Except this wasn't what the petition was about. The petition asked the White House to direct the USPTO to stop issuing software patents. Such an act would shortly thereafter be referred to the courts, where it would likely be reversed.
Instead of making grandiose statements that the Koch brothers fund global warming skeptics "whenever possible", why not link to their official position on global warming and what we should/shouldn't do about it?
If I knew the government was planning to take all my livestock away to distribute among the unwashed masses, I'd have a feast every day until I had no more livestock so that when the redistribution happened, I'd come out ahead.
Of course my not-so-well-off neighbor would see me doing this and feast on his paltry sum of livestock until he had none remaining either. And so on, until the redistribution happens, only to find that everyone had already feasted on all of their livestock and there's nothing left to redistribute.
How are we even going to know whether or not this is true? Nobody in their right mind would try to verify whether those sites were taken down or not, and even if they did, they sure wouldn't talk about it publicly, what with the risk of the cops showing up just for visiting those sites. Anonymous can pretty much say whatever they want about this with impunity.
You pretty much proved my point - even the movement organizers themselves refuse to focus on achievable objectives. You actually separate yourself from the rest of the movement (and make yourself sound far more sane, though I disagree with most of your list of demands) by coming up with achievable objectives on your own.
I understand what the protests are about - frustration with the economic fallout over the past several years and the failure of the jobs market to adequately recover. What I don't understand is what the objectives of this movement are, and that's because there are no objectives.
Can the protesters focus on winning instead of trying to be techie??
Winning what? Nobody knows what they actually want, including the protesters. Their message ranges anywhere from simply giving unions a bigger piece of the pie to outright Marxism.
But those games wouldn't need any of the clearly way more awesome pre-Imperial ships and probably wouldn't even involve any Gungans or anything. Totally lame!
(Seriously, though, an updated XvT would be sweet.)
The best way to deal with the dregs of school society is to get rid of them. Ship them off to a remote Alaskan military school where the only things to do are push-ups and homework. Then the rest of the students will be able to learn without interference.
Or, opening a Paypal purchase interface in a new window would meet claim 1. I certainly hope that if this ever issues, it ends up a lot more detailed than what was originally filed.
Cap-and-trade is a losing proposition anyway, because it essentially requires that the nationwide cap (i.e., the sum of all the emission permits provided) is always met before any R&D into actual emissions reduction takes place. This is particularly true for CO2 emissions, since the only other option most "emitters" have is to reduce energy consumption, which usually means reducing productivity. Otherwise, you have to have huge changes in power generation infrastructure, such as mass deployment of nuclear power facilities, which is beyond the reach of most emitters (and even beyond the reach of most power companies, given the ironic environmental red tape preventing such deployment).
If you want actual improvements in environmentally-friendly engineering, stick with the caps, lose the trade, and brace for impact.
It should be noted that the CAFC case mentioned above was narrowly confined to the issue of patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings concerning enforceability relative to prior art (among other things). The defendant was hoping for a quick and cheap resolution, but it looks like that won't happen in this case.
BPPV is frequently caused by solid matter (calcium crystals) in the semicircular canals coming loose, floating around, and moving the fluid in abnormal ways to cause stimulation and therefore vertigo. Wikipedia has a good article on the subject and provides descriptions of two head-positioning techniques that you can do by yourself at home to help the solid matter settle back to where it will (at least temporarily) stop causing problems.
At present, the claims only really require searching more than one location and what appears to be consolidation of similar results. Most likely, the claims will get amended to specify searching local and remote locations at the same time, since that's what the spec purports the improvement to be, but it'll likely take some minor implementation detail to make it patentable.
Prior art between 10 March 2009 and 9 March 2010 can also count, but there's a chance that the applicant will be able to show that they invented it before such prior art. They would have to show proof of conception of the entire claimed invention at a prior date, along with due diligence in developing the invention toward a reduction to practice (i.e., actually building the complete invention or filing the application) between the prior art's date and the reduction to practice.
Not only are you wrong (see the other person(s) who replied to you), but first-inventor-to-file doesn't even go into effect until 16 March 2013, and then only for applications filed on or after that date.
The article is pretty terrible in terms of hiding the link to the document they're referring to, but I can only assume they mean their first link. It's to a patent application, which is not a patent. Maybe someday it will become a patent, but not today.
Posts like these are the reason why we need a "Wrong" moderation category.
If it makes you feel any better, you won't technically be wrong for another 18 months, when first-to-file goes into effect for newly-filed applications.
If they also said you couldn't bring them before some forum of arbitration, then you would really have no recourse and it would probably be considered unconscionable. But they probably do say that all disputes are to be settled through binding arbitration, and current US law loves binding arbitration.
Actually, PRC is always looking for ways they can mollify the US government in terms of fair trade and intellectual property without actually having any downsides for themselves. Turning over.cn domain names that point to services not run by government-run entities or Chinese nationals would be a juicy target for that purpose.
Except for the part where your post was decrying the supposedly shameful new patent law, yet your rebuttal fails to address the fact that your hypothetical website would serve as prior art just as well (if not better) under the new law than under the old.
Slashdot Mirror
Except this wasn't what the petition was about. The petition asked the White House to direct the USPTO to stop issuing software patents. Such an act would shortly thereafter be referred to the courts, where it would likely be reversed.
