The USPTO is the largest income-generating government office behind the IRS. The problem is that they're in the business of issuing patents (and it's quite profitable) rather than in the business of serving the public by properly issuing patents. Why reject a patent application, and the fees that come along with granting a patent, when you can accept the application, take the money, issue a patent (no matter how frivilous), and let the federal courts sort it out later once the lawsuits start to come in.
The problem is the USPTO has zero accountability, and as long as it's bringing in so much revenue for the federal gov't there is no reason to implement any changes.
My solution... the people at the USPTO in charge of granting patents should be held personally responsible for every patent they approve. If the patent is later declared invalid by a court, that person must refund (out of their own pocket with no reimbursement from the gov't) all the fees the patent applicant paid.
That used to be a defense to infringement, and covered such things as what lexmark was trying to do. It's been a while since i've looked at it... I don't think the DMCA totally eradicated that doctrine, however. I could be wrong.
...and if people need it, they'll buy it. Advertisers need to quit trying so hard to lie, deceive, and manipulate people. Then they need to all kill themselves in the most painful way possible.
Just make a friggin product that does what it's supposed to do, works well, and doesn't break after 90 days. Word of mouth is the only legitimate form of advertising, and you have to earn that through the merit of your product... you can't buy it.
Nope. An invention is an idea or a series of ideas. If you want to get technical about it, patents protect claims. But you cannot patent your story, and you cannot copyright your widget (at least not yet... give congress a few more years though). Ideas vs Expressions is the difference between patents and copyrights.
completely and utterly wrong. copyright cannot protect an idea. Copyright protects expressions of ideas. Patents protect ideas, but only nonobvious ones. Ever hear of the idea/expression dichotomy?
The problem is the USPTO (the government's 2nd biggest cash cow, behind the IRS) will nowadays grant any patent you apply for as long as you pay the fees. Prior art, already patented, not unique and nonobvious, those things don't matter anymore. Too much work for them to do. They just take the application money, issue the patent, and let the federal courts hear the challenges that soon arise. I think anyone at the PTO who issues a patent which is later overturned by a court should at the very least lose his/her job. And they should personally have to refund all the application fees, with interest, to the person whose patent was tossed out.
The supreme court case you refer to is about the Fourth Amendment not protecting your trash from warrantless search and seizure by the police. In other words, the police can search your trash without a warrant and can use any incriminating evidence they find against you. This is not the same as to say any private credit card company can search your trash and use any information they find to sign you up for their products, etc.
The lesson here is shred stuff before you throw it away.
you could make that argument about any government program/spending. I do believe government should be small and only serve basic functions, but education is one of them, and libraries are an intricate part of that function.
Yes, because checking out books for free is like stealing them. "Sharing" books at libraries should be a crime, because it's no different than walking into a barnes and noble and shoplifting a book. If we don't get rid of book sharing "library" systems how are authors going to make a living? If authors don't get paid, how will we inspire people to write books?
it's not the police... the company could routinely store just the contractual portion of the phone call as a routine business record and prove up the fact that they do this with each and every call that ends in a purchase.
please don't compare the coffee suit to the 'it made me fat' suit. If you have ever read more than a headline in your entire life, you'd know there's a difference between the two suits.
You wouldn't have that evidence. If you showed the tape at trial, how can you prove you didn't make it after the lawsuit? As for what they recorded, their evidence would simply be the recorded snippet where they say "so, do we have your permission to bill you four hundred and ninety nine dollars?" and you say "uh huh." (end of recording).
what about the rest of the recording? well, they only keep the part showing you affirmatively entered into the contract, not the entire phone call which consists of answering questions and negotiating, as that would be a waste of storage space.
There was an issue a while back regarding whether an automaton can enter you into a binding verbal or written contract without you knowing about it.
We had talked about creating a webpage with an email address. The webpage would discuss a contract for a large amount of money, and say emailing the listed email address would enter you into the binding contract and you'd owe a lot of money. The email address would be nonobvious and not posted anywhere else other than this one webpage. The whole point, of course, is to catch spam email harvesters and sue them for a lot of money. As soon as you started getting spam at that email addy, the spammers would be those who entered into your contract.
Sounds like a great idea, but there is no such thing as a contract without a "meeting of the mind" so to speak. So, for better or for worse, it wouldn't work. Of course, if you make your tape recording in your voice, and they have a recording of the sale (you saying "uh-huh") you'll have a hard time proving that it was your recording and not you who said it. But, if you could prove that by a preponderance of the evidence I'd imagine the contract would not exist.
This just came out, and is still hard to find as not all Mont Blanc stores have them in stock (but they all have a tester you can go try), and it is by far and away the BEST writing instrument ever. If you have a standard (not the "Grand") huge fat one) mont blanc rollerball pen, these new fineliner refills will fit inside. They're like a mini felt (but not felt) tip pen with a spring so it doesn't get squished. It simply writes better than anything else I've ever tried. Google for "mont blanc fineliner" and get yerself one. If you already have a rollerball just pick up some fineliner refills.
