Buddy, acquire yourself a sense of humor (and/or better reading skills!) - I clearly wrote "Whishful Thinking".
"Wishful thinking" tends to imply that you believe it would never become law, not that it wouldn't work. I mean, why would you wish for something that would never work?
Not only that, but the primary reason for patents, disclosure of the invention, is often inherent in releasing a software product. Software is so easy to analyze and reverse-engineer that patents are basically unnecessary for disclosure.
First, patents were created so people would disclose inventions. If we abolished patents people would just go back to obfuscating and hiding. A good patent system is a huge boon to society.
Second, turning in an implementation is both redundant (you already have to be able to implement the invention to file for a patent) and doesn't force the inventor to use it. What you seem to want is a requirement that the inventor actually bring the product to market. That's something entirely different.
Acutally I wouldn't mind seeing the individual examiner sued when it's determined a patent is invalid...
The problem with slashdot is that lots of people suggest things that get applause but don't stand a chance of working. Do people really not think before they make suggestions?
The biggest cost to the USPTO is labor. It costs money to pay examiners to do their job. Examiners can't currently do their jobs because they are overworked. And even under good circumstances an examiner won't have access to all the information possible. So patents will always be overturned.
If examiners could be sued they would need incentive to be examiners (otherwise they would do something else). This would probably increase the cost of getting a patent 5- or 10-fold. Just the thing to help the small inventor, right?
If the Microsofties truly believe they're the underdogs, then they must be delusional as hell. How can you walk into any computer store, surf around the internet, or follow computer news and not conclude that Microsoft has an iron grip over the rest of the industry?
Because, if you look back 20-30 years, all of the "iron grip" companies are now either gone or have almost no influence. Microsoft doesn't want that to happen to them and it really would be bucking the odds if it didn't.
This would indicate to me that if Microsoft didn't ship with IE as "The Internet" (tm), the vast majority of mothers would never even have the opportunity to use the internet. Maybe this isn't quite as bad for everyone as most of us think...
That would be great! Then, the next time you're in a chat room talking to DrtyDykeSoccerMom you would know for sure it was a guy!
I assumed there was a problem with the code written. However, isn't it strange that IE shows the page fine but other browsers do not? Perhaps if the content type is not set properly the browsers go off the extension and IE "knows about" ASP while Camino/Safari/Firefox do not? But, yeah, it goes back to poor coding and poor testing at Amazon.com
It's too bad that Firefox on Windows and Safari both seem to handle aspx incorrectly sometimes. A friend sent me a link to the Star Wars DVD page on Amazon. Clicking on the.aspx link to the trailer makes both of the above browsers want to download a file. Not what they had in mind I think....
The likelihood that the error was made in the same way by two independent coders is unlikely (although it has happened before).
But we're not talking about independant coders here. We're talking about the same coder. Sometimes people can make the same mistake twice. My fiancee bought the same birthday card for her brother two years in a row (the really funny bit is that it took her half an hour to pick it out each time!!)
and Mcafee's patent on Bayesian spam Filtering (filed months after Paul Graham's paper was published)
I am sure you have probably been corrected before but I'll do it again....
It's completely legitimate to file an application for patent after someone else has published a description of what you are patenting. You just need to provide proof that you came up with the idea before the article was published.
So that part of your post is anything but "insightful"
His question is: Why can't you have 100 factory workers and 100 researchers make a profit of $1500?
Because then your profit per employee is only $7,50. If you sell off the factory your profit per employee shoots up to $10,00. Why this is important is beyond me, but some people on Wall Street seem to think it is (ie. "Gross Margins").
Next time try reporting him to the librarian. And if they won't do anything about it, walk up behind him and tell him you'll call the police if he doesn't stop immediately.
I bring this up because I am sick of people expecting the government to pass laws to solve problems instead of taking a little initiative in solving the problem themselves.
It's not just which stories are reported. Have you actually watched the FoxNews morning show? All they really do (the two guys anyway, the rotating girl never seems to get involved in this) when talking politics is bash Democrats, particularly Kerry. I have never seen anything vaguely similar on CNN or MSNBC (CNBC did with Donahue but that didn't last long).
