I would have modded you down, but felt it was better to respond in full. Other mods, please mod parent down.
I thought downmodding was supposed to be used when a post just adds noise that makes it harder to extract actual signal from the conversation. Modding someone down just because you disagree with their legitimate opinion is plain old censorship.
And to head back to the topic:
However, I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under, and I respect the licenses chosen by others.
Fortunately for all of us, licensing terms are not the end of the discussion when it comes to copyright. The law itself provides for things like fair use and (in Google/YouTube's case) the DMCA ISP safe harbor. And that applies regardless of whether you slap a GPL-esque license on your stuff or proudly proclaim all-rights-reserved.
I agree. In fact, the Silmarillion would be much better material than LotR for PJ and pals to hack the shit out of. Most of the stories in the Silmarillion (with the possible exception of Luthien and Beren) were sketchy enough on storybook details that there's ample room for interpretation and dialogue without pissing off the fans.
There are enough stories in there that it might be better suited for a TV series, though.
But now that you've read the claim, you have to evaluate it for obviousness in terms of the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex, i.e., the criteria mentioned in the ancestor post:
the scope and content of the prior art; the level of ordinary skill in the art; the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and objective evidence of nonobviousness.
In other words, you have to find the recited limitations in the prior art, indicate what's different between the prior art and the claimed invention, and then indicate how those differences are obvious, usually by citing more prior art that teaches those differences and then indicating a rationale for modifying the invention of the first prior art reference using the teachings of the second one. You can't just BS your way to a rejection if you don't have objective evidence to back it up.
When a newspaper runs ads, it is not jammed right in the middle of an article. It doesn't jump of the fucking page and flash in red letters. It doesn't create another newspaper filled with bullshit ads and malware and shoot it out at your face. But when we are talking about ads on the web, that is exactly what is happening.
In fact, I find that many newspapers' websites are some of the worst offenders at annoying their viewers. As if tower ads that are bigger than the news article itself weren't bad enough, many of them also do interstitials and pop-ups/unders.
At this point, I generally don't go out of my way to block ads specifically when I'm surfing at home. Rather, I use NoScript and I don't use Flash, and because there are so few ads out there that aren't served up using Javascript and/or written in Flash, I don't see the ads - and this is primarily a side effect of safe surfing.
First off, TFA only manages to quote the abstract and show some figures. None of this really bears much relevance to what the application is actually directed toward. For that, you have to read the claims (such as this one):
1. A method of distributing a software game to induce a user to obtain a permission to continue playing the game, the method comprising:
providing a software game with a plurality of play characteristics including at least one of a character feature, object feature, environmental feature and event feature, the software game being programmed to permit the user to use the plurality of play characteristics, the software game being further programmed with at least one trigger metric;
gradually eroding availability of at least one of the play characteristics as a function of the at least one trigger metric as a consequence of use of the software game by the user while continuing to permit the user to play the game, and wherein the at least one trigger metric is a game event-based function;
restoring availability of the eroded play characteristics upon receipt of the permission to continue playing the game.
And second, the headline on this article is wrong. No patent has been issued. Sony has not patented this. The only things that have happened are (1) the inventor has filed an application for a patent, and (2) after 18 months elapsed from the filing date, the USPTO published the application. Sony could eventually get a patent on this, or they might have to amend the claims to get around the prior art, or they might end up abandoning the application.
if I buy Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince on Blu-ray, I don't own the movie but only a copy (whose usage is restricted by the terms of the licence)
That's not even true. You own the copy, but your permitted usage is restricted only by law and can be expanded by the copyright holder through the forfeiture of some of the exclusive rights conveyed by copyright. This is at least partly because licenses are generally not a precondition for the purchase of a copy of a movie/song/etc.
This isn't an argument specifically on one's Constitutional right to free speech. It's more about third parties performing censorship activities that they otherwise would have no reason to perform, except that they are unduly pressured by the content companies into performing those activities, to the detriment of their own customers, on the basis of flawed assertions of copyright and a deliberate misinterpretation of the safe harbor provision of the DMCA.
Yes, the Court of Federal Claims is an administrative court. There are lots of cases where an administrative (Article I) agency makes quasi-judicial decisions based on a consideration of evidence and law. The key is that these decisions are reviewable by an actual court of law as defined in Article III, and that's what makes it kosher. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the appellate court for reviewing many of these decisions, as happened here.
From the court decision, Mr. Gaylord was paid $775k by the United States for his part of the work, and the primary contractor (who hired Mr. Gaylord directly) was paid over $5M (p. 5 of dissent).
Personally, I'm rather confused as to how this case turned out this way. The dissent offers a very strong argument for why the government already has a license to use the artwork however it sees fit, and it also notes a federal law which should disqualify a claim against the government in this case. The US should at least try to get the CAFC to hear this case en banc, because it seems that the majority in this case overlooked some important details.
