Consistently, you mean like in 1% of cases?
Not to mention the supreme court is not last because they are right on the law, they are right on the law because they are last.
I'll take planes that don't kill everyone when they have issues over pretty and nicer cabins.
If you download their presentation it's quite funny:
"The engines of the future will have no risk of failure, so can be placed at the rear and remove the need for a vertical tail."
What could go wrong?
You don't actually understand how this works.
1. In the Federal court system, all patent appeals go to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This is true regardless of what district you are in.
Blame congress for this one.
2. Allowing folks who are admitted to any state bar is good. The entire state bar system is a disaster. In any other country, you are either allowed to practice in that country, or not. Here, we've further divided it into 50 states, and require lawyers to take 50 8-10 hour tests and fulfill 50 different sets of conflicting obligations (for example, continuing legal education requirements, pro bono hour requirements, etc) in order to be able to practice law in every state. It's not even possible. Any argument one could make that having to do this means you are more aware of the laws of that state or better able to practice in that state are ridiculous on their face to anyone who has actually had to study for and take a bar exam. If you practiced law the same way the various bar exams wants you to, you'd be disbarred.
So in short: Just because you read an article on wikipedia doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.
I don't think you "get" it.
Google open sourced this because they thought it would be cool, not because they think it is an amazingly new idea that nobody has ever done before.
It's not like Google hasn't been using this internally for 5 years (Which of course, makes all the JSON comments humorous).
Actually, I didn't actually hide the project from the public until Alan (project owner) emailed me and told me he wasn't going to file a counter notice (which i had encouraged him to do).
Don't let facts get in the way though!
The problem is there is no limit on the number of continuations or RCE's you can file.
Only fees for doing so:)
The new rules limited the number of each you could do.
Drug companies in particular, are well known for wearing down the patent office by filing continuation after continuation until they get all the claims they want for a particular drug, issued into patents.
Hence the reason they are so vehemently against these rules.
(It's humorous to read the argument GlaxoSmithKlein made that the "public" is clearly against these rules, by pointing out that amicus briefs were only filed on their side of the argument.)
First to file does not change what is prior art at all.
In both systems, prior art is more or less anything that is one year older than your patent filing date.
First to file vs first to invent only affects who would get an *otherwise valid* patent. It makes no more patents valid than were valid under a first to invent system.
In a first to invent system, if i file a patent, and you file a patent on the same thing, and both are otherwise valid (IE there is no prior art that invalidates it), the winner of the patent is the person who can prove they invented it first. Well, actually, it's much more complex than that, and the winner ends up being the person who can prove they have more money to spend on complex and intricate "interference" proceedings and appeals.
In a first to file system, if i file a patent, and you file a patent on the same thing, and both are otherwise valid, the winner of the patent is the person who filed first.
In *neither* system do you get a patent if there is prior art. The difference between the two systems is only in determining who will own a patent when two people claim the same thing.
Given that most small inventors don't have money to spend on interference proceedings (these often cost >100k), first to file helps them a lot.
What the fuck are you talking about. Google has given back almost every useful change they have to GPL'd software. They just don't make press releases about it.
Because Apple makes it possible to piggyback off spotlight, and intercept the spotlight calls to do your own thing.
Microsoft does not. In fact, Microsoft's search uses secret OS hooks to do it's own work, and will display Microsoft search results, EVEN IF YOU DISABLE THEIR SEARCH AND CHOOSE ANOTHER USING THEIR SEARCH API.
(IAAL) Yes, the Seventh Circuit has fucked this up. Other courts have not see Klocek v. Gateway, Stepsaver (if you want an appeals court decision), U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Orris, Specht v. Netscape (another federal appeals court decision).
Basically the entire line of cases that cite Klocek.
It's roughly split 50-50, my guess is SCOTUS will take it up sometime in the next 5 years.
Running interference? Full time writing specs? Localization teams that don't work across products?
I see how this works - They have no idea how to actually get real work done, so every project has to assign people to: 1. Keep other people out of their way 2. Do things larger cross-product teams could take care of for them (localization, help with UI and branding).
No, they wrote code to avoid results that people don't find useful. Pretty much none of the googlebombs returned relevant results, so they fixed that
You don't have to fricking sign the NDA.
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 1
The only NDA regular visitors is the NDA at the badge machine. And you can simply press escape.
It will print "NDA declined" on your badge.
So if you don't want to sign the NDA, don't. It's not like they kick you out of the building. It just means people will be more careful about what they tell you.
If you are there trying to talk about partnerships, or legal matters, or whatever, then yes, there is usually another NDA you have to sign, which I personally think is a reasonable thing to do
Slashdot Mirror
Consistently, you mean like in 1% of cases? Not to mention the supreme court is not last because they are right on the law, they are right on the law because they are last.
I'll take planes that don't kill everyone when they have issues over pretty and nicer cabins. If you download their presentation it's quite funny: "The engines of the future will have no risk of failure, so can be placed at the rear and remove the need for a vertical tail." What could go wrong?
The standard reaction is to take xanax.
You don't actually understand how this works. 1. In the Federal court system, all patent appeals go to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This is true regardless of what district you are in. Blame congress for this one. 2. Allowing folks who are admitted to any state bar is good. The entire state bar system is a disaster. In any other country, you are either allowed to practice in that country, or not. Here, we've further divided it into 50 states, and require lawyers to take 50 8-10 hour tests and fulfill 50 different sets of conflