From an obviousness standpoint, that's not really interesting. A laptop is portable, for instance.
The "wherein" clause at the end is pretty amusing, though, and it actually makes it harder to reject the claim using, for example, a security surveillance system.
It should also be noted that the claims don't really have any specifics about e-commerce. They're claiming a scope that more generally encompasses any facial-feature-based input device.
What's more, you also get the ability to digitally download the game next time you need to install it. I wouldn't throw away the discs, but I wouldn't feel the need to keep them handy, either.
There is no policy. This is politics, not policy, and it's a result of the overly divisive politics that we've seen in the US since the 1990s (if not before). For most nominees, the issue isn't whether the nominee is pristine. It's whether the politicians ostensibly charged with vetting them are able to derive some political benefit from tearing down the nominee. It's also a proxy battle against the nominator, and perfectly good nominees get thrown to the wolves in the process.
Most large entities are filing enough applications that an increase in filing fees (if it really makes a dent in their IP expenses compared to attorney-related expenses) will simply result in filing fewer "crapplications". Large entities that manage large IP portfolios tend to file patent applications on every little thing they do, and lots of those things are pretty much worthless as patents.
Part of the reason why patents have the requirements that they do is to inform the public as to what subject matter is covered by the patent. Examination serves to ensure that the public is informed accurately (or, at least, far more accurately than a registration-based system would allow) as to what they can and can't do without licensing the patented subject matter from the patentee.
In other words, if people were allowed to claim whatever the hell they wanted, and it only got sorted out when they started throwing their weight around, then innovation and commerce would come to a grinding halt, because it would be impossible to do anything without having someone breathing down your neck about it.
Small entity inventors already get 50% off most USPTO fees, and USPTO Director Kappos has suggested creating a "micro-entity" inventor class for whom the fees would have an even smaller impact relative to that for large entities.
What's more, the backlog hurts small entity inventors much more than it does large entities. Small entity inventors are much more likely to rely on venture capital funding, and many VC outfits are unwilling to put money down without some patent protection on the table. If a small entity inventor has to wait for 3+ years to get that protection, they may end up folding before the patent issues. On the other hand, a large entity inventor has lots of stuff going on, and relies on its other business to keep things moving while they wait for their patents to issue, so the backlog has a much smaller impact on them.
Solving the backlog problem is ultimately going to require hiring more examiners, and that costs money. For an agency that is entirely fee-funded, being able to set those fees at appropriate levels is necessary to ensure that patents are issued in a timely fashion.
Well, the question is a bit more complicated than that. Yes, patents result in goods being more expensive due to the monopoly-or-royalties effect on prices. (The legal costs of "elephant mating" pale in comparison to the eventual elephantine damage awards or settlement that may result.) But the other question that must be asked is whether the economic incentive of patents is necessary (or even just helpful) in inducing companies to develop new products in the first place. Unfortunately, it's extremely hard to quantify this, in part because we've never had it any other way.
Similar arguments can be made concerning price controls on health care (particularly pharmaceuticals). If the US imposed nationwide price controls on medical procedures and drugs, the incentive for developing those procedures and drugs would be substantially reduced. Yes, most people would be able to afford cutting-edge treatments then, but the difference is that the cutting edge would be in a different (less advanced) place. Imagine if MRI had been delayed by 20 years or so, for instance.
Besides that, I fail to see how you would be on the hook for royalties covering more than one recording - the one you made originally, before you transcoded into an unencumbered format. TFA's author seems to take it as a given that you would still owe for every sold copy of the transcoded recording just because the original recording was in an encumbered format.
The biggest myth is that people who pirate your software would pay for it if pirating it were impossible. There are costs (some directly monetary, some only indirectly so) for adopting DRM, and if you don't recoup those costs in the form of sales you wouldn't have had without the DRM, then DRM is a bad business decision. The myth overestimates this number of sales dramatically and therefore encourages people to adopt DRM without really understanding the motivations of the average software pirate.
In that respect, DRM is like a witch trial directed at legitimate paying customers. If the DRM stays intact, the witch sinks and dies, and the DRM perpetuates its own myth by "proving" its own success. If the DRM is cracked, the witch floats and lives only to be burned at the stake, and the DRM perpetuates its own myth by "proving" the need for harsher measures.
Either way, the DRM isn't really doing anything but killing witches - I mean, eliminating paying customers.
Yeah, great job finding prior art that anticipates the title. Now go read the claims and see how well you do with those, since that's the only thing that counts.
Actually, there's some malware going around that presents a popup purporting to be from the content industry that demands $400 in restitution for having copyright-infringing movies and music on your computer. No, it's not the ??AA actually doing it, but it's certainly possible.
The reason the iPad is more successful than the Handheld PC Pro is because the iPad looks like a giant iPhone, while the Handheld PC Pro looked like a small laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
From an obviousness standpoint, that's not really interesting. A laptop is portable, for instance.
The "wherein" clause at the end is pretty amusing, though, and it actually makes it harder to reject the claim using, for example, a security surveillance system.
It should also be noted that the claims don't really have any specifics about e-commerce. They're claiming a scope that more generally encompasses any facial-feature-based input device.
Particle physicists make a living by crashing different streams of vehicles into each other and observing the new vehicles that come out.
Are you sure you're not talking about the Mythbusters?
