A "comet shower" in our lifetime as long as none penetrate the atmosphere. Could you imagine what it would look like to see 15 or 16 comets at once in the night sky??!?
But what you fail to see is there is some validity to both sides. There is evidence that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. The religion that is spoken of would immediately cite that as being bad without the need for research, but the truth is it could be either. If CO2 itself is the cause of global warming AND global warming is valid AND global warming is a bad thing (plant and animal life would not be able to adapt and survive) then measures should be taken to stop it.
I feel that while this singular issue is very much overdone in the environmental world and has much less real-world validity than some other issues, there is good that is being done. When CFCs were used in spray cans, the ozone developed it's widest gap ever. They were outlawed for use by lobbying through environmental groups and the ozone has done nothing but repair itself since. I agree that CFCs may not be the only cause of ozone depletion, but there was major evidence that they caused a great deal of breakdown of O3.
The answer, like that of many questions lies in the middle ground and at the risk of sounding like a 90's tv show...
We need to look at the desktop market and ask ourselves "what degree of unity is good?" In the desktop market Microsoft has taken over to a degree that they can release software that will just barely get people by and overcharge for it. There is some competition but Microsoft has a dominating market share.
On the other hand we have a cell phone OS market which has no unity and is therefore much harder to develop for. While a move towards unity is good, we must keep in mind that a complete monopolization would still be bad
in the first hours of the day at 01:59:26 by drinking 53 beers with 5 strippers, 8 friends and the volume turned up to "9" while watching the movie "SE7EN"
..."R2, get out on the wing and fix that satellite"
*end sarcasm*
But immagine a typical conversation...
on
High Tech High 2.0
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
in a Microsoft-based school:
Kid 1: What do you have next period? Kid 2: Obeying the man 101, what about you? Kid 1: I have to sit through Advanced Legal Manipulation. Kid 2: Damn that sucks! Kid 1: At least I have a full ride to the new Torvald's College when I'm done here!
I wonder if that means that life is only possible near the outer arms of the galaxy? If you assume that gamma rays are a point source in the middle of our galaxy, what sort of radiation levels are you going to see closer to the center?
Regardless I don't think the space tollway is going to be built anytime soon so...
It seems the general trend in some of these posts is that the cooperations will have the final say in patentability. This is not the case in any way. They are allowed to chime in and say "look at this... this is prior art." The most useful art is passed on to the examiner who usually spends (usually) a couple of days of searching for any valid prior art. The examiner would have the final say... period. There will be a risk of falsifying a source but the patent office does not use websites for prior art and instead will look to the actual publication for rejection making it much harder to falsify.
Another theme I saw less is that cooperations will have access to applications that do not yet have patents. The funny thing is that YOU TOO have the same access. any patent in any software field has a backlog of WELL over 18 months... and guess what... 18 months is exactly when ANY application is published. They will have exactly the same access as any member of the public, any document under review will be in the USPGpub
I agree that there are kinks to work out, but a lot of people here are taking the stance that "oh... a part of it doesn't work so let's throw the whole thing out" when that would probably be more damaging.
Large companies do have deep pockets for litigation, but that same money would be much more efficiently spent pushing little guy after little guy out of the way if no protection existed.
This is a reference to the quality of the work the examiners are able to do. If things are done right by the examiners the first time they don't have to cite prior art after prior art in several office actions that take longer to litigate. What is meant is if the examiner gets proper information from the entity filing right off the bat, then it is much less likely that the applicant has to spend more money answering to his lawyer to respond to office action after office action. This truly is a push for the little guy as the process is made less expensive and faster
The problem arises when the unfriendlies arrive and try to get a known bad patent issued by giving the examiner either way too much information to process or no information at all so everything has to be looked at. Sure it will cost the applicant more, but they run the risk of getting something that shouldn't be patented, a patent and they know it.
Dudas is simply pushing for a way to increase applicant liability for including prior art, thus increasing the quality and efficiency of the work coming out of the PTO.
But then one must consider what the world would be like without patents altogether. Large cooperations (still with nearly bottomless pockets) would see a new innovation coming and quickly jump on the bandwagon and... *gasp* push the little guy out.
I agree that in the field of software patents, the system may be damaged a bit as things progress much more quickly than most other fields and I feel that protection should be for a smaller period of time due to this fact. If an inventor is responsible though and keeps his idea to himself till the time of file and keeps decent records of his work it is highly likely that he will not only be the first to file, but if larger cooperations backs someone who attempts to swear behind his date of invention it will not hold in court regardless of how deep the company's pockets are unless they really did invent it first.
Yes there are problems (numerous problems at that) but the system is far from broken.
Slashdot Mirror
A "comet shower" in our lifetime as long as none penetrate the atmosphere. Could you imagine what it would look like to see 15 or 16 comets at once in the night sky??!?
Many of you may not know this, but there really is a large government movement that's trying to
**The following has been censored by the government of the United States of America, we are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused**
can't let them carry out their plan. So do as I said and we should be able to stop them.
Yeah... um, you need to, like... be the worlds most compulsive typist to ahhh, summit... *coughs* excuse me - where was I...
As I was saying, you have to be really compulsive to, um submit something like that.
