collecting a request from a pedestrian that a route includes a waypoint to a general location; and
producing a pedestrian-based route that includes a waypoint to a specific location, based upon the collected request.
After prosecution, this is what they ended up with. Try rendering this mess legally obvious:
Computer storage media having embodied thereon computer-useable instructions that, when executed, perform a method, the method comprising:
collecting a request from a pedestrian that a route includes a waypoint to a general location;
locating at least one information source, retaining pedestrian history from a plurality of pedestrians and addresses of at least one information source that has a history of providing reliable information, identifying low quality information sources that do not provide information used in route generation, and blocking information obtainment for the low quality information sources;
obtaining information related to pedestrian travel including security information, weather information, and terrain information, wherein the gather component obtains the information from the at least one located information source;
making at least one inference regarding a route based on a previous pedestrian behavior;
determining, based on the at least one inference, the information that is likely relevant and deleting information that is commonly of little value in part through examination of previously produced routes;
determining an importance of the information to a user, estimating how likely the information is to change, and choosing if the user should reach the destination through pedestrian route and/or through a conventional route;
resolving conflicts between an information source with a financial interest and an information source without a financial interest and producing a direction set based upon the information source that does not have a financial interest in providing the direction set;
collecting information concerning routes of other people; and
using the collected information to update the pedestrian-based route in real time.
And people around here complain that the USPTO doesn't do its job. Heh.
If the Iranian government were so concerned over the deaths of their poor due to economic sanctions, then they would accede to their international obligations of forsaking Hezbollah and abandoning their nuclear weapon aspirations.
I'm not sure if there's a difference from what you said, but the threshold is that it "must not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art". The level of training varies from art to art, and could range from an entry level shop worker in one field to someone with a MS or Ph.D. in a different field. The assumption is also made that one of ordinary skill in the art is able to access any necessary prior art to obtain the teachings necessary to arrive at the claimed invention.
The USPO doesn't review patents. It makes them available in case anyone wants to complain (there's a year window for that) but they leave it up to the courts to handle the legality of patents. The problem is, the courts defer to the USPO and assumes they've handled the legality of patents. If someone actually took responsibility for patents, there probably wouldn't be the current mess.
False. And with a UID that low, does that make you the first troll on the Internet?
Therein lies the question. Given a thermostat, it would certainly be obvious to turn it up when you feel cold. But 35 USC 101 (which governs patentable subject matter) is not generally regarded as an inquiry into obviousness - that's covered under 35 USC 103(a). The point of this case is that Mayo wants to kill Prometheus's patent without going to the hassle of a Markman hearing (to decide the specific meaning of the claims) and possibly a jury trial to reach a conclusion on obviousness, so they're trying to get the patent declared invalid based on being part of an entire class of things (laws of nature, or pre-emptions thereof) that cannot be patented.
I read the transcript of the arguments, and it wasn't really clear to me what way they were leaning. Sotomayor seemed mostly in favor of the patentee, while Breyer especially was critical of the patentee. But these are oral arguments, and justices can take devil's advocate positions during these in order to tease out certain details of the case. Figuring out how the court will swing based on the oral arguments is like reading tea leaves, especially when it comes to patent law.
As for the correctness of the headline: This case is in the Supreme Court because an early summary judgment motion in the district court was granted, ruling that the patent is invalid. The case was appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the ruling, and then Mayo appealed to the Supreme Court.
This case only focuses on the question of patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101, i.e., what kinds of claims should be patentable. In particular, the question here is whether the claims are directed to an application of a law of nature (the metabolism of a certain drug administered to a patient) or to the law of nature itself. Laws of nature are not patentable in and of themselves, but applications of a law of nature can be, as long as the entire law of nature is not "pre-empted" by the claim. In other words, matter-energy equivalence, E = mc^2, is a law of nature. Particular applications of that principle can be patentable, but if the claims are written such that every conceivable application of the principle is covered by the patent, then the principle is pre-empted by the claim (i.e., they might as well have claimed that entire law of nature, because the claims effectively cover it entirely).
Prometheus, and the federal government, both argue that the arguments that Mayo is making are better addressed when considering the claims against the prior art (i.e., under 35 USC 102 and 103). (This is in part because Mayo is doing a hamfisted job of arguing their case, probably because they don't want to sabotage some of their own medical treatment patents.) The issue is that prior art considerations require a time-consuming process called a Markman hearing, where the court decides how to construe the various terms recited in the claims, and usually thereafter, a jury decides whether the prior art covers the claims, which makes the process extremely uncertain. It's Mayo's hope that patents like this can be killed early on in the process by a judge, rather than putting all their money on double-zero and giving it a spin with a jury.
TLDR version: Nobody really knows what SCOTUS was thinking during oral arguments. This isn't the end of the road for this case, even if Mayo loses, because prior art still has to be considered.