You know, it's the self-righteous holier-,smarter-,and generally better-than-thou attitude of most leftists that generally nauseates me. As a libertarian (generally), I don't fit in really well with left or right, but at least those on the right are a bit more tolerable to be around.
Really? I guess you're hanging out in the wrong places then....
Or maybe you're just hanging out with people that have the same biases so they seem more tolerable?
The bigger proglem than expensing/not-expensing is the inconsistency that arises between how they treat options on their quarterly earning statements versus how they treat options when filing corporate income taxes.
Companies have said that they don't want to expense options until a standard method is decided upon but that hasn't stopped them from taking options as an expense on their taxes. What a bunch of liars.
At least some (all?) companies put the options in a footnote so you can easily determine "real" earnings if you're the expensing type.
Those people are good when they turn out wonderful code that works. But there exists the possibility that sometimes people like that will not turn out something that works. Or they will turn out something that works much later than planned. Locksing yourself in a room and not communicating doesn't make you a genius. And in a large project with tons of interdependancies you need to discover slips sooner rather than later.
To use your example, what if this guy hadn't finished his code on time so it wasn't ready for the planned launch window? It's great that it worked out but many companies can't risk the possibility that it won't.
A lot of careful thought goes into deciding how much to request (or pay) in licensing fees. There is some magic number at which the potential licensee decides it is cheaper to pay the licensing fee than to risk going to trial. The patent holder is going to try very hard to accurately predict that number.
A smart attorney would probably require a clause in any licensing agreement that would void the agreement if any claims of the patent are voided by the USPTO or a court. Otherwise, no, you're out of luck.
Slashdot Mirror
Buddy, acquire yourself a sense of humor (and/or better reading skills!) - I clearly wrote "Whishful Thinking".
"Wishful thinking" tends to imply that you believe it would never become law, not that it wouldn't work. I mean, why would you wish for something that would never work?
Sheesh
Then there are those that point this out and have nothing to contribute to the discussion themselves; in one word: trolls.
And, unlike you, I did actually post a meaningful contribution. Whoops! Anonymous Troll is wrong again!
Not only that, but the primary reason for patents, disclosure of the invention, is often inherent in releasing a software product. Software is so easy to analyze and reverse-engineer that patents are basically unnecessary for disclosure.
First, patents were created so people would disclose inventions. If we abolished patents people would just go back to obfuscating and hiding. A good patent system is a huge boon to society.
Second, turning in an implementation is both redundant (you already have to be able to implement the invention to file for a patent) and doesn't force the inventor to use it. What you seem to want is a requirement that the inventor actually bring the product to market. That's something entirely different.
Acutally I wouldn't mind seeing the individual examiner sued when it's determined a patent is invalid...
The problem with slashdot is that lots of people suggest things that get applause but don't stand a chance of working. Do people really not think before they make suggestions?
The biggest cost to the USPTO is labor. It costs money to pay examiners to do their job. Examiners can't currently do their jobs because they are overworked. And even under good circumstances an examiner won't have access to all the information possible. So patents will always be overturned.
If examiners could be sued they would need incentive to be examiners (otherwise they would do something else). This would probably increase the cost of getting a patent 5- or 10-fold. Just the thing to help the small inventor, right?
Then the system is broken.
Saying the system is broken and saying your idea for fixing it is a good one are two completely different things.
If the Microsofties truly believe they're the underdogs, then they must be delusional as hell. How can you walk into any computer store, surf around the internet, or follow computer news and not conclude that Microsoft has an iron grip over the rest of the industry?
Because, if you look back 20-30 years, all of the "iron grip" companies are now either gone or have almost no influence. Microsoft doesn't want that to happen to them and it really would be bucking the odds if it didn't.
Keep in mind that Microsoft has a very consistent and very strong corporate culture. Everyone there thinks the way Gates wants them to.
And that's why they are going to fail. There's a lot of research showing that diverse organizations do much better than homogenous ones.
This would indicate to me that if Microsoft didn't ship with IE as "The Internet" (tm), the vast majority of mothers would never even have the opportunity to use the internet. Maybe this isn't quite as bad for everyone as most of us think...
That would be great! Then, the next time you're in a chat room talking to DrtyDykeSoccerMom you would know for sure it was a guy!
