Excuse me while I go patent some random future tech... flying cars, teleporters, food replicators, AI.. yanno.
This is the stuff that's actually pretty easy to reject. We're not going to find prior art on it, but we can generally make rejections for the application lacking an enabling disclosure (if the invention is ostensibly possible, as with flying cars), or we can reject it for a lack of credible utility (as with teleporters).
As for do-overs, yes, applicants can keep paying us to continue examining their applications. They get two bites at the apple each time (with some caveats attached if the examiner makes a bad rejection), and then they are stuck filing an RCE (which costs money but buys them another two bites), appealing to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (which costs a lot of money, mostly to the attorney), or they can give up and let the application go abandoned.
There was a recent change in docketing procedure to examiners that prevents RCEs from "burying us in paperwork". It used to be that RCEs were docketed right along with regular amendments, and we had to work on every one of those within four biweeks of the date it was forwarded to the examiner. Now, it gets docketed on a separate queue, and we only have to pick up one RCE every month. When it comes to doing more work than that, we get to choose whether we'd rather do more first actions (new cases) or more RCEs. The Office is focusing on getting new applications in the pipeline, so we're being encouraged to do more first actions and let the RCEs sit there for a little while longer.
Some consider the singularity to be more along these lines: We produce a manufactured device that is able to design and manufacture other devices of superior design to itself that are also capable of design and manufacture, and so on and so forth. The singularity isn't necessarily a freefall toward maximum computational capability, but is rather an indication that the current "rules" for forecasting the progress of human-engineered technology (think "Moore's Law" here) no longer apply because non-human-engineered technology would become the driving factor in technological development on Earth.
Claims frequently recite boring and commonplace elements, because those elements serve as a foundation for other elements which are novel and non-obvious. It doesn't mean they're getting a patent on those boring and commonplace elements in isolation, but rather that in order to infringe the claim, a product or method must include those elements as well as all the other ones recited in the claim.
In this case (although I don't have time this morning to sort through the prosecution history to be sure), the new elements most likely had to do with the dynamically-generated identification map, which I'm pretty sure most light switches don't have.
The Austrian Patent Office website is pretty obtuse to navigate, but if you manage to find the search page, you can put "7738/03" in the trademark search box and get this result:
Aside from stability and security fixes, what's really changed in web browser technology over this span of time?
I mean, sure, tabs are awesome. But has there really been anything else over the past 15 years that has merited us being up to IE version 8 and talking about the beta of IE 9? How is the web browser not a solved problem yet?
(I'm sure there's more than just tabs. But there's no better way to get a topic going than to ask a provocative question based on a somewhat flawed premise.)
There's one reason why this is a poor method of insurance. Suppose there's somebody out there with an even bigger axe to grind than Assange, who will stop at nothing to get the contents of this "insurance" file released. With over six billion people in the world, and a substantial number of them having a beef with the U.S., it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
The implication here is that if something happens to Assange, then the key gets released. So, it logically follows that if you want the key to be released.......
(For my own safety, I have no interest in the contents of that file. And while I personally think Julian Assange is a self-righteous ass, I don't wish physical harm on him or any of the other people involved with Wikileaks.)
There really is a good lesson about intellectual property to learn here. No, it's not exactly the lesson Namco wants these students to learn, but in this overly litigious society, it's important for everyone getting an education in computer programming to learn about patents, copyrights, and trademarks, both in terms of how they work and in terms of what their limits are. After all, you can create a Pac-Man-like game without treading on Namco's turf, and programmers should take some time to learn just how to do this sort of thing.
Personally, I think there's plenty of blame to go around. Environmentalist wackjobs shouldn't get a free pass on their irrational fear of nuclear power just because the oil and coal industries (and their workers, represented by large unions) want to keep making money.
The real question is, has anyone seen this before:
Claim 1. A digital reading device, comprising:
a first touch display region;
a second touch display region;
a logic subsystem operatively coupled to the first touch display region and the second touch display region; and
a data-holding subsystem holding instructions executable by the logic subsystem to:
display a back side of a first page on the first touch display region and a front side of a second page on the second touch display region;
recognize a page-turning gesture directed to an outer corner of the second page;
display, responsive to the page-turning gesture, a virtual page turn that actively follows the page-turning gesture, the virtual page turn curling a lifted portion of the second page to progressively reveal a back side of the second page while progressively revealing a front side of a third page and while progressively covering the back side of the first page;
recognize a page-flipping gesture directed along an outer edge of the second touch display region; and
display, responsive to advancement of the page-flipping gesture, a virtual page flip in which pages quickly flip from the second touch display region to the first touch display region.
