixed up or at the USPTO mailroom. It's moot, though, since that application went abandoned.
Just to confirm: you want more professional sports teams, and you want educational institutions that have substantially less in the way of monetary resources.
Methinks this is a case of principles being at odds with reality.
Ground crew have privileged access to secure areas of the airport that demands more security, not less. Make them do an iris scan and enter a passcode in addition to swiping their badge.
The patent application mentioned in TFA went abandoned 17 August 2009. Importantly, all of the claims were rejected under 35 USC 101, i.e., they were determined not to be patentable subject matter. The examiner in that case also noted that the prevailing judicial wisdom on 101 had changed over the past few years, which was why they were able to cite an issued patent as prior art.
It's also notable that, in a general sense, the claims of the issued patent mentioned in TFA are not structurally dissimilar from the rejected claims in the abandoned application. That doesn't necessarily mean that a court would hold the claims of the issued patent to be invalid, but it does provide some insight into what might happen if a lawsuit came out of this.
The problem with this strategy is that as soon as you admit wrongdoing of any sort, there will be tons of people crawling out of the woodwork who were not actually wronged but who claim they were, just so they can get a wad of cash.
I agree. I've logged around 84 hours of gameplay into that game (plus the DLC), which is kind of messed up when you consider that it's "just" a tower defense game. Ahhh, raspberries....
It is impossible to sue for infringement of a "part" of a claim.
Strictly speaking, this isn't true. It's theoretically impossible to win when suing for infringement of only part of a claim, but you can certainly file the lawsuit. And depending on whom you sue, that could be just as good as actually winning.
Okay, not only did you not read the claims of any of these patents, but you also didn't even read any part of any of the patents at all, considering that no patents were linked and no numbers were given in the article. Yet you still profess to have countless examples of clear anticipatory prior art that could easily demolish every one of these patents. How's that work, exactly?
The thing is, people who videotape the police are mostly doing so for the same reasons that Julian Assange releases secret documents about the US government. That is, not because they're performing their civic duty to unmask corrupt individuals, but rather because they hate the police/US government. So don't make this into an argument over ethical superiority, and especially not with some lame straw man argument about DADT.
Japan is where there are huge problems with men groping teenage girls on the train, to the point where there are "women only" cars now. And you're telling us that nobody in Japan would dare look at this woman's panties drying on a line?
Personally, I don't want to read either side's propaganda. They both say the other side is lying, so you end up with a heaping pile of bullshit and no way to figure out what's true and what's not.
I like Sigourney Weaver, really, but I think her (hopeful) absence from a prequel (aside from, perhaps, a cameo) would allow it to work. Aliens 3 and 4 both ended up stilted as a result of their attempt to build those movies around Ripley.
Getting Ridley Scott for this one is a good move, too. It will be interesting to see if the prequel is focused more on the stark, gritty, claustrophobic terror present in the original, although a lot of that came from the lower budget and not having CG effects.
It seems like there's a whole lot they could do with filters, spectrum analysis, etc. Some of those tools might be useful to provide to their users.
Heck, you could probably train a classifier to pick up on a lot of this stuff (although maybe they're planning on using the results of this experiment as training samples for just such a classifier).
It seems to me the US Gov'mint has 'fixed' their Wikileaks problem by a campaign of misinformation and probably paid these Russian criminals to host the false Wikileaks site.
What makes you certain that the US is behind this? There's at least a possibility that the Russian government is doing this on the basis of attempting to prevent the release of documents that are embarrassing to the Russian government. They even get free plausible deniability because everyone's going to point fingers at the US government.
Personally, I think the modeling of sound for shattering objects is some pretty cool stuff with actual applications in industry. Not sure what that soccer player project was about, but that website doesn't really provide enough details for people to make an informed judgment about these projects.
If they really were completely sane, they would understand that their nation would be a lot more prosperous if they abandoned their nuclear ambitions and attempted to rejoin the world community. Heck, even Moammar Qaddafi gets it, and made some pretty huge concessions to get reaccepted on the world stage.
Probably not, at least not directly. Those suits were filed in DC, which has its own appeals circuit. The Northern District of West Virginia is in the 4th Circuit. Defendants in the Dunlap suits may still be able to point to this case in an attempt to convince the judge to go along with it, but the judge wouldn't be under an obligation due to precedent.
Actually, the real error here is that patents aren't issued based on how much awesomesauce your invention is. It's mainly based on whether the examiner can find prior art against your claims and whether you successfully jump through a set of legal hoops successfully. A patent is not an endorsement of an invention.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, then. Anal probes for everyone!
Same attorney for both cases. The boat patent has a child application that went abandoned without being published, so I can't find out whether this is true through public means, but it's a good bet that there was an abstract filed in that case the same day as the playoff application, and the papers got mixed up.
No. A submarine patent is a patent issued on an application that was filed, or claims continuity to an effective filing date, before 8 June 1995, which means it gets a patent term of 17 years from the date of issue. The submarine strategy is then to keep the application pending (a relatively inexpensive proposition, given the potential profit) until an infringing product pops up in the marketplace, and then get the claims allowable, pay the issue fee, and sue.
Submarine patents were largely remedied by switching to a patent term of 20 years from the filing date (though there are still a very few applications still pending that have an effective filing date that gives them the old patent term). Now, if you keep your application pending for 20 years (plus patent term adjustments, a topic too complex to cover here), then when it issues, the term will already be expired.
