And when was the last time congress did anything beneficial for the public that the companies that run congress didn't agree with? (hint: never)
I call expecting "congress" that's run by a bunch of companies to make beneficial changes being pretty naive.
If something is beneficial then why does it matter how many rich companies agree with it? You'll find that any beneficial law almost always has rich supporters.
I guess that means anyone who supports any law is naive. You live in a pretty pessimistic fantasy world. I am glad to have no part of it.
Unlike others, I am not calling for significant change. The big change I was hoping for (more examiners - so they can have the time to do a better job) is already working its way through Congress. Other than moderating (and I don't have points today), ignoring it (didn't feel like it), or posting a response while I wasn't ticked off (as I should have done) I am not sure what you would have me do.
ps. If you don't even know enough about patent law to know what the patent bar is, how can you be knowledgeable enough to recommend changes to the system? Or to suggest that I am naive?
The reasone s/he is anonymous is clear if you work those brain muscles of yours (what might be left) - posting in a discussion you've already moderated kills those moderation points.
Thank you for clarifying (albeit rudely) that posting anonymously does not kill the moderation points. When I read the rules on moderation there was no indication that this was the case (and a quick check shows that there still isn't).
My original comments may have been a little uncivilized. I was just sick after reading all of the flaming hatred for patents without really anything useful to say. If you think I am naive, feel free to point out errors in what I said. I am not going to buy into an anarchist viewpoint just because some people on slashdot said I should.
The second post was in response to a very rude post. I guess if responding to an obnoxious post makes me a Troll then...well....who am I to argue with an anonymous coward on slashot?
I have noticed that anyone who isn't fanatically opposed to patents gets modded "Troll" on slashdot. That's fine. I can live with that. It's always wise to consider the source when evaluating feedback.
Actually, you're probably *capable* of doing this. How many guys like me putting up fifty bucks a pop would it take to get this done?
It currently costs $2520 to file an ex partes reexamination request. And this is just a request. The examiner might deny it if (s)he thinks the prior art citation does not raise any new questions.
Given the price, I think it is more likely that one (or more) of McAfee's competitors would file such a request. They can probably afford that kind of money.
Prior art less than one year prior does qualify under USC 102(a). However, that can be overcome simply by showing posession of the invention prior to that date. And that's usually not hard to do. Prior art more than year prior to filing is a bar that cannot be overcome.
And December 12, 2001 is the important date. That's almost half the month of December. The USPTO doesn't count time in whole months.
The filing date of the patent is Decemeber 2002, so this Dec 2001 date you're coming up with is totally and completely irrevelevant.
Speaking as someone who is about to take the patent bar exam (so I acutally know what I am talking about) you're wrong.
Yes, McAfee would have to be the original inventors to get a patent. However, it's going to be hard, if not impossible, to prove they aren't. What can be done is show that the information on this invention was in the public domain prior to filing of the patent.
35 USC 102(b) provides that you can't get a patent on your invention if the invention has been published over a year prior to the filing of the application. That's where December 2001 comes from.
Paul's article may still be relevant. However it does not prove that McAfee didn't invent it first. If you really think Paul's article shows prior invention, why not submit a third party request for reexamination based on that article?
Oh, I forgot, you're just a slashtroll who doesn't actually know what you're talking about.
Is anyone actually going to post some valid, clear prior art? All I see is a bunch of whining about how obvious it is to filter spam this way and how everyone's been doing it since the 1960's. But I haven't seen anyone link to an actual document prior published to December 2001 describing what the patent does. It's time to put up or shut up.
How patents work in the US is that you have one year from date of discovery to file the patent.
Not true. You have one year from the date of publication, public use, or sale.
There is no restriction on timeframe for applying for a patent after date of actual reduction to practice (what you would call "discovery"). However, if someone else applies for a patent on the same invention before you do even though you invented it first, you would have to show due diligence in working on the invention and filing an application to get priority. So, in practice, it's generally a good idea to file the application fairly soon.
Clones may not have been commonplace in business until the late 1980's. But as early as 1984 (when we bought ours) they were available and very inexpensive (compared to IBM and Apple). It probably just took a few years for people to come to grips with the idea of 100% compatibility. Rest assured, though, clones were around when Apple launched the Mac.
Did you actually RTFA? You know, the one that shows a picture of the product we're discussing? The product that actually does look like a Sega Game Gear.....?