Instead of making grandiose statements that the Koch brothers fund global warming skeptics "whenever possible", why not link to their official position on global warming and what we should/shouldn't do about it?
If I knew the government was planning to take all my livestock away to distribute among the unwashed masses, I'd have a feast every day until I had no more livestock so that when the redistribution happened, I'd come out ahead.
Of course my not-so-well-off neighbor would see me doing this and feast on his paltry sum of livestock until he had none remaining either. And so on, until the redistribution happens, only to find that everyone had already feasted on all of their livestock and there's nothing left to redistribute.
s/livestock/money
How are we even going to know whether or not this is true? Nobody in their right mind would try to verify whether those sites were taken down or not, and even if they did, they sure wouldn't talk about it publicly, what with the risk of the cops showing up just for visiting those sites. Anonymous can pretty much say whatever they want about this with impunity.
You pretty much proved my point - even the movement organizers themselves refuse to focus on achievable objectives. You actually separate yourself from the rest of the movement (and make yourself sound far more sane, though I disagree with most of your list of demands) by coming up with achievable objectives on your own.
I understand what the protests are about - frustration with the economic fallout over the past several years and the failure of the jobs market to adequately recover. What I don't understand is what the objectives of this movement are, and that's because there are no objectives.
It's the "ffffssssfffssssffffsssffffsss" noise that usually tips me off.
Can the protesters focus on winning instead of trying to be techie??
Winning what? Nobody knows what they actually want, including the protesters. Their message ranges anywhere from simply giving unions a bigger piece of the pie to outright Marxism.
I don't think Slashdot can claim any credit for Verisign's change of heart. I mean, after all, I didn't even post a comment on that article.
But those games wouldn't need any of the clearly way more awesome pre-Imperial ships and probably wouldn't even involve any Gungans or anything. Totally lame!
(Seriously, though, an updated XvT would be sweet.)
The best way to deal with the dregs of school society is to get rid of them. Ship them off to a remote Alaskan military school where the only things to do are push-ups and homework. Then the rest of the students will be able to learn without interference.
Or, opening a Paypal purchase interface in a new window would meet claim 1. I certainly hope that if this ever issues, it ends up a lot more detailed than what was originally filed.
Cap-and-trade is a losing proposition anyway, because it essentially requires that the nationwide cap (i.e., the sum of all the emission permits provided) is always met before any R&D into actual emissions reduction takes place. This is particularly true for CO2 emissions, since the only other option most "emitters" have is to reduce energy consumption, which usually means reducing productivity. Otherwise, you have to have huge changes in power generation infrastructure, such as mass deployment of nuclear power facilities, which is beyond the reach of most emitters (and even beyond the reach of most power companies, given the ironic environmental red tape preventing such deployment).
If you want actual improvements in environmentally-friendly engineering, stick with the caps, lose the trade, and brace for impact.
Inefficient. Drones should assimilate, not kill.
This is also why you don't hire xenomorphs to resolve your data disposal needs.
It should be noted that the CAFC case mentioned above was narrowly confined to the issue of patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings concerning enforceability relative to prior art (among other things). The defendant was hoping for a quick and cheap resolution, but it looks like that won't happen in this case.
BPPV is frequently caused by solid matter (calcium crystals) in the semicircular canals coming loose, floating around, and moving the fluid in abnormal ways to cause stimulation and therefore vertigo. Wikipedia has a good article on the subject and provides descriptions of two head-positioning techniques that you can do by yourself at home to help the solid matter settle back to where it will (at least temporarily) stop causing problems.
At present, the claims only really require searching more than one location and what appears to be consolidation of similar results. Most likely, the claims will get amended to specify searching local and remote locations at the same time, since that's what the spec purports the improvement to be, but it'll likely take some minor implementation detail to make it patentable.
Prior art between 10 March 2009 and 9 March 2010 can also count, but there's a chance that the applicant will be able to show that they invented it before such prior art. They would have to show proof of conception of the entire claimed invention at a prior date, along with due diligence in developing the invention toward a reduction to practice (i.e., actually building the complete invention or filing the application) between the prior art's date and the reduction to practice.
Not only are you wrong (see the other person(s) who replied to you), but first-inventor-to-file doesn't even go into effect until 16 March 2013, and then only for applications filed on or after that date.
The article is pretty terrible in terms of hiding the link to the document they're referring to, but I can only assume they mean their first link. It's to a patent application, which is not a patent . Maybe someday it will become a patent, but not today.
Posts like these are the reason why we need a "Wrong" moderation category.
If it makes you feel any better, you won't technically be wrong for another 18 months, when first-to-file goes into effect for newly-filed applications.
If they also said you couldn't bring them before some forum of arbitration, then you would really have no recourse and it would probably be considered unconscionable. But they probably do say that all disputes are to be settled through binding arbitration, and current US law loves binding arbitration.
Actually, PRC is always looking for ways they can mollify the US government in terms of fair trade and intellectual property without actually having any downsides for themselves. Turning over .cn domain names that point to services not run by government-run entities or Chinese nationals would be a juicy target for that purpose.
Absolutely irrelevant.
Except for the part where your post was decrying the supposedly shameful new patent law, yet your rebuttal fails to address the fact that your hypothetical website would serve as prior art just as well (if not better) under the new law than under the old.
Actually, your website would serve as prior art to their patent, same as it would under the old law. They may sue you, but they would lose.