As for the abstract not matching the invention, it's not really that great a loss, although the examiner should have objected to it. Patent searches are rarely done by flipping through abstracts. More often, they're done by classification along with keywords to search through the entire text of the patent. In this case, it's hard to tell why that abstract is attached to that application. It was probably a paperwork error, either on the part of the attorney getting their pages mixed up or at the USPTO mailroom. It's moot, though, since that application went abandoned.
Just to confirm: you want more professional sports teams, and you want educational institutions that have substantially less in the way of monetary resources.
Methinks this is a case of principles being at odds with reality.
Ground crew have privileged access to secure areas of the airport that demands more security, not less. Make them do an iris scan and enter a passcode in addition to swiping their badge.
The patent application mentioned in TFA went abandoned 17 August 2009. Importantly, all of the claims were rejected under 35 USC 101, i.e., they were determined not to be patentable subject matter. The examiner in that case also noted that the prevailing judicial wisdom on 101 had changed over the past few years, which was why they were able to cite an issued patent as prior art.
It's also notable that, in a general sense, the claims of the issued patent mentioned in TFA are not structurally dissimilar from the rejected claims in the abandoned application. That doesn't necessarily mean that a court would hold the claims of the issued patent to be invalid, but it does provide some insight into what might happen if a lawsuit came out of this.
Don't go placing bets yet but hedging against it might be a prudent thing.
I thought we already were!
The problem with this strategy is that as soon as you admit wrongdoing of any sort, there will be tons of people crawling out of the woodwork who were not actually wronged but who claim they were, just so they can get a wad of cash.
I agree. I've logged around 84 hours of gameplay into that game (plus the DLC), which is kind of messed up when you consider that it's "just" a tower defense game. Ahhh, raspberries....
It is impossible to sue for infringement of a "part" of a claim.
Strictly speaking, this isn't true. It's theoretically impossible to win when suing for infringement of only part of a claim, but you can certainly file the lawsuit. And depending on whom you sue, that could be just as good as actually winning.
Okay, not only did you not read the claims of any of these patents, but you also didn't even read any part of any of the patents at all, considering that no patents were linked and no numbers were given in the article. Yet you still profess to have countless examples of clear anticipatory prior art that could easily demolish every one of these patents. How's that work, exactly?
It claims that a human female was somehow involved in this.
You're thinking of the Ferengi version.
The thing is, people who videotape the police are mostly doing so for the same reasons that Julian Assange releases secret documents about the US government. That is, not because they're performing their civic duty to unmask corrupt individuals, but rather because they hate the police/US government. So don't make this into an argument over ethical superiority, and especially not with some lame straw man argument about DADT.
I'm just waiting for Xzibit to Pimp My Particle Accelerator.
Japan is where there are huge problems with men groping teenage girls on the train, to the point where there are "women only" cars now. And you're telling us that nobody in Japan would dare look at this woman's panties drying on a line?
Personally, I don't want to read either side's propaganda. They both say the other side is lying, so you end up with a heaping pile of bullshit and no way to figure out what's true and what's not.
I like Sigourney Weaver, really, but I think her (hopeful) absence from a prequel (aside from, perhaps, a cameo) would allow it to work. Aliens 3 and 4 both ended up stilted as a result of their attempt to build those movies around Ripley.
Getting Ridley Scott for this one is a good move, too. It will be interesting to see if the prequel is focused more on the stark, gritty, claustrophobic terror present in the original, although a lot of that came from the lower budget and not having CG effects.
It seems like there's a whole lot they could do with filters, spectrum analysis, etc. Some of those tools might be useful to provide to their users.
Heck, you could probably train a classifier to pick up on a lot of this stuff (although maybe they're planning on using the results of this experiment as training samples for just such a classifier).
I hope my tax dollars are paying for this.
It seems to me the US Gov'mint has 'fixed' their Wikileaks problem by a campaign of misinformation and probably paid these Russian criminals to host the false Wikileaks site.
What makes you certain that the US is behind this? There's at least a possibility that the Russian government is doing this on the basis of attempting to prevent the release of documents that are embarrassing to the Russian government. They even get free plausible deniability because everyone's going to point fingers at the US government.
Personally, I think the modeling of sound for shattering objects is some pretty cool stuff with actual applications in industry. Not sure what that soccer player project was about, but that website doesn't really provide enough details for people to make an informed judgment about these projects.
Actually, this concept was mentioned on Lexx several years before Futurama started.
They are completely sane
If they really were completely sane, they would understand that their nation would be a lot more prosperous if they abandoned their nuclear ambitions and attempted to rejoin the world community. Heck, even Moammar Qaddafi gets it, and made some pretty huge concessions to get reaccepted on the world stage.
Probably not, at least not directly. Those suits were filed in DC, which has its own appeals circuit. The Northern District of West Virginia is in the 4th Circuit. Defendants in the Dunlap suits may still be able to point to this case in an attempt to convince the judge to go along with it, but the judge wouldn't be under an obligation due to precedent.
Actually, the real error here is that patents aren't issued based on how much awesomesauce your invention is. It's mainly based on whether the examiner can find prior art against your claims and whether you successfully jump through a set of legal hoops successfully. A patent is not an endorsement of an invention.