If you look at TFWebsite, you'll see that part of the reason for doing this transfer to HD is that the original theater print was made by taking the original 16mm print, making a 35mm negative from that, and then making positives from that for theatrical distribution. In essence, the footage seen in theaters and on MST3K was two copies away from the original, and they skimped on the transfers, resulting in horrible film quality.
But the guy doing the restoration found an original 16mm work print, and he's doing the HD transfer from that.
In terms of cinematic quality, this will be a huge improvement. On the other hand, in terms of entertainment quality, this movie was so god-awful that Joel and the Bots were only barely able to salvage it. What I'd love to see happen is for someone to transfer the silhouettes, audio, and sketches from the old MST3K version into the new HD release of this movie, so we could all enjoy (or run screaming from) both versions in HD glory.
1. Iraq had no nukes. The US falsely claimed they did, and then used that as an excuse to blow them to smithereens.
The US legitimately believed Iraq did have WMDs, because Saddam engaged in a program of misinformation to make it seem like they did, in an effort to deter Iran from attacking. Saddam bet that Iran was the greater threat, and he bet wrong. Even President Clinton has said that the prevailing intelligence at the end of his term was that Saddam had WMDs.
On a side note, the reason that North Korea is a tougher target is because of all the artillery they have pointed at Seoul. Yes, we would steamroll them, but that's a lot of South Koreans who would be killed before we could destroy that artillery.
Those markings are there because the patent is a reissue. Reissued claims include markup to indicate what was changed from the original patent. In this case, the material in between.Iadd. and.Iaddend. was added to the claim, and material in between.[. and.]. was removed.
It looks better in the actual printed patent. The USPTO's website gives you the information but unfortunately doesn't make it pretty.
The key is the scope of the claims in the patent, which is what defines what the patent covers and doesn't cover. Claims are not code, so they can cover multiple specific implementations of an invention.
As for Carmack's work as prior art, it would only count if it were published (or on public use or sale in the US) more than a year before the filing date of the patent (or less than a year if the patentee can't show that they had invented it before said publication/use). In any event, prior art on or after the filing date of a patent isn't actually "prior".
Legalize drugs, and let their income of blood money vanish.
If you think legalizing drugs will stop their reign of terror, you've got another thing coming. They'll just find some other extremely lucrative (and therefore most likely illegal) market to attempt to corner, and their thuggery will continue.
One could argue that the federal government doesn't have the authority to confer its specific Constitutionally-granted powers to the states (in this case, regulation of interstate commerce) without a Constitutional amendment. Not sure how well that would fly or whether there's precedent for it - maybe some kind/.ing lawyer has some insight.
Slashdot Mirror
The original independent claims looked like this:
After prosecution, this is what they ended up with. Try rendering this mess legally obvious:
And people around here complain that the USPTO doesn't do its job. Heh.
I guess that explains Apple fanboys, then.
Exactly. Besides, earthquakes are just God farting, and who are we mere mortals to impede the flatulence of God?
Indeed.
...that had Thomas Edison been alive today, he would have held the patents on these assorted new lightbulbs.
If the Iranian government were so concerned over the deaths of their poor due to economic sanctions, then they would accede to their international obligations of forsaking Hezbollah and abandoning their nuclear weapon aspirations.
I'm not sure if there's a difference from what you said, but the threshold is that it "must not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art". The level of training varies from art to art, and could range from an entry level shop worker in one field to someone with a MS or Ph.D. in a different field. The assumption is also made that one of ordinary skill in the art is able to access any necessary prior art to obtain the teachings necessary to arrive at the claimed invention.
The USPO doesn't review patents. It makes them available in case anyone wants to complain (there's a year window for that) but they leave it up to the courts to handle the legality of patents. The problem is, the courts defer to the USPO and assumes they've handled the legality of patents. If someone actually took responsibility for patents, there probably wouldn't be the current mess.
False. And with a UID that low, does that make you the first troll on the Internet?
I mean, after all, you're borrowing their money. You don't have a right to it.
Morbo: Photons do not work that way! Good night!
Seriously. You can't detect a photon unless it actually collides with the detector. So how do you detect movement of photons across a scene?
Therein lies the question. Given a thermostat, it would certainly be obvious to turn it up when you feel cold. But 35 USC 101 (which governs patentable subject matter) is not generally regarded as an inquiry into obviousness - that's covered under 35 USC 103(a). The point of this case is that Mayo wants to kill Prometheus's patent without going to the hassle of a Markman hearing (to decide the specific meaning of the claims) and possibly a jury trial to reach a conclusion on obviousness, so they're trying to get the patent declared invalid based on being part of an entire class of things (laws of nature, or pre-emptions thereof) that cannot be patented.
I read the transcript of the arguments, and it wasn't really clear to me what way they were leaning. Sotomayor seemed mostly in favor of the patentee, while Breyer especially was critical of the patentee. But these are oral arguments, and justices can take devil's advocate positions during these in order to tease out certain details of the case. Figuring out how the court will swing based on the oral arguments is like reading tea leaves, especially when it comes to patent law.
