The problem is that captcha ads on popular sites will prove so obnoxious that people who surf without ad blockers will get frustrated and stop visiting.
It's not entirely true that "nobody is allowed to practice the patent". The applicant isn't allowed to violate the secrecy order by disclosing their invention to the public, the penalty being abandonment of the invention (i.e., they lose all patent rights to their invention). Even still, abandonment of the invention doesn't prevent the applicant from thereafter practicing the invention - they just lose the exclusionary rights that a patent would provide.
A third party can essentially practice the patent without penalty as long as the application remains under a secrecy order (which is ultimately unlikely to persist if the invention ends up known to the public anyway, especially once the applicant files a lawsuit against the government to have the order lifted).
This is because the application doesn't issue as a patent until the secrecy order is lifted. The patent term is then set for 20 years from the filing date plus a patent term adjustment that includes the length of time that the secrecy order was in place. As it turns out, the government also is liable for compensation to the applicant for placing the secrecy order.
That somewhat misrepresents the concept of jury nullification. It arises as a de facto power of jurors because of how jurors and jury verdicts are treated by the court, i.e., it allows them to render a verdict generally without questioning their motives for it, even when those motives contradict their instructions from the judge and/or the plain wording of the law itself. This doesn't mean that jurors have the right to nullify the law when rendering a verdict, and certainly not an inarguable obligation to do so when they personally disagree with the law.
The jury's verdict does not reflect the law beyond the individual trial, because the court nevertheless views jurors as only being finders of fact, even when the jury renders its verdict based on a disagreement with the law itself. This is by the same token that allows jury nullification in the first place - the court doesn't question the jury's motivations, instead considering its verdict to be a genuine finding of fact. In other words, if a particular jury dislikes a particular law, they can (for example) move to acquit a defendant charged under that law, but the verdict is entered solely as the defendant being "not guilty", not that the law itself is unjust - and so, juries cannot create case law.
This actually depends upon state law, and in some states, the children can be held directly liable (although usually, the judgment cannot be enforced until they reach the age of majority).
Neither the Federal Circuit nor the Supreme Court are going to buy that argument.
What about Congress?
There are some pretty big political fish to fry in this case, what with it being related to breast cancer and all. Even if these patents escape unscathed from this lawsuit, they'd still make a pretty nice trophy on the wall of some Congresscritter, wouldn't they?
You apparently don't understand case law, then. Case law doesn't arise from a jury's finding of fact, because the jury doesn't make or interpret the law, they only decide the facts of the case. The judge, on the other hand, interprets the law and determines how it applies to the case at hand, and the precedents that judges make on their own court and lower courts is what forms the basis of case law.
If you find a case where evidence was excluded, for example, and point out that in your murder case, evidence should be excluded for the same reasons, you very well could get off, ultimately based on case law. But you can't just say that a jury acquitted Joe Sixpack of murder, so that's case law and you should be set free, because it's not case law.
In this case, the Supreme Court decided that GMOs were patentable (albeit by a 5-4 decision where none of the justices sitting on that case are part of the Court anymore). Since the judicial system is the arbiter of the law, and (generally) the courts respect the precedential decisions of their superior courts (the Supreme Court being the big daddy of them all), the only recourse for changing the law is to either convince the Supreme Court to change their mind or to legislate a change in the statute.
Technically, you aren't infringing these kinds of patents unless you produce the isolated gene, since the claims specify "isolated".
In fact, that's what the entire argument hinges around: the patent holders say that the patent is valid because the claims require the gene to be in isolated form, which (as far as we know) doesn't happen in nature; while the plaintiffs say that isolation is a technicality meant to (but providing insufficient substance to) evade the prohibition on patenting naturally occurring phenomena.
The present case has nothing to do with Monsanto's products or patents. What's more, patenting genetically modified organisms is already settled case law.
Come to think of it, has there even been an invasion of the US?
Well, the British burned Washington, D.C., during the War of 1812, although the US initially declared war against Britain. And there's Pearl Harbor, although that wasn't technically an invasion.
And seriously, the US is only country that glorifies war, every other countries, especially the one that have been subject to war or invasion, understand it's something to be avoided at all costs
No, actually, there are lots of countries in recent memory that have directly instigated wars with little or no US involvement. Iraq invaded Kuwait; Egypt and other Arab states attacked Israel; Argentina attacked the UK in the Falklands; Iran and Iraq had a pretty big war; India and Pakistan.... The list goes on and on. And that's to say nothing of the numerous terrorist/guerilla groups thirsty for blood and power in conflicts around the world.
It's amazing how little we require of foreign powers these days, in order to believe that they're making some sort of tremendous admission. I blame the Iraqi Information Minister for causing us to set the bar so low.
Companies that might otherwise be interested in bringing autonomous vehicles to the masses will be scared off by the huge monetary risks involved. Any autonomous vehicle involved in a deadly accident will result in a massive lawsuit against the manufacturer, even if the accident was someone else's fault, and even if the manufacturer admonishes the owner to monitor the vehicle's performance at all times while it's in operation. What's more, juries will distrust the "correctness" of autonomous vehicle controllers, to the point that manufacturers will lose lawsuits even when there's no real evidence that the vehicle was to blame.
Slashdot Mirror
Screw the android... I wanna know how he got a girlfriend...
There's an app for that.
The problem is that captcha ads on popular sites will prove so obnoxious that people who surf without ad blockers will get frustrated and stop visiting.
Indeed. It's always good to have an ample supply of ammo at the ready.
Google is a Search Engine not a Magic 8-Ball (yet)
In other words: Reply hazy. Search again later.
It's not entirely true that "nobody is allowed to practice the patent". The applicant isn't allowed to violate the secrecy order by disclosing their invention to the public, the penalty being abandonment of the invention (i.e., they lose all patent rights to their invention). Even still, abandonment of the invention doesn't prevent the applicant from thereafter practicing the invention - they just lose the exclusionary rights that a patent would provide.
A third party can essentially practice the patent without penalty as long as the application remains under a secrecy order (which is ultimately unlikely to persist if the invention ends up known to the public anyway, especially once the applicant files a lawsuit against the government to have the order lifted).
This is because the application doesn't issue as a patent until the secrecy order is lifted. The patent term is then set for 20 years from the filing date plus a patent term adjustment that includes the length of time that the secrecy order was in place. As it turns out, the government also is liable for compensation to the applicant for placing the secrecy order.
That somewhat misrepresents the concept of jury nullification. It arises as a de facto power of jurors because of how jurors and jury verdicts are treated by the court, i.e., it allows them to render a verdict generally without questioning their motives for it, even when those motives contradict their instructions from the judge and/or the plain wording of the law itself. This doesn't mean that jurors have the right to nullify the law when rendering a verdict, and certainly not an inarguable obligation to do so when they personally disagree with the law.
The jury's verdict does not reflect the law beyond the individual trial, because the court nevertheless views jurors as only being finders of fact, even when the jury renders its verdict based on a disagreement with the law itself. This is by the same token that allows jury nullification in the first place - the court doesn't question the jury's motivations, instead considering its verdict to be a genuine finding of fact. In other words, if a particular jury dislikes a particular law, they can (for example) move to acquit a defendant charged under that law, but the verdict is entered solely as the defendant being "not guilty", not that the law itself is unjust - and so, juries cannot create case law.
This actually depends upon state law, and in some states, the children can be held directly liable (although usually, the judgment cannot be enforced until they reach the age of majority).
Neither the Federal Circuit nor the Supreme Court are going to buy that argument.
What about Congress?
There are some pretty big political fish to fry in this case, what with it being related to breast cancer and all. Even if these patents escape unscathed from this lawsuit, they'd still make a pretty nice trophy on the wall of some Congresscritter, wouldn't they?
You apparently don't understand case law, then. Case law doesn't arise from a jury's finding of fact, because the jury doesn't make or interpret the law, they only decide the facts of the case. The judge, on the other hand, interprets the law and determines how it applies to the case at hand, and the precedents that judges make on their own court and lower courts is what forms the basis of case law.