What's more, you also get the ability to digitally download the game next time you need to install it. I wouldn't throw away the discs, but I wouldn't feel the need to keep them handy, either.
Aren't they supposed to explain it all on TV Sunday night?
But seriously, since when did "dump a bunch of shit on it and hope that plugs it up" become a formal strategy?
Hmm....
Maybe that's what all those underpants are for.
There is no policy. This is politics, not policy, and it's a result of the overly divisive politics that we've seen in the US since the 1990s (if not before). For most nominees, the issue isn't whether the nominee is pristine. It's whether the politicians ostensibly charged with vetting them are able to derive some political benefit from tearing down the nominee. It's also a proxy battle against the nominator, and perfectly good nominees get thrown to the wolves in the process.
* Fast action on Oil Spill
No kidding. I hear the man's a wizard with a sponge.
Most large entities are filing enough applications that an increase in filing fees (if it really makes a dent in their IP expenses compared to attorney-related expenses) will simply result in filing fewer "crapplications". Large entities that manage large IP portfolios tend to file patent applications on every little thing they do, and lots of those things are pretty much worthless as patents.
Part of the reason why patents have the requirements that they do is to inform the public as to what subject matter is covered by the patent. Examination serves to ensure that the public is informed accurately (or, at least, far more accurately than a registration-based system would allow) as to what they can and can't do without licensing the patented subject matter from the patentee.
In other words, if people were allowed to claim whatever the hell they wanted, and it only got sorted out when they started throwing their weight around, then innovation and commerce would come to a grinding halt, because it would be impossible to do anything without having someone breathing down your neck about it.
Small entity inventors already get 50% off most USPTO fees, and USPTO Director Kappos has suggested creating a "micro-entity" inventor class for whom the fees would have an even smaller impact relative to that for large entities.
What's more, the backlog hurts small entity inventors much more than it does large entities. Small entity inventors are much more likely to rely on venture capital funding, and many VC outfits are unwilling to put money down without some patent protection on the table. If a small entity inventor has to wait for 3+ years to get that protection, they may end up folding before the patent issues. On the other hand, a large entity inventor has lots of stuff going on, and relies on its other business to keep things moving while they wait for their patents to issue, so the backlog has a much smaller impact on them.
Solving the backlog problem is ultimately going to require hiring more examiners, and that costs money. For an agency that is entirely fee-funded, being able to set those fees at appropriate levels is necessary to ensure that patents are issued in a timely fashion.
...we really just need one less.
He just presses any key to continue.
Well, the question is a bit more complicated than that. Yes, patents result in goods being more expensive due to the monopoly-or-royalties effect on prices. (The legal costs of "elephant mating" pale in comparison to the eventual elephantine damage awards or settlement that may result.) But the other question that must be asked is whether the economic incentive of patents is necessary (or even just helpful) in inducing companies to develop new products in the first place. Unfortunately, it's extremely hard to quantify this, in part because we've never had it any other way.
Similar arguments can be made concerning price controls on health care (particularly pharmaceuticals). If the US imposed nationwide price controls on medical procedures and drugs, the incentive for developing those procedures and drugs would be substantially reduced. Yes, most people would be able to afford cutting-edge treatments then, but the difference is that the cutting edge would be in a different (less advanced) place. Imagine if MRI had been delayed by 20 years or so, for instance.
Besides that, I fail to see how you would be on the hook for royalties covering more than one recording - the one you made originally, before you transcoded into an unencumbered format. TFA's author seems to take it as a given that you would still owe for every sold copy of the transcoded recording just because the original recording was in an encumbered format.
The biggest myth is that people who pirate your software would pay for it if pirating it were impossible. There are costs (some directly monetary, some only indirectly so) for adopting DRM, and if you don't recoup those costs in the form of sales you wouldn't have had without the DRM, then DRM is a bad business decision. The myth overestimates this number of sales dramatically and therefore encourages people to adopt DRM without really understanding the motivations of the average software pirate.
In that respect, DRM is like a witch trial directed at legitimate paying customers. If the DRM stays intact, the witch sinks and dies, and the DRM perpetuates its own myth by "proving" its own success. If the DRM is cracked, the witch floats and lives only to be burned at the stake, and the DRM perpetuates its own myth by "proving" the need for harsher measures.
Either way, the DRM isn't really doing anything but killing witches - I mean, eliminating paying customers.
Really, there are only two reasons they would come here as opposed to any other rocky planetoid in the universe:
1. Tourism.
2. Slave labor.
Too bad that's not how the law works.
7121982 and 7331226.
Yeah, great job finding prior art that anticipates the title. Now go read the claims and see how well you do with those, since that's the only thing that counts.
So how come I can't walk and chew gum at the same time?
Actually, there's some malware going around that presents a popup purporting to be from the content industry that demands $400 in restitution for having copyright-infringing movies and music on your computer. No, it's not the ??AA actually doing it, but it's certainly possible.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks/archive/2010/04/12/1763297.aspx
Yeah, but who wants a 747 filling the entry way to the bathroom, when a door does the job so well?
Dude, that would be totally awesome!
The reason the iPad is more successful than the Handheld PC Pro is because the iPad looks like a giant iPhone, while the Handheld PC Pro looked like a small laptop.
It is by will alone I set my TV in motion.