As for the correctness of the headline: This case is in the Supreme Court because an early summary judgment motion in the district court was granted, ruling that the patent is invalid. The case was appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the ruling, and then Mayo appealed to the Supreme Court.
This case only focuses on the question of patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101, i.e., what kinds of claims should be patentable. In particular, the question here is whether the claims are directed to an application of a law of nature (the metabolism of a certain drug administered to a patient) or to the law of nature itself. Laws of nature are not patentable in and of themselves, but applications of a law of nature can be, as long as the entire law of nature is not "pre-empted" by the claim. In other words, matter-energy equivalence, E = mc^2, is a law of nature. Particular applications of that principle can be patentable, but if the claims are written such that every conceivable application of the principle is covered by the patent, then the principle is pre-empted by the claim (i.e., they might as well have claimed that entire law of nature, because the claims effectively cover it entirely).
Prometheus, and the federal government, both argue that the arguments that Mayo is making are better addressed when considering the claims against the prior art (i.e., under 35 USC 102 and 103). (This is in part because Mayo is doing a hamfisted job of arguing their case, probably because they don't want to sabotage some of their own medical treatment patents.) The issue is that prior art considerations require a time-consuming process called a Markman hearing, where the court decides how to construe the various terms recited in the claims, and usually thereafter, a jury decides whether the prior art covers the claims, which makes the process extremely uncertain. It's Mayo's hope that patents like this can be killed early on in the process by a judge, rather than putting all their money on double-zero and giving it a spin with a jury.
TLDR version: Nobody really knows what SCOTUS was thinking during oral arguments. This isn't the end of the road for this case, even if Mayo loses, because prior art still has to be considered.
Seriously, is Berkeley like the only college campus that hasn't outsourced their e-mail to Google yet?
If you look at TFWebsite, you'll see that part of the reason for doing this transfer to HD is that the original theater print was made by taking the original 16mm print, making a 35mm negative from that, and then making positives from that for theatrical distribution. In essence, the footage seen in theaters and on MST3K was two copies away from the original, and they skimped on the transfers, resulting in horrible film quality.
But the guy doing the restoration found an original 16mm work print, and he's doing the HD transfer from that.
In terms of cinematic quality, this will be a huge improvement. On the other hand, in terms of entertainment quality, this movie was so god-awful that Joel and the Bots were only barely able to salvage it. What I'd love to see happen is for someone to transfer the silhouettes, audio, and sketches from the old MST3K version into the new HD release of this movie, so we could all enjoy (or run screaming from) both versions in HD glory.
Remember "the warehouse" from the Indiana Jones movies? NARA is a little like that in terms of size but are better organized.
Does it play the music when you go in there? That's what really sets the mood, you know.
I've played enough Shadowrun to know where this is going.
Except possibly the German fans of Monty Python.
1. Iraq had no nukes. The US falsely claimed they did, and then used that as an excuse to blow them to smithereens.
The US legitimately believed Iraq did have WMDs, because Saddam engaged in a program of misinformation to make it seem like they did, in an effort to deter Iran from attacking. Saddam bet that Iran was the greater threat, and he bet wrong. Even President Clinton has said that the prevailing intelligence at the end of his term was that Saddam had WMDs.
On a side note, the reason that North Korea is a tougher target is because of all the artillery they have pointed at Seoul. Yes, we would steamroll them, but that's a lot of South Koreans who would be killed before we could destroy that artillery.
Those markings are there because the patent is a reissue. Reissued claims include markup to indicate what was changed from the original patent. In this case, the material in between .Iadd. and .Iaddend. was added to the claim, and material in between .[. and .]. was removed.
It looks better in the actual printed patent. The USPTO's website gives you the information but unfortunately doesn't make it pretty.
The key is the scope of the claims in the patent, which is what defines what the patent covers and doesn't cover. Claims are not code, so they can cover multiple specific implementations of an invention.
As for Carmack's work as prior art, it would only count if it were published (or on public use or sale in the US) more than a year before the filing date of the patent (or less than a year if the patentee can't show that they had invented it before said publication/use). In any event, prior art on or after the filing date of a patent isn't actually "prior".
Or you could try the next best thing.
I didn't realize it could go any lower.
Legalize drugs, and let their income of blood money vanish.
If you think legalizing drugs will stop their reign of terror, you've got another thing coming. They'll just find some other extremely lucrative (and therefore most likely illegal) market to attempt to corner, and their thuggery will continue.
One could argue that the federal government doesn't have the authority to confer its specific Constitutionally-granted powers to the states (in this case, regulation of interstate commerce) without a Constitutional amendment. Not sure how well that would fly or whether there's precedent for it - maybe some kind /.ing lawyer has some insight.
Professor Farnsworth: We tore the universe a new space-hole, alright. But it's clenching shut fast!