Obama himself has (wisely, IMO) managed to distance himself from the attack mode thing. I don't know whether he shares that viewpoint and uses Gibbs as his attack dog to keep his own hands clean, or whether it represents a real difference of opinion between them.
My point in "attacking" them, however, is different from their reasons for attacking each other. The reason they do this is so that they can avoid considering their opposition's arguments on the merits, because That's Hard. My reasons are the opposite: I want all our politicians to consider these ideas from across the political spectrum (and combinations thereof), so that we end up with legislation that does the most good and the least harm.
And yes, I know, there are liberals that do it too. I don't think they're in charge of the left.
Actually, the liberals in charge of the left have picked up the habit of ridiculing anyone who disagrees with them and then dismissing contrary viewpoints out-of-hand because the people who espouse those contrary viewpoints are judged to be idiots/bigots/selfish/hypocrites/etc. Robert Gibbs, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi do this on a regular basis, much as they did with the Tea Party groups (claiming that the participants are mere fringe elements with astroturf tendencies and therefore don't need to be listened to), and it resulted in the Democrats losing their 60th seat in the Senate in a race that should have been a sure thing.
Conservatives are no better, throwing around scare jargon like "socialism" instead of focusing on the actual issues. The important thing to realize is that there's ample blame to distribute to both groups when it comes to politicians no longer representing the people.
Sigh... the entire point of posting one of the claims from the patent is to dissuade people from trying to interpret things other than the claims when explaining what the patent covers. Yet you're interpreting the summary, which is already an interpretation of parts of the patent document other than the claims.
The claims are what matters when you're talking about what a patent covers. Everything else is there to allow the patentee to fulfill their end of the bargain of disclosing their invention in exchange for exclusive rights to make and use it.
Slashdot Mirror
I would have modded you down, but felt it was better to respond in full. Other mods, please mod parent down.
I thought downmodding was supposed to be used when a post just adds noise that makes it harder to extract actual signal from the conversation. Modding someone down just because you disagree with their legitimate opinion is plain old censorship.
And to head back to the topic:
However, I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under, and I respect the licenses chosen by others.
Fortunately for all of us, licensing terms are not the end of the discussion when it comes to copyright. The law itself provides for things like fair use and (in Google/YouTube's case) the DMCA ISP safe harbor. And that applies regardless of whether you slap a GPL-esque license on your stuff or proudly proclaim all-rights-reserved.
It's called quantum immortality.
(Except for that freaky dream thing.)
I agree. In fact, the Silmarillion would be much better material than LotR for PJ and pals to hack the shit out of. Most of the stories in the Silmarillion (with the possible exception of Luthien and Beren) were sketchy enough on storybook details that there's ample room for interpretation and dialogue without pissing off the fans.
There are enough stories in there that it might be better suited for a TV series, though.
If spam *is* Cthulhu, well, I'm avoiding the Hormel section at the grocery store from now on.
The Cthulhu, ham, eggs, and Cthulhu hasn't got much Cthulhu in it.
There's really only one thing people get sued for: having money.
No, not "whatever". This is how patent law works. You have to show evidence of obviousness, or it doesn't count.
(a) And what exactly does methane turn into as it floats around in the atmosphere?
(b) You're correct - oxidation of one CH4 molecule produces one CO2 molecule and two H2O molecules.
But now that you've read the claim, you have to evaluate it for obviousness in terms of the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex, i.e., the criteria mentioned in the ancestor post:
the scope and content of the prior art;
the level of ordinary skill in the art;
the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and
objective evidence of nonobviousness.
In other words, you have to find the recited limitations in the prior art, indicate what's different between the prior art and the claimed invention, and then indicate how those differences are obvious, usually by citing more prior art that teaches those differences and then indicating a rationale for modifying the invention of the first prior art reference using the teachings of the second one. You can't just BS your way to a rejection if you don't have objective evidence to back it up.
knocked offline...taken offline....takedown...knock out.......have knocked it off..."De-peered,"'...pulled the plug... refusing to transmit
If they weren't pushing out the spam, they'd be pushing up the daisies!
The claim does not merely read "perform action X now". Read the claims before you pass your own judgment.
Also, it drops straight into my old AM2 motherboard (with a quick BIOS upgrade). Try doing that with Intel.
Thanks for the advice, you turd. Now my computer's on fire. Literally!
No, no, you guys have it all wrong - it's MOD PARENT UP UP DOWN DOWN LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT B A START!
That's the only way to get infinite lives on Slashdot.
When a newspaper runs ads, it is not jammed right in the middle of an article. It doesn't jump of the fucking page and flash in red letters. It doesn't create another newspaper filled with bullshit ads and malware and shoot it out at your face. But when we are talking about ads on the web, that is exactly what is happening.
In fact, I find that many newspapers' websites are some of the worst offenders at annoying their viewers. As if tower ads that are bigger than the news article itself weren't bad enough, many of them also do interstitials and pop-ups/unders.
