I'm not familiar with the specifics of this case, but the patent system does not work quite the way Felinoid has described. If Unisys disclosed their technology to the public, then they would have one year to file a US patent application, and would not be able to file an application in any other country. (Only the US grants the one-year grace period.) Since there are foreign patents mentioned in the article, I assume that Unisys did not publicly disclose their technology before filing a US application. That application would then be used for determining filing priority in foreign countries.
For the sake of argument, if Unisys had not filed a US patent application, and had simply disclosed their technology ("placing it into the public domain"), then two things could have happened. The patent examiner reading the IBM application would say the claimed technology was not novel, because it had been disclosed to the public. Or, if the examiner did not catch it, and the patent was granted to IBM, then Unisys or any of the companies who would want to license the patent (Adobe, for example) would ask a judge to find the patent invalid for the same reason. Companies sometimes develop technologies which they don't seek to patent and commericalize, and simply publish the results in a nonreviewed journal like Research Disclosure to prevent their competitors from incorporating it into their patent portfolio.
In other words, anything in the public domain can be claimed in a patent application, but it will not stand up under examination or in court. Linus can sleep easier tonight.
This is the only time that I can think of when an RPI student got the famous "Tute Screw" from somebody besides the school. Any RPI alumni who read this can correct me.
By the way, any other RPI folks hear about the nuclear fallout on Troy in the 1950s? It's an explanation for the people who lived on my street, for sure.
But that's capitalism! If you prefer to go to the store that employs real people and sells fair-price products, that's fine. If I prefer to go to the store with lower prices because they have less overhead and fewer employees, then that's my choice.
The rules are already imposed in Hong Kong and China. By signing on to the WTO and WIPO, in order to gain all the benefits China needs to transform its economy from a collection of moribund state-owned monopolies to something approaching a market economy, China agreed to respect and enforce copyright.
However, China does not effectively enforce the copyright rules they agreed to follow. You might argue that, when operating under a general lack of rule of law, intellectual property is not as important as, say, freedom from human rights abuses. But, every time a U.S. studio exec sees somebody openly selling pirated movies in markets in Hong Kong, he probably wonders if the few percent of legitimate copies sold are worth it.
You might also argue that legitimate DVDs sold in China are too expensive, that if the U.S. distributors charged less then more people would purchase nonpirated copies. First, "Finding Nemo" is not an anti-AIDS drug that has humanitarian reasons for cumpulsory licensing; nobody *needs* it. Second, pirated DVDs are still stolen, regardless of the price of the original. I can't afford an original Mercedes, but that doesn't mean that it's OK if I purchase a stolen car for significantly less because I don't have the $30,000.
I think you're missing the point about using humor to deal with death. Someone you love dies, you make a joke that makes you laugh and alleviates the pain a little. Someone you love dies, and I (a complete stranger) make a joke about it, I don't think you would feel so good. There's a reason why AIDS and Holocaust jokes aren't more popular.
And, no, I don't know anyone personally who died in the West Warwick fire (I am from RI), but I do try to respect the memories of those that died (and are still dying).
I read in the Forbes article that Apple makes about $0.33 for each song that's sold. It makes perfect sense for them to get as many people to buy songs using their service, using their software, as possible, without having to split the proceeds with MusicMatch or some other company.
Completely true. Spam gets a ton of media coverage because it's something that the Average User can understand. The Average User doesn't want to spend time on their modem downloading HTML messages instead of family photos, doesn't want their kids seeing come-ons for barnyard action, and has at least a vague idea that spam is somehow taking advantage of them. In contrast, a lot of these other ideas for the next Killer App are solutions in search of a problem that may or may not exist.
A spam solution that doesn't require government legislation and suing in court, and doesn't rely on changing filtering rules as fast as the spammers can evade them, will be remembered as the Killer App that kept email from becoming unusable in the early part of our century.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to upgrade. Your computer will not stop working. You won't be any less productive. You will be just as happy.
For the sake of argument, if Unisys had not filed a US patent application, and had simply disclosed their technology ("placing it into the public domain"), then two things could have happened. The patent examiner reading the IBM application would say the claimed technology was not novel, because it had been disclosed to the public. Or, if the examiner did not catch it, and the patent was granted to IBM, then Unisys or any of the companies who would want to license the patent (Adobe, for example) would ask a judge to find the patent invalid for the same reason. Companies sometimes develop technologies which they don't seek to patent and commericalize, and simply publish the results in a nonreviewed journal like Research Disclosure to prevent their competitors from incorporating it into their patent portfolio.
In other words, anything in the public domain can be claimed in a patent application, but it will not stand up under examination or in court. Linus can sleep easier tonight.
By the way, any other RPI folks hear about the nuclear fallout on Troy in the 1950s? It's an explanation for the people who lived on my street, for sure.
But that's capitalism! If you prefer to go to the store that employs real people and sells fair-price products, that's fine. If I prefer to go to the store with lower prices because they have less overhead and fewer employees, then that's my choice.
The rules are already imposed in Hong Kong and China. By signing on to the WTO and WIPO, in order to gain all the benefits China needs to transform its economy from a collection of moribund state-owned monopolies to something approaching a market economy, China agreed to respect and enforce copyright.
However, China does not effectively enforce the copyright rules they agreed to follow. You might argue that, when operating under a general lack of rule of law, intellectual property is not as important as, say, freedom from human rights abuses. But, every time a U.S. studio exec sees somebody openly selling pirated movies in markets in Hong Kong, he probably wonders if the few percent of legitimate copies sold are worth it.
You might also argue that legitimate DVDs sold in China are too expensive, that if the U.S. distributors charged less then more people would purchase nonpirated copies. First, "Finding Nemo" is not an anti-AIDS drug that has humanitarian reasons for cumpulsory licensing; nobody *needs* it. Second, pirated DVDs are still stolen, regardless of the price of the original. I can't afford an original Mercedes, but that doesn't mean that it's OK if I purchase a stolen car for significantly less because I don't have the $30,000.
Dave
I think you're missing the point about using humor to deal with death. Someone you love dies, you make a joke that makes you laugh and alleviates the pain a little. Someone you love dies, and I (a complete stranger) make a joke about it, I don't think you would feel so good. There's a reason why AIDS and Holocaust jokes aren't more popular. And, no, I don't know anyone personally who died in the West Warwick fire (I am from RI), but I do try to respect the memories of those that died (and are still dying).
I read in the Forbes article that Apple makes about $0.33 for each song that's sold. It makes perfect sense for them to get as many people to buy songs using their service, using their software, as possible, without having to split the proceeds with MusicMatch or some other company.
A spam solution that doesn't require government legislation and suing in court, and doesn't rely on changing filtering rules as fast as the spammers can evade them, will be remembered as the Killer App that kept email from becoming unusable in the early part of our century.