Empire Strikes Back was directed by Irvin Kershner and written Leigh Brackett (a master of pulp SF and Ray Bradbury's mentor) and Lawrence Kasdan. Some would argue that it is the best movie sequels ever made.
Except those people forgot that the title was later taken by Aliens.
It bugs me to no end that people use a lot of DHTML/DOM capabilities just because they are there and not because they add any value. This is especially true of sites with heavy load (like, oh, say, GOOGLE).
I suppose I should clarify this since it looks like I mentally skipped a sentence while writing.
There should be something in there about "at least some people get it right" between the first and second sentences:)
Having done quite a bit of both in the past several years, I'd highly disagree. There are plenty of off the shelf products or methods to create cross-platform applications and very very few (and generally poor in quality) tools or even documentation to write cross-platform websites (modern ones, with dhtml and heavy usage of DOM).
A website doesn't have to be heavy in DHTML to be modern. Most of the usage I see for bits that are not terribly cross-platform are just "flare". It bugs me to no end that people use a lot of DHTML/DOM capabilities just because they are there and not because they add any value. This is especially true of sites with heavy load (like, oh, say, GOOGLE). And don't get me started on Flash....
Moral of the story is - writing effective cross-platform web-apps is not that hard if you know what you're doing. If you do it right you won't even have to mess with browser-specific style sheets.
BTW, I'm not sure why you'd want to collect that much porn. I know for a fact that a lot of it he's never seen before, and what I've seen of it suffer's from porn's usual problem, a lot of repetitiveness
Not to mention that if he ever gets raided I am *sure* there has to be at least a few child pr0n photos in there (even accidentally).
I decided long ago that keeping around lots of pr0n is just a bad idea. Binge and purge! That's my new motto!
Slashdot Mirror
And when was the last time congress did anything beneficial for the public that the companies that run congress didn't agree with? (hint: never)
I call expecting "congress" that's run by a bunch of companies to make beneficial changes being pretty naive.
If something is beneficial then why does it matter how many rich companies agree with it? You'll find that any beneficial law almost always has rich supporters.
I guess that means anyone who supports any law is naive. You live in a pretty pessimistic fantasy world. I am glad to have no part of it.
Unlike others, I am not calling for significant change. The big change I was hoping for (more examiners - so they can have the time to do a better job) is already working its way through Congress. Other than moderating (and I don't have points today), ignoring it (didn't feel like it), or posting a response while I wasn't ticked off (as I should have done) I am not sure what you would have me do.
ps. If you don't even know enough about patent law to know what the patent bar is, how can you be knowledgeable enough to recommend changes to the system? Or to suggest that I am naive?
The reasone s/he is anonymous is clear if you work those brain muscles of yours (what might be left) - posting in a discussion you've already moderated kills those moderation points.
Thank you for clarifying (albeit rudely) that posting anonymously does not kill the moderation points. When I read the rules on moderation there was no indication that this was the case (and a quick check shows that there still isn't).
My original comments may have been a little uncivilized. I was just sick after reading all of the flaming hatred for patents without really anything useful to say. If you think I am naive, feel free to point out errors in what I said. I am not going to buy into an anarchist viewpoint just because some people on slashdot said I should.
The second post was in response to a very rude post. I guess if responding to an obnoxious post makes me a Troll then...well....who am I to argue with an anonymous coward on slashot?
I have noticed that anyone who isn't fanatically opposed to patents gets modded "Troll" on slashdot. That's fine. I can live with that. It's always wise to consider the source when evaluating feedback.
Actually, you're probably *capable* of doing this. How many guys like me putting up fifty bucks a pop would it take to get this done?
It currently costs $2520 to file an ex partes reexamination request. And this is just a request. The examiner might deny it if (s)he thinks the prior art citation does not raise any new questions.
Given the price, I think it is more likely that one (or more) of McAfee's competitors would file such a request. They can probably afford that kind of money.
Prior art less than one year prior does qualify under USC 102(a). However, that can be overcome simply by showing posession of the invention prior to that date. And that's usually not hard to do. Prior art more than year prior to filing is a bar that cannot be overcome.
And December 12, 2001 is the important date. That's almost half the month of December. The USPTO doesn't count time in whole months.
The filing date of the patent is Decemeber 2002, so this Dec 2001 date you're coming up with is totally and completely irrevelevant.
Speaking as someone who is about to take the patent bar exam (so I acutally know what I am talking about) you're wrong.