This is because it's generally assumed that as long as the general algorithm is disclosed, the ordinary artisan is capable of writing the code to implement it without undue experimentation.
Really, this is more akin to no longer requiring working models of inventions (gone for many many years now) than it is to a lack of symmetry between mechanical/electrical inventions and computer-based ones.
They may be able to buy politicians and hide their GM labels, but consumers are still a force to be reckoned with, and thanks to the internet - more informed than ever.
That's kind of like saying that consumers are underinformed because there are no autism warning labels on vaccines. Anti-vaccine people aren't demonstrating that they're more informed than the rest of us - they're just demonstrating that they don't know WTF they're talking about.
Same applies to the anti-GM-food people who try to get the public into a panic by suggesting that GM food will make them sick or whatever, when the true agenda of the people who started the anti-GM movement is simply a far-left anti-corporate one. The misinformation they spread about GM foods is just as bad, if not worse, than the lack of information about which products are and aren't genetically modified.
That said, Monsanto is a bunch of assholes because they sue farmers for doing what farmers are supposed to do.
Frequently, these sorts of e-mails are from foreign students who can't afford to come to the professor's country to study, so they're fishing everywhere they can in order to get financial support.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me while I go patent some random future tech... flying cars, teleporters, food replicators, AI.. yanno.
This is the stuff that's actually pretty easy to reject. We're not going to find prior art on it, but we can generally make rejections for the application lacking an enabling disclosure (if the invention is ostensibly possible, as with flying cars), or we can reject it for a lack of credible utility (as with teleporters).
As for do-overs, yes, applicants can keep paying us to continue examining their applications. They get two bites at the apple each time (with some caveats attached if the examiner makes a bad rejection), and then they are stuck filing an RCE (which costs money but buys them another two bites), appealing to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (which costs a lot of money, mostly to the attorney), or they can give up and let the application go abandoned.
There was a recent change in docketing procedure to examiners that prevents RCEs from "burying us in paperwork". It used to be that RCEs were docketed right along with regular amendments, and we had to work on every one of those within four biweeks of the date it was forwarded to the examiner. Now, it gets docketed on a separate queue, and we only have to pick up one RCE every month. When it comes to doing more work than that, we get to choose whether we'd rather do more first actions (new cases) or more RCEs. The Office is focusing on getting new applications in the pipeline, so we're being encouraged to do more first actions and let the RCEs sit there for a little while longer.
Just because you've never seen one doesn't mean they don't BRAAAAIIIINSSS aaaaauuughghghsplortnomnom
A Berkshire Hathaway company here in the US has advertised with "can save you up to 15% or more on car insurance"
Are you saying that ISPs are advertising to cavemen because they're stupid? I find that offensive!
Some consider the singularity to be more along these lines: We produce a manufactured device that is able to design and manufacture other devices of superior design to itself that are also capable of design and manufacture, and so on and so forth. The singularity isn't necessarily a freefall toward maximum computational capability, but is rather an indication that the current "rules" for forecasting the progress of human-engineered technology (think "Moore's Law" here) no longer apply because non-human-engineered technology would become the driving factor in technological development on Earth.
Claims frequently recite boring and commonplace elements, because those elements serve as a foundation for other elements which are novel and non-obvious. It doesn't mean they're getting a patent on those boring and commonplace elements in isolation, but rather that in order to infringe the claim, a product or method must include those elements as well as all the other ones recited in the claim.
In this case (although I don't have time this morning to sort through the prosecution history to be sure), the new elements most likely had to do with the dynamically-generated identification map, which I'm pretty sure most light switches don't have.
On the other hand, driving is a privilege, not a right.
On the other other hand, having one of these in every car negates the shame factor in having to blow into the thing in order to drive the car.
The Austrian Patent Office website is pretty obtuse to navigate, but if you manage to find the search page, you can put "7738/03" in the trademark search box and get this result:
Anm.: IMAGEWORX MEDIENPRODUKTIONS-, VERLAGS- UND EVENTMARKETING GMBH *FRAUENKIRCHEN ^ST. MARTINSGASSE 5
Vertr: ZUST.ADR.: CORINO FABIANI *A-7132 FRAUENKIRCHEN ^ST. MARTINSGASSE 5
So there is at least some truth to the story, inasmuch as someone has registered a trademark there. But not a patent.