If you find a case where evidence was excluded, for example, and point out that in your murder case, evidence should be excluded for the same reasons, you very well could get off, ultimately based on case law. But you can't just say that a jury acquitted Joe Sixpack of murder, so that's case law and you should be set free, because it's not case law.
In this case, the Supreme Court decided that GMOs were patentable (albeit by a 5-4 decision where none of the justices sitting on that case are part of the Court anymore). Since the judicial system is the arbiter of the law, and (generally) the courts respect the precedential decisions of their superior courts (the Supreme Court being the big daddy of them all), the only recourse for changing the law is to either convince the Supreme Court to change their mind or to legislate a change in the statute.
Technically, you aren't infringing these kinds of patents unless you produce the isolated gene, since the claims specify "isolated".
In fact, that's what the entire argument hinges around: the patent holders say that the patent is valid because the claims require the gene to be in isolated form, which (as far as we know) doesn't happen in nature; while the plaintiffs say that isolation is a technicality meant to (but providing insufficient substance to) evade the prohibition on patenting naturally occurring phenomena.
The present case has nothing to do with Monsanto's products or patents. What's more, patenting genetically modified organisms is already settled case law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Chakrabarty
Unless I'm greatly mistaken, that's already possible with some of the Android phones.
Who cares? The entire point of VoIP on an iPad is to make it into a hilariously gigantic phone.
as a government owned patent it can be perpetual
How so? The law specifies that patents have a term of 20 years from the filing date, plus adjustments for delays caused by the USPTO.
Come to think of it, has there even been an invasion of the US?
Well, the British burned Washington, D.C., during the War of 1812, although the US initially declared war against Britain. And there's Pearl Harbor, although that wasn't technically an invasion.
And seriously, the US is only country that glorifies war, every other countries, especially the one that have been subject to war or invasion, understand it's something to be avoided at all costs
No, actually, there are lots of countries in recent memory that have directly instigated wars with little or no US involvement. Iraq invaded Kuwait; Egypt and other Arab states attacked Israel; Argentina attacked the UK in the Falklands; Iran and Iraq had a pretty big war; India and Pakistan.... The list goes on and on. And that's to say nothing of the numerous terrorist/guerilla groups thirsty for blood and power in conflicts around the world.
http://nobelprize.org/educational/peace/conflictmap/conflictmap.html
You can just look at the board and see what the other player's pieces look like.
In the game of chess, you can never let your adversary see your pieces.
So what is the solution? Do you sleep with the farmer's daughter or sleep in the barn?
Why choose? Haven't you heard of a "roll in the hay" before?
Did you really use the chat channels in the original?
kekekeke
but wouldn't lightening the mass of the moon have a (probably quite bad) effect on it's tidal effects to the earth?
Nah, that sort of thing only happens to Klingons.
if I had to choose, I'd still prefer new lungs and an allergy over no allergy but no lungs either.
I take lungs now, gills come next week!
And your friends can see your pacman high-score at the local arcade. So fucking what.
When was the last time you cheated at Pac-Man at the local arcade?
It's amazing how little we require of foreign powers these days, in order to believe that they're making some sort of tremendous admission. I blame the Iraqi Information Minister for causing us to set the bar so low.
Ben Roethlisberger is as big as a womp rat?
Companies that might otherwise be interested in bringing autonomous vehicles to the masses will be scared off by the huge monetary risks involved. Any autonomous vehicle involved in a deadly accident will result in a massive lawsuit against the manufacturer, even if the accident was someone else's fault, and even if the manufacturer admonishes the owner to monitor the vehicle's performance at all times while it's in operation. What's more, juries will distrust the "correctness" of autonomous vehicle controllers, to the point that manufacturers will lose lawsuits even when there's no real evidence that the vehicle was to blame.
The New iPhone: John Cleese Edition!
And there's always the option of doing it manually.
Rule 34?