It simply isn't fair to blame Microsoft for the ignorance of their users.
Sure it is - when Microsoft tailors its business plan based on its knowledge of that ignorance.
I assumed there was a problem with the code written. However, isn't it strange that IE shows the page fine but other browsers do not? Perhaps if the content type is not set properly the browsers go off the extension and IE "knows about" ASP while Camino/Safari/Firefox do not? But, yeah, it goes back to poor coding and poor testing at Amazon.com
It's too bad that Firefox on Windows and Safari both seem to handle aspx incorrectly sometimes. A friend sent me a link to the Star Wars DVD page on Amazon. Clicking on the .aspx link to the trailer makes both of the above browsers want to download a file. Not what they had in mind I think....
The likelihood that the error was made in the same way by two independent coders is unlikely (although it has happened before).
But we're not talking about independant coders here. We're talking about the same coder. Sometimes people can make the same mistake twice. My fiancee bought the same birthday card for her brother two years in a row (the really funny bit is that it took her half an hour to pick it out each time!!)
and Mcafee's patent on Bayesian spam Filtering (filed months after Paul Graham's paper was published)
I am sure you have probably been corrected before but I'll do it again....
It's completely legitimate to file an application for patent after someone else has published a description of what you are patenting. You just need to provide proof that you came up with the idea before the article was published.
So that part of your post is anything but "insightful"
His question is: Why can't you have 100 factory workers and 100 researchers make a profit of $1500?
Because then your profit per employee is only $7,50. If you sell off the factory your profit per employee shoots up to $10,00. Why this is important is beyond me, but some people on Wall Street seem to think it is (ie. "Gross Margins").
Next time try reporting him to the librarian. And if they won't do anything about it, walk up behind him and tell him you'll call the police if he doesn't stop immediately.
I bring this up because I am sick of people expecting the government to pass laws to solve problems instead of taking a little initiative in solving the problem themselves.
It's not just which stories are reported. Have you actually watched the FoxNews morning show? All they really do (the two guys anyway, the rotating girl never seems to get involved in this) when talking politics is bash Democrats, particularly Kerry. I have never seen anything vaguely similar on CNN or MSNBC (CNBC did with Donahue but that didn't last long).
You know, it's the self-righteous holier-,smarter-,and generally better-than-thou attitude of most leftists that generally nauseates me. As a libertarian (generally), I don't fit in really well with left or right, but at least those on the right are a bit more tolerable to be around.
Really? I guess you're hanging out in the wrong places then....
Or maybe you're just hanging out with people that have the same biases so they seem more tolerable?
2. Use DVI instead of ADC, so you don't have to have mac hardware to use them.
True for the 20,23 but not true for the 30. According to the presentation it requires a mac-only video card.
The bigger proglem than expensing/not-expensing is the inconsistency that arises between how they treat options on their quarterly earning statements versus how they treat options when filing corporate income taxes.
Companies have said that they don't want to expense options until a standard method is decided upon but that hasn't stopped them from taking options as an expense on their taxes. What a bunch of liars.
At least some (all?) companies put the options in a footnote so you can easily determine "real" earnings if you're the expensing type.
...at least you're not a Java developer. Companies are looking for 10+ years of Java development just to get an interview!!
Those people are good when they turn out wonderful code that works. But there exists the possibility that sometimes people like that will not turn out something that works. Or they will turn out something that works much later than planned. Locksing yourself in a room and not communicating doesn't make you a genius. And in a large project with tons of interdependancies you need to discover slips sooner rather than later.
To use your example, what if this guy hadn't finished his code on time so it wasn't ready for the planned launch window? It's great that it worked out but many companies can't risk the possibility that it won't.
Yes, but that "problem" is generally just the previous release :D
A lot of careful thought goes into deciding how much to request (or pay) in licensing fees. There is some magic number at which the potential licensee decides it is cheaper to pay the licensing fee than to risk going to trial. The patent holder is going to try very hard to accurately predict that number.
A smart attorney would probably require a clause in any licensing agreement that would void the agreement if any claims of the patent are voided by the USPTO or a court. Otherwise, no, you're out of luck.