And here I thought dropping an ice cube into the ocean was a really far fetched idea and nobody would take it seriously.
Narrator: Of course, since the greenhouse gases are still building up, it takes more and more ice each time, thus solving the problem once and for all. Susie: But - Narrator:Once and for all!!
Well, I was speaking more generally, in terms of the application publication being used as prior art against someone else's application. But yes, you're right, you get one year before your own patent application can be counted against you. Of course, if the original application is still pending, you could file a new application as a continuation or a divisional of the old one, and then you'd get the benefit of the earlier filing date.
Keep in mind that the scope of what's patented is contained entirely within the claims of the patent, not in the rest of the specification. (Although, anything in the specification, once published, can be considered "prior art" over future applications.)
In this case, the independent claims get extremely specific, including an indication of the particular formula being used to calculate the amount to scroll. Compare this to the claims as originally filed.*
(* If that link expires, the application publication number is 20060200764, and you can enter that here.)
The/. summary kind of cherry-picks the bits that it mentions. If you read the Star-Tribune article, you'll note that the protesters had buckets of urine at the ready, in addition to the slingshots, bow and arrows, and gun that police seized. It's pretty clear that whatever protest these people were planning was going to go beyond peaceful words, unless someone has a better (serious) explanation for the buckets of urine.
It also notes that these informants were working on the inside of the protest groups for quite some time, to minimize any doubt that these folks were up to no good. So, in other words, the cops were doing their job, and Slashdot has, in typical form, made it some sort of repression of the proletariat by the current administration.
Why does every discussion of IP have to include someone pretending to not see the difference between a product with unlimited supply (data), and a product with a supply of one (the GP's house)?
This is because people (probably starting from the content cabal) have obfuscated the definition of "intellectual property" so that it now colloquially refers to music, movies, games, stories, etc. - the intangible ideas or data which you noted are unlimited (or undefined) in quantity. Ideas aren't property, nor do they resemble property, primarily because they don't exhibit scarcity.
Intellectual property actually refers to the copyrights, patents, or trademark rights themselves. While these items are intangible, they are naturally scarce; in fact, for a particular work/invention/mark, the available quantity is exactly one. In addition, you can do more or less anything with intellectual property that you can with real property: you can sell it, you can rent it, and you can sue people for trespassing on it.
Wow, a straw man and a false analogy all in the same post.
To address the straw man: I wasn't talking about "getting everything my way" or simply not paying for stuff because I don't want to ("the basics of copyright and piracy"). I was talking about legitimate uses of legally purchased content, such as making a backup, offloading to an mp3 player, skipping advertisements on DVDs, or timeshifting TV content.
And to address the false analogy: Music, movies, etc., are not the same as property. They are intangible things that can't be "stolen" in the sense of person A taking something from person B, thus causing person B no longer to have that something. And by default, the public has the right to use music, movies, etc., however they wish. Copyright is an exclusive and limited right granted to authors for certain uses of the works they produce, but ultimately, they don't own the work itself, since nobody can own an idea in the same way that you own a car or a house - the "intellectual property" they own is the actual copyright attached to the work. And on top of that, fair use is an exception to the exclusive rights included in copyright.
The person designing the security is generally trying to do the best that they can to balance security against annoyance of said security of customers, knowing full well that it's only a matter of time before that security is broken.
The users of DRM (i.e., content providers) use DRM to minimize the effective rights of the content consumer. Ever since the specs for the DVD were first developed (if not before), DRM stopped being about preventing people from making additional copies of something, and started merely pretending to be about that, while actually being about limiting the ways in which legitimate customers can use legitimately purchased content. Region Coding and User Operation Prohibitions (that's where your DVD player forbids you from skipping the FBI warning and sometimes even ads because the content provider said so) are not and have never been about piracy prevention, yet they are an integral part of the DRM that exists on DVDs. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD kept these "features", indicating that the content industry is still playing the same tune.
The creators of DRM, on the other hand, are selling a product to the content providers, and therefore they feel a motivation to create a system that doesn't "balance" security against annoyance, but rather one that provides the content providers with as many options as possible for limiting the content consumer's effective rights.
The content providers win, the DRM creators win, and (because DRM ultimately doesn't work) folks who pirate media win, while legitimate consumers lose. There's nothing balanced about that.
It's not growing irrelevant in my world. Pretty much all the TV I watch is either recorded on my MythTV PVR or is something I purchased or rented on DVD.
In my world, digital cable has yet to become relevant. I suppose I could pay the cable company to let me rent two boxes and then finagle with an IR link so the PVR could change the channels on one of them, but really, I don't even have time to watch all the TV I record on basic cable. I suppose if I had the option to slap a CableCard reader in my MythTV box and then switch to digital, I probably would, but until then, the cable company is just going to have to do without the extra money.
So is the US Patent and Trademark Office, as part of the process of using PAIR, the Patent Application Information Retrieval system, which lets the public look at information about patent applications that have been published.
Wrong. You have to agree to the EULA/ToS before subscribing to their service, and they offer a full refund to anyone who, before subscribing, decides they don't want to accede to the EULA/ToS.