No, not really. Look at the logo. It's clearly based on the Geek Squad logo.
Aside from stability and security fixes, what's really changed in web browser technology over this span of time?
I mean, sure, tabs are awesome. But has there really been anything else over the past 15 years that has merited us being up to IE version 8 and talking about the beta of IE 9? How is the web browser not a solved problem yet?
(I'm sure there's more than just tabs. But there's no better way to get a topic going than to ask a provocative question based on a somewhat flawed premise.)
Well said. Memories are supposed to fade. It's part of how we cope with loss.
Now that's what I call Tantric Civ.
There's one reason why this is a poor method of insurance. Suppose there's somebody out there with an even bigger axe to grind than Assange, who will stop at nothing to get the contents of this "insurance" file released. With over six billion people in the world, and a substantial number of them having a beef with the U.S., it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
The implication here is that if something happens to Assange, then the key gets released. So, it logically follows that if you want the key to be released.......
(For my own safety, I have no interest in the contents of that file. And while I personally think Julian Assange is a self-righteous ass, I don't wish physical harm on him or any of the other people involved with Wikileaks.)
There really is a good lesson about intellectual property to learn here. No, it's not exactly the lesson Namco wants these students to learn, but in this overly litigious society, it's important for everyone getting an education in computer programming to learn about patents, copyrights, and trademarks, both in terms of how they work and in terms of what their limits are. After all, you can create a Pac-Man-like game without treading on Namco's turf, and programmers should take some time to learn just how to do this sort of thing.
These aren't actually patents. They're merely published applications.
Also, one minor irony is that attorneys generally complain that we don't know how to do our jobs because we reject everything.
Poor controls are also the biggest reason why ports of console games to the PC frequently suck huge donkey balls.
Personally, I think there's plenty of blame to go around. Environmentalist wackjobs shouldn't get a free pass on their irrational fear of nuclear power just because the oil and coal industries (and their workers, represented by large unions) want to keep making money.
A perfect application for my patented write-only memory.
Bob Pease, is that you?
The real question is, has anyone seen this before:
Claim 1. A digital reading device, comprising:
a first touch display region;
a second touch display region;
a logic subsystem operatively coupled to the first touch display region and the second touch display region; and
a data-holding subsystem holding instructions executable by the logic subsystem to:
display a back side of a first page on the first touch display region and a front side of a second page on the second touch display region;
recognize a page-turning gesture directed to an outer corner of the second page;
display, responsive to the page-turning gesture, a virtual page turn that actively follows the page-turning gesture, the virtual page turn curling a lifted portion of the second page to progressively reveal a back side of the second page while progressively revealing a front side of a third page and while progressively covering the back side of the first page;
recognize a page-flipping gesture directed along an outer edge of the second touch display region; and
display, responsive to advancement of the page-flipping gesture, a virtual page flip in which pages quickly flip from the second touch display region to the first touch display region.
Sounds more like a Goatse reference to me.
This is because it's generally assumed that as long as the general algorithm is disclosed, the ordinary artisan is capable of writing the code to implement it without undue experimentation.
Really, this is more akin to no longer requiring working models of inventions (gone for many many years now) than it is to a lack of symmetry between mechanical/electrical inventions and computer-based ones.
They may be able to buy politicians and hide their GM labels, but consumers are still a force to be reckoned with, and thanks to the internet - more informed than ever.
That's kind of like saying that consumers are underinformed because there are no autism warning labels on vaccines. Anti-vaccine people aren't demonstrating that they're more informed than the rest of us - they're just demonstrating that they don't know WTF they're talking about.
Same applies to the anti-GM-food people who try to get the public into a panic by suggesting that GM food will make them sick or whatever, when the true agenda of the people who started the anti-GM movement is simply a far-left anti-corporate one. The misinformation they spread about GM foods is just as bad, if not worse, than the lack of information about which products are and aren't genetically modified.
That said, Monsanto is a bunch of assholes because they sue farmers for doing what farmers are supposed to do.
Frequently, these sorts of e-mails are from foreign students who can't afford to come to the professor's country to study, so they're fishing everywhere they can in order to get financial support.
I wanted to watch a Rick Astley video, but it redirected me to another Rick Astley video.
I heard this story about a room full of women learning how to breast feed...
Each other?
and source temperature
I know this is probably for detecting a fever. But I just wanted to point out that it's also good for detecting dead babies.