At this point, I generally don't go out of my way to block ads specifically when I'm surfing at home. Rather, I use NoScript and I don't use Flash, and because there are so few ads out there that aren't served up using Javascript and/or written in Flash, I don't see the ads - and this is primarily a side effect of safe surfing.
I wonder what data would actually have been transmitted in that bit of sound?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portal-2-ARG-SSTV-Images.png
First off, TFA only manages to quote the abstract and show some figures. None of this really bears much relevance to what the application is actually directed toward. For that, you have to read the claims (such as this one):
1. A method of distributing a software game to induce a user to obtain a permission to continue playing the game, the method comprising:
providing a software game with a plurality of play characteristics including at least one of a character feature, object feature, environmental feature and event feature, the software game being programmed to permit the user to use the plurality of play characteristics, the software game being further programmed with at least one trigger metric;
gradually eroding availability of at least one of the play characteristics as a function of the at least one trigger metric as a consequence of use of the software game by the user while continuing to permit the user to play the game, and wherein the at least one trigger metric is a game event-based function;
restoring availability of the eroded play characteristics upon receipt of the permission to continue playing the game.
And second, the headline on this article is wrong. No patent has been issued. Sony has not patented this. The only things that have happened are (1) the inventor has filed an application for a patent, and (2) after 18 months elapsed from the filing date, the USPTO published the application. Sony could eventually get a patent on this, or they might have to amend the claims to get around the prior art, or they might end up abandoning the application.
if I buy Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince on Blu-ray, I don't own the movie but only a copy (whose usage is restricted by the terms of the licence)
That's not even true. You own the copy, but your permitted usage is restricted only by law and can be expanded by the copyright holder through the forfeiture of some of the exclusive rights conveyed by copyright. This is at least partly because licenses are generally not a precondition for the purchase of a copy of a movie/song/etc.
This isn't an argument specifically on one's Constitutional right to free speech. It's more about third parties performing censorship activities that they otherwise would have no reason to perform, except that they are unduly pressured by the content companies into performing those activities, to the detriment of their own customers, on the basis of flawed assertions of copyright and a deliberate misinterpretation of the safe harbor provision of the DMCA.
Or "Big McLargehuge"?
Yes, the Court of Federal Claims is an administrative court. There are lots of cases where an administrative (Article I) agency makes quasi-judicial decisions based on a consideration of evidence and law. The key is that these decisions are reviewable by an actual court of law as defined in Article III, and that's what makes it kosher. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the appellate court for reviewing many of these decisions, as happened here.
From the court decision, Mr. Gaylord was paid $775k by the United States for his part of the work, and the primary contractor (who hired Mr. Gaylord directly) was paid over $5M (p. 5 of dissent).
Personally, I'm rather confused as to how this case turned out this way. The dissent offers a very strong argument for why the government already has a license to use the artwork however it sees fit, and it also notes a federal law which should disqualify a claim against the government in this case. The US should at least try to get the CAFC to hear this case en banc, because it seems that the majority in this case overlooked some important details.
Two out of the three appellate judges in this case are in Louisiana.
Obama himself has (wisely, IMO) managed to distance himself from the attack mode thing. I don't know whether he shares that viewpoint and uses Gibbs as his attack dog to keep his own hands clean, or whether it represents a real difference of opinion between them.
My point in "attacking" them, however, is different from their reasons for attacking each other. The reason they do this is so that they can avoid considering their opposition's arguments on the merits, because That's Hard. My reasons are the opposite: I want all our politicians to consider these ideas from across the political spectrum (and combinations thereof), so that we end up with legislation that does the most good and the least harm.
And yes, I know, there are liberals that do it too. I don't think they're in charge of the left.
Actually, the liberals in charge of the left have picked up the habit of ridiculing anyone who disagrees with them and then dismissing contrary viewpoints out-of-hand because the people who espouse those contrary viewpoints are judged to be idiots/bigots/selfish/hypocrites/etc. Robert Gibbs, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi do this on a regular basis, much as they did with the Tea Party groups (claiming that the participants are mere fringe elements with astroturf tendencies and therefore don't need to be listened to), and it resulted in the Democrats losing their 60th seat in the Senate in a race that should have been a sure thing.
Conservatives are no better, throwing around scare jargon like "socialism" instead of focusing on the actual issues. The important thing to realize is that there's ample blame to distribute to both groups when it comes to politicians no longer representing the people.
The best defense is a good offense. You know who said that? Mel, the cook on "Alice".
- Ed Gruberman
Sigh... the entire point of posting one of the claims from the patent is to dissuade people from trying to interpret things other than the claims when explaining what the patent covers. Yet you're interpreting the summary, which is already an interpretation of parts of the patent document other than the claims.
The claims are what matters when you're talking about what a patent covers. Everything else is there to allow the patentee to fulfill their end of the bargain of disclosing their invention in exchange for exclusive rights to make and use it.