In general, that pretty much takes care of the big problem that the courts have had with shrinkwrap licenses (that you must buy the software and complete the transaction before you can read the EULA). While the refund provision, AFAIK, hasn't been tested in court directly, it stands to reason that the court's concerns would be ameliorated by such a provision. In the absence of a shrinkwrap concern, EULAs have generally been found valid, barring other standard contract law issues like unconscionable terms, etc.
I don't think there's much of a dispute over whether players agree not to bot when they accept the terms of service before playing WoW.
Even if you try to attack the EULA/ToS on shrinkwrap grounds, Blizzard was clever enough to offer a full refund to anyone who reads the EULA/ToS after purchase and decides not to expend the account key because they refuse the terms. Generally speaking, only the "I'm out $50 and all I got was this lousy EULA" defense has proven worthwhile in court, while on the other hand, numerous clickthrough licenses have actually been upheld. The refund option pretty much takes care of that, not to mention the continued monthly fees that the customers are paying.
Actually, most people who really like WoW (or their MMOG of choice) are overjoyed about the MDY ruling. For them, it means less wretched scum infesting their servers (leaving the RMT farmers as the main remaining scourge). Of course, they're all too busy playing to post here.
Don't forget that MDY was also found guilty summarily of tortious contract interference. Releasing the source code would only serve to continue a pattern of interfering with Blizzard's contracts with its customers, and it would also result in irreversible damage (i.e., you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one), hence the need for the injunction. We don't even have to get into the/. hotbutton issue of copyright here.
Contacting people on teh Intarweb directly and offering them platitudes to make them change their weblog posts is easy.
Actually making improvements to your services to improve your customers' experience when regional cable monopolies ensure that you're the only game in town? That's hard.
I see your point. I think it's just something to do with the braces themselves - they just seem typographically "loud" enough that my brain wants them treated in a special manner. I don't have the same qualms about placement of "then" and "end" in Lua, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get the National Geographic Channel, you insensitive clod!
And here I thought dropping an ice cube into the ocean was a really far fetched idea and nobody would take it seriously.
Narrator: Of course, since the greenhouse gases are still building up, it takes more and more ice each time, thus solving the problem once and for all.
Susie: But -
Narrator: Once and for all!!
Well, I was speaking more generally, in terms of the application publication being used as prior art against someone else's application. But yes, you're right, you get one year before your own patent application can be counted against you. Of course, if the original application is still pending, you could file a new application as a continuation or a divisional of the old one, and then you'd get the benefit of the earlier filing date.
Keep in mind that the scope of what's patented is contained entirely within the claims of the patent, not in the rest of the specification. (Although, anything in the specification, once published, can be considered "prior art" over future applications.)
In this case, the independent claims get extremely specific, including an indication of the particular formula being used to calculate the amount to scroll. Compare this to the claims as originally filed.*
(* If that link expires, the application publication number is 20060200764, and you can enter that here.)
Were they planning on doing something illegal? I doubt it.
So they were keeping buckets of urine on hand because they liked the smell?
The /. summary kind of cherry-picks the bits that it mentions. If you read the Star-Tribune article, you'll note that the protesters had buckets of urine at the ready, in addition to the slingshots, bow and arrows, and gun that police seized. It's pretty clear that whatever protest these people were planning was going to go beyond peaceful words, unless someone has a better (serious) explanation for the buckets of urine.
It also notes that these informants were working on the inside of the protest groups for quite some time, to minimize any doubt that these folks were up to no good. So, in other words, the cops were doing their job, and Slashdot has, in typical form, made it some sort of repression of the proletariat by the current administration.
Whoever wins, we lose.
Why does every discussion of IP have to include someone pretending to not see the difference between a product with unlimited supply (data), and a product with a supply of one (the GP's house)?
This is because people (probably starting from the content cabal) have obfuscated the definition of "intellectual property" so that it now colloquially refers to music, movies, games, stories, etc. - the intangible ideas or data which you noted are unlimited (or undefined) in quantity. Ideas aren't property, nor do they resemble property, primarily because they don't exhibit scarcity.
Intellectual property actually refers to the copyrights, patents, or trademark rights themselves. While these items are intangible, they are naturally scarce; in fact, for a particular work/invention/mark, the available quantity is exactly one. In addition, you can do more or less anything with intellectual property that you can with real property: you can sell it, you can rent it, and you can sue people for trespassing on it.
Wow, a straw man and a false analogy all in the same post.
To address the straw man: I wasn't talking about "getting everything my way" or simply not paying for stuff because I don't want to ("the basics of copyright and piracy"). I was talking about legitimate uses of legally purchased content, such as making a backup, offloading to an mp3 player, skipping advertisements on DVDs, or timeshifting TV content.
And to address the false analogy: Music, movies, etc., are not the same as property. They are intangible things that can't be "stolen" in the sense of person A taking something from person B, thus causing person B no longer to have that something. And by default, the public has the right to use music, movies, etc., however they wish. Copyright is an exclusive and limited right granted to authors for certain uses of the works they produce, but ultimately, they don't own the work itself, since nobody can own an idea in the same way that you own a car or a house - the "intellectual property" they own is the actual copyright attached to the work. And on top of that, fair use is an exception to the exclusive rights included in copyright.