*click* -submit-
Awww crap!
Don't search for "live nudes" before your wife comes home.
The results there can be pretty messy too!
You'd need them when looking and the girl (guy?) model from the article
it looks like Kiss crossdressing
I'll need a cast... get me the Star Wars kid
But I want it now!!
No fair... you love Microsoft more than me!!! he gets to have all the fun!!1
Spies!!! with tiny yellow heads!!!
"Spying is such a harsh word...
We like to call it passive call attendance.
But what you fail to see is there is some validity to both sides. There is evidence that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. The religion that is spoken of would immediately cite that as being bad without the need for research, but the truth is it could be either. If CO2 itself is the cause of global warming AND global warming is valid AND global warming is a bad thing (plant and animal life would not be able to adapt and survive) then measures should be taken to stop it.
I feel that while this singular issue is very much overdone in the environmental world and has much less real-world validity than some other issues, there is good that is being done. When CFCs were used in spray cans, the ozone developed it's widest gap ever. They were outlawed for use by lobbying through environmental groups and the ozone has done nothing but repair itself since. I agree that CFCs may not be the only cause of ozone depletion, but there was major evidence that they caused a great deal of breakdown of O3.
The answer, like that of many questions lies in the middle ground and at the risk of sounding like a 90's tv show...
The truth is out there.
There go my plans to make a life-sized replica of the Death Star!
We need to look at the desktop market and ask ourselves "what degree of unity is good?" In the desktop market Microsoft has taken over to a degree that they can release software that will just barely get people by and overcharge for it. There is some competition but Microsoft has a dominating market share.
On the other hand we have a cell phone OS market which has no unity and is therefore much harder to develop for. While a move towards unity is good, we must keep in mind that a complete monopolization would still be bad
but all you can hear on their end is "can you hear me now...?" "good"
the French would get something right?!?
in the first hours of the day at 01:59:26 by drinking 53 beers with 5 strippers, 8 friends and the volume turned up to "9" while watching the movie "SE7EN"
"FEED ME"
They really could feel the music!
They do appear to be overly broad even for the one filed in 1999. Maybe Vonage will be able to talk some sense into the courts after the appeal.
6914966
6795395
..."R2, get out on the wing and fix that satellite"
*end sarcasm*
in a Microsoft-based school:
Kid 1: What do you have next period?
Kid 2: Obeying the man 101, what about you?
Kid 1: I have to sit through Advanced Legal Manipulation.
Kid 2: Damn that sucks!
Kid 1: At least I have a full ride to the new Torvald's College when I'm done here!
Regardless I don't think the space tollway is going to be built anytime soon so...
DON'T PANIC
It seems the general trend in some of these posts is that the cooperations will have the final say in patentability. This is not the case in any way. They are allowed to chime in and say "look at this... this is prior art." The most useful art is passed on to the examiner who usually spends (usually) a couple of days of searching for any valid prior art. The examiner would have the final say... period. There will be a risk of falsifying a source but the patent office does not use websites for prior art and instead will look to the actual publication for rejection making it much harder to falsify.
Another theme I saw less is that cooperations will have access to applications that do not yet have patents. The funny thing is that YOU TOO have the same access. any patent in any software field has a backlog of WELL over 18 months... and guess what... 18 months is exactly when ANY application is published. They will have exactly the same access as any member of the public, any document under review will be in the USPGpub
I agree that there are kinks to work out, but a lot of people here are taking the stance that "oh... a part of it doesn't work so let's throw the whole thing out" when that would probably be more damaging.
Large companies do have deep pockets for litigation, but that same money would be much more efficiently spent pushing little guy after little guy out of the way if no protection existed.
I'll just have to dump it in the e-river!
This is a reference to the quality of the work the examiners are able to do. If things are done right by the examiners the first time they don't have to cite prior art after prior art in several office actions that take longer to litigate. What is meant is if the examiner gets proper information from the entity filing right off the bat, then it is much less likely that the applicant has to spend more money answering to his lawyer to respond to office action after office action. This truly is a push for the little guy as the process is made less expensive and faster
The problem arises when the unfriendlies arrive and try to get a known bad patent issued by giving the examiner either way too much information to process or no information at all so everything has to be looked at. Sure it will cost the applicant more, but they run the risk of getting something that shouldn't be patented, a patent and they know it.
Dudas is simply pushing for a way to increase applicant liability for including prior art, thus increasing the quality and efficiency of the work coming out of the PTO.
But then one must consider what the world would be like without patents altogether. Large cooperations (still with nearly bottomless pockets) would see a new innovation coming and quickly jump on the bandwagon and... *gasp* push the little guy out.
I agree that in the field of software patents, the system may be damaged a bit as things progress much more quickly than most other fields and I feel that protection should be for a smaller period of time due to this fact. If an inventor is responsible though and keeps his idea to himself till the time of file and keeps decent records of his work it is highly likely that he will not only be the first to file, but if larger cooperations backs someone who attempts to swear behind his date of invention it will not hold in court regardless of how deep the company's pockets are unless they really did invent it first.
Yes there are problems (numerous problems at that) but the system is far from broken.
P.S. there is no (-1 I dissagree) mod option.