As for cheapo disposable pens, my favorite has always been the Pilot "Precise" V5 (extra fine) or V7 (fine). They always write wonderfully. But the Mont Blanc Fineliner is the greatest thing ever (and no, I do not work for them or any pen company).
Yeah but in Zion, only "The One" and his chick-friend were white. Now, I don't know what to make of a place where everyone is dark-skinned except the one guy who is godlike and referred to as "the One." A year ago we all came up with theories as to why there were so many minorities (and by minorities, we whiteys mean dark-skinned people, whether it's accurate or not). Nothing wrong with it, nobody is claiming the movie should be burned because of this, but the Wachowskis knowingly chose to make Zion full of dark-skinned people who like to dance around like monkeys and will do whatever their leader says. Why? I don't know. Maybe it's racism on their part.
That's actually called a "progressive jackpot"... where the prize amount increases by a dollar every minute (or by a $Y amount every X seconds, whatever). But yeah, the comparison is great. I bet the frequencies of winning/prosecution are somewhat similar, too. I think someone wins one of those jackpots every couple of months. Many times the machines are on nationwide networks (jackpot is the same in vegas and atlantic city), much like how the federal laws cover the whole nation. The comparisons are quite amusing and pathetic.
In theory. Nobody cares (or at least, they shouldn't) if you record a song off the radio because it's far from a perfect copy. In the same token, I don't see how a fuzzy, downloaded, ultra-compressed screener with all sorts of "THIS IS THE PROPERTY OF MGM STUDIOS" warnings popping up all over it (I do realize some screeners are better than others but they're all far from a DVD you'd buy in the store) can be said to hurt DVD sales. If the movie is good you'll buy the $14 DVD (for less than the price of the movie's soundtrack on CD, but that's another issue). If the leaked screener causes people to realize that the movie sucks and they don't go pay to see it in the theater, that's a good thing because it encourages studios (at least it should) to make better films. Thus, pirated screeners not only do not hurt legitimate sales of the equivalent product (the DVD form of the movie) but they help to act as a muse for the industry as a whole. This is why people in the industry probably share their screeners. It keeps them on their creative toes.
Slashdot Mirror
The USPTO is the largest income-generating government office behind the IRS. The problem is that they're in the business of issuing patents (and it's quite profitable) rather than in the business of serving the public by properly issuing patents. Why reject a patent application, and the fees that come along with granting a patent, when you can accept the application, take the money, issue a patent (no matter how frivilous), and let the federal courts sort it out later once the lawsuits start to come in.
The problem is the USPTO has zero accountability, and as long as it's bringing in so much revenue for the federal gov't there is no reason to implement any changes.
My solution... the people at the USPTO in charge of granting patents should be held personally responsible for every patent they approve. If the patent is later declared invalid by a court, that person must refund (out of their own pocket with no reimbursement from the gov't) all the fees the patent applicant paid.
That used to be a defense to infringement, and covered such things as what lexmark was trying to do. It's been a while since i've looked at it... I don't think the DMCA totally eradicated that doctrine, however. I could be wrong.
haven't we learned that making the use of new technology "very very illegal" in order to prevent it from being misused does not work AT ALL?
well crap. i hope *they* don't sue me :) I'm not a mac guy, so this is the first time i've seen or heard about the new X logo.
I'm quite sure spike lee owns intellectual property in the letter "X". Especially in that font and on a black background, jeez....
Because they'd be in breach of contract (at least according to the authors' guild).
...and if people need it, they'll buy it. Advertisers need to quit trying so hard to lie, deceive, and manipulate people. Then they need to all kill themselves in the most painful way possible.
Just make a friggin product that does what it's supposed to do, works well, and doesn't break after 90 days. Word of mouth is the only legitimate form of advertising, and you have to earn that through the merit of your product... you can't buy it.
Nope. An invention is an idea or a series of ideas. If you want to get technical about it, patents protect claims. But you cannot patent your story, and you cannot copyright your widget (at least not yet... give congress a few more years though). Ideas vs Expressions is the difference between patents and copyrights.
completely and utterly wrong. copyright cannot protect an idea. Copyright protects expressions of ideas. Patents protect ideas, but only nonobvious ones. Ever hear of the idea/expression dichotomy?
The problem is the USPTO (the government's 2nd biggest cash cow, behind the IRS) will nowadays grant any patent you apply for as long as you pay the fees. Prior art, already patented, not unique and nonobvious, those things don't matter anymore. Too much work for them to do. They just take the application money, issue the patent, and let the federal courts hear the challenges that soon arise. I think anyone at the PTO who issues a patent which is later overturned by a court should at the very least lose his/her job. And they should personally have to refund all the application fees, with interest, to the person whose patent was tossed out.
The supreme court case you refer to is about the Fourth Amendment not protecting your trash from warrantless search and seizure by the police. In other words, the police can search your trash without a warrant and can use any incriminating evidence they find against you. This is not the same as to say any private credit card company can search your trash and use any information they find to sign you up for their products, etc.
The lesson here is shred stuff before you throw it away.
you could make that argument about any government program/spending. I do believe government should be small and only serve basic functions, but education is one of them, and libraries are an intricate part of that function.
You will once we 'enhance' your country by taking it over and making it a new state.
Yes, because checking out books for free is like stealing them. "Sharing" books at libraries should be a crime, because it's no different than walking into a barnes and noble and shoplifting a book. If we don't get rid of book sharing "library" systems how are authors going to make a living? If authors don't get paid, how will we inspire people to write books?
/sarcasm off
So, what you're saying is... these molecules will not get you high?
it's not the police... the company could routinely store just the contractual portion of the phone call as a routine business record and prove up the fact that they do this with each and every call that ends in a purchase.
please don't compare the coffee suit to the 'it made me fat' suit. If you have ever read more than a headline in your entire life, you'd know there's a difference between the two suits.
You wouldn't have that evidence. If you showed the tape at trial, how can you prove you didn't make it after the lawsuit? As for what they recorded, their evidence would simply be the recorded snippet where they say "so, do we have your permission to bill you four hundred and ninety nine dollars?" and you say "uh huh." (end of recording).
what about the rest of the recording? well, they only keep the part showing you affirmatively entered into the contract, not the entire phone call which consists of answering questions and negotiating, as that would be a waste of storage space.
There was an issue a while back regarding whether an automaton can enter you into a binding verbal or written contract without you knowing about it.
We had talked about creating a webpage with an email address. The webpage would discuss a contract for a large amount of money, and say emailing the listed email address would enter you into the binding contract and you'd owe a lot of money. The email address would be nonobvious and not posted anywhere else other than this one webpage. The whole point, of course, is to catch spam email harvesters and sue them for a lot of money. As soon as you started getting spam at that email addy, the spammers would be those who entered into your contract.
Sounds like a great idea, but there is no such thing as a contract without a "meeting of the mind" so to speak. So, for better or for worse, it wouldn't work. Of course, if you make your tape recording in your voice, and they have a recording of the sale (you saying "uh-huh") you'll have a hard time proving that it was your recording and not you who said it. But, if you could prove that by a preponderance of the evidence I'd imagine the contract would not exist.
This just came out, and is still hard to find as not all Mont Blanc stores have them in stock (but they all have a tester you can go try), and it is by far and away the BEST writing instrument ever. If you have a standard (not the "Grand") huge fat one) mont blanc rollerball pen, these new fineliner refills will fit inside. They're like a mini felt (but not felt) tip pen with a spring so it doesn't get squished. It simply writes better than anything else I've ever tried. Google for "mont blanc fineliner" and get yerself one. If you already have a rollerball just pick up some fineliner refills.
As for cheapo disposable pens, my favorite has always been the Pilot "Precise" V5 (extra fine) or V7 (fine). They always write wonderfully. But the Mont Blanc Fineliner is the greatest thing ever (and no, I do not work for them or any pen company).
As long as it doesn't involve drugs, all of your slippery slopes (and any others one can come up with) are true.
Yeah but in Zion, only "The One" and his chick-friend were white. Now, I don't know what to make of a place where everyone is dark-skinned except the one guy who is godlike and referred to as "the One." A year ago we all came up with theories as to why there were so many minorities (and by minorities, we whiteys mean dark-skinned people, whether it's accurate or not). Nothing wrong with it, nobody is claiming the movie should be burned because of this, but the Wachowskis knowingly chose to make Zion full of dark-skinned people who like to dance around like monkeys and will do whatever their leader says. Why? I don't know. Maybe it's racism on their part.
That's actually called a "progressive jackpot" ... where the prize amount increases by a dollar every minute (or by a $Y amount every X seconds, whatever). But yeah, the comparison is great. I bet the frequencies of winning/prosecution are somewhat similar, too. I think someone wins one of those jackpots every couple of months. Many times the machines are on nationwide networks (jackpot is the same in vegas and atlantic city), much like how the federal laws cover the whole nation. The comparisons are quite amusing and pathetic.
and learn to use legal terms properly. This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright whatsoever.
In theory. Nobody cares (or at least, they shouldn't) if you record a song off the radio because it's far from a perfect copy. In the same token, I don't see how a fuzzy, downloaded, ultra-compressed screener with all sorts of "THIS IS THE PROPERTY OF MGM STUDIOS" warnings popping up all over it (I do realize some screeners are better than others but they're all far from a DVD you'd buy in the store) can be said to hurt DVD sales. If the movie is good you'll buy the $14 DVD (for less than the price of the movie's soundtrack on CD, but that's another issue). If the leaked screener causes people to realize that the movie sucks and they don't go pay to see it in the theater, that's a good thing because it encourages studios (at least it should) to make better films. Thus, pirated screeners not only do not hurt legitimate sales of the equivalent product (the DVD form of the movie) but they help to act as a muse for the industry as a whole. This is why people in the industry probably share their screeners. It keeps them on their creative toes.