The person designing the security is generally trying to do the best that they can to balance security against annoyance of said security of customers, knowing full well that it's only a matter of time before that security is broken.
The users of DRM (i.e., content providers) use DRM to minimize the effective rights of the content consumer. Ever since the specs for the DVD were first developed (if not before), DRM stopped being about preventing people from making additional copies of something, and started merely pretending to be about that, while actually being about limiting the ways in which legitimate customers can use legitimately purchased content. Region Coding and User Operation Prohibitions (that's where your DVD player forbids you from skipping the FBI warning and sometimes even ads because the content provider said so) are not and have never been about piracy prevention, yet they are an integral part of the DRM that exists on DVDs. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD kept these "features", indicating that the content industry is still playing the same tune.
The creators of DRM, on the other hand, are selling a product to the content providers, and therefore they feel a motivation to create a system that doesn't "balance" security against annoyance, but rather one that provides the content providers with as many options as possible for limiting the content consumer's effective rights.
The content providers win, the DRM creators win, and (because DRM ultimately doesn't work) folks who pirate media win, while legitimate consumers lose. There's nothing balanced about that.
It's not growing irrelevant in my world. Pretty much all the TV I watch is either recorded on my MythTV PVR or is something I purchased or rented on DVD.
In my world, digital cable has yet to become relevant. I suppose I could pay the cable company to let me rent two boxes and then finagle with an IR link so the PVR could change the channels on one of them, but really, I don't even have time to watch all the TV I record on basic cable. I suppose if I had the option to slap a CableCard reader in my MythTV box and then switch to digital, I probably would, but until then, the cable company is just going to have to do without the extra money.
So is the US Patent and Trademark Office, as part of the process of using PAIR, the Patent Application Information Retrieval system, which lets the public look at information about patent applications that have been published.
Blizzard: oh, crap.
Wrong. You have to agree to the EULA/ToS before subscribing to their service, and they offer a full refund to anyone who, before subscribing, decides they don't want to accede to the EULA/ToS.
In general, that pretty much takes care of the big problem that the courts have had with shrinkwrap licenses (that you must buy the software and complete the transaction before you can read the EULA). While the refund provision, AFAIK, hasn't been tested in court directly, it stands to reason that the court's concerns would be ameliorated by such a provision. In the absence of a shrinkwrap concern, EULAs have generally been found valid, barring other standard contract law issues like unconscionable terms, etc.
On the net, we've evolved the ROBOTS.TXT for just this problem
I've found that the CURTAINS.TXT convention works pretty well in meatspace.
Layered security indeed!
Maybe these locks aren't all that, but it's the Secret Service agents capping you in the head that you really have to worry about.
And that, boys and girls, is why the next world war will be fought between Russia and China.
Then I guess it's safe to say that at least one of them is going to fall for the most famous of the classic blunders.
I don't think there's much of a dispute over whether players agree not to bot when they accept the terms of service before playing WoW.
Even if you try to attack the EULA/ToS on shrinkwrap grounds, Blizzard was clever enough to offer a full refund to anyone who reads the EULA/ToS after purchase and decides not to expend the account key because they refuse the terms. Generally speaking, only the "I'm out $50 and all I got was this lousy EULA" defense has proven worthwhile in court, while on the other hand, numerous clickthrough licenses have actually been upheld. The refund option pretty much takes care of that, not to mention the continued monthly fees that the customers are paying.
B) Makes Blizzard look like bullies..again.
Actually, most people who really like WoW (or their MMOG of choice) are overjoyed about the MDY ruling. For them, it means less wretched scum infesting their servers (leaving the RMT farmers as the main remaining scourge). Of course, they're all too busy playing to post here.
It's not so much "because their EULA says so," as it is because you agreed to it.
Don't forget that MDY was also found guilty summarily of tortious contract interference. Releasing the source code would only serve to continue a pattern of interfering with Blizzard's contracts with its customers, and it would also result in irreversible damage (i.e., you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one), hence the need for the injunction. We don't even have to get into the /. hotbutton issue of copyright here.
Not nearly as evil as the Babelfish, though..... *shudder*
Two things:
1. In the future, programs will fight each other using Aerobies rather than Frisbees.
2. It's a helluva lot harder to get derezzed than it used to be.
Contacting people on teh Intarweb directly and offering them platitudes to make them change their weblog posts is easy.
Actually making improvements to your services to improve your customers' experience when regional cable monopolies ensure that you're the only game in town? That's hard.
I see your point. I think it's just something to do with the braces themselves - they just seem typographically "loud" enough that my brain wants them treated in a special manner. I don't have the same qualms about placement of "then" and "end" in Lua, for example.
I don't like seeing opening braces sharing a line with anything else at all, unless the block gets closed on the same line.
if(something)
{
do_something();
}
else
{
do_something_else();
}
Yeah, it takes a bit more space, but I find it a lot easier to match blocks up when the braces are indented the same amount.