Yes, McAfee would have to be the original inventors to get a patent. However, it's going to be hard, if not impossible, to prove they aren't. What can be done is show that the information on this invention was in the public domain prior to filing of the patent.
35 USC 102(b) provides that you can't get a patent on your invention if the invention has been published over a year prior to the filing of the application. That's where December 2001 comes from.
Paul's article may still be relevant. However it does not prove that McAfee didn't invent it first. If you really think Paul's article shows prior invention, why not submit a third party request for reexamination based on that article?
Oh, I forgot, you're just a slashtroll who doesn't actually know what you're talking about.
Is anyone actually going to post some valid, clear prior art? All I see is a bunch of whining about how obvious it is to filter spam this way and how everyone's been doing it since the 1960's. But I haven't seen anyone link to an actual document prior published to December 2001 describing what the patent does. It's time to put up or shut up.
How patents work in the US is that you have one year from date of discovery to file the patent.
Not true. You have one year from the date of publication, public use, or sale.
There is no restriction on timeframe for applying for a patent after date of actual reduction to practice (what you would call "discovery"). However, if someone else applies for a patent on the same invention before you do even though you invented it first, you would have to show due diligence in working on the invention and filing an application to get priority. So, in practice, it's generally a good idea to file the application fairly soon.
Clones may not have been commonplace in business until the late 1980's. But as early as 1984 (when we bought ours) they were available and very inexpensive (compared to IBM and Apple). It probably just took a few years for people to come to grips with the idea of 100% compatibility. Rest assured, though, clones were around when Apple launched the Mac.
That's how Ma Bell used to work until the gov't put its foot down.
Did you actually RTFA? You know, the one that shows a picture of the product we're discussing? The product that actually does look like a Sega Game Gear.....?
It's time to start making these things use standard batteries, just like digital cameras.
Good digital cameras don't use standard batteries. They generally don't hold enough juice.
Canadian Animation
Wow!
How can iTunes ever hope to compete with the likes of that?
The best example of double jeopardy being violated is the Rodney King beating.
The officers were acquitted on state charges only to be found guilty of federal civil rights charges.
Well this is a couldy area sin'te the case is brought by the DOJ (government) you should be able to get a PD.
No offense but, what the hell did you just write?
grrr...
stupid slashdot
stupid me
nevermind
Woah
Expect that to be extended another 20 years right before Steamboat Wille is set to expire.
You sir make some excellent points. I mean what part of "would somebody get this walking carpet out of my way" is considered "fine film?"
The thing is, there aren't even cool lines like that in Episodes I and II. I honestly can't remember *any* lines from either the the new movies.
Empire Strikes Back was directed by Irvin Kershner and written Leigh Brackett (a master of pulp SF and Ray Bradbury's mentor) and Lawrence Kasdan. Some would argue that it is the best movie sequels ever made.
Except those people forgot that the title was later taken by Aliens.
It bugs me to no end that people use a lot of DHTML/DOM capabilities just because they are there and not because they add any value. This is especially true of sites with heavy load (like, oh, say, GOOGLE).
:)
I suppose I should clarify this since it looks like I mentally skipped a sentence while writing.
There should be something in there about "at least some people get it right" between the first and second sentences
Having done quite a bit of both in the past several years, I'd highly disagree. There are plenty of off the shelf products or methods to create cross-platform applications and very very few (and generally poor in quality) tools or even documentation to write cross-platform websites (modern ones, with dhtml and heavy usage of DOM).
A website doesn't have to be heavy in DHTML to be modern. Most of the usage I see for bits that are not terribly cross-platform are just "flare". It bugs me to no end that people use a lot of DHTML/DOM capabilities just because they are there and not because they add any value. This is especially true of sites with heavy load (like, oh, say, GOOGLE). And don't get me started on Flash....
Moral of the story is - writing effective cross-platform web-apps is not that hard if you know what you're doing. If you do it right you won't even have to mess with browser-specific style sheets.
BTW, I'm not sure why you'd want to collect that much porn. I know for a fact that a lot of it he's never seen before, and what I've seen of it suffer's from porn's usual problem, a lot of repetitiveness
Not to mention that if he ever gets raided I am *sure* there has to be at least a few child pr0n photos in there (even accidentally).
I decided long ago that keeping around lots of pr0n is just a bad idea. Binge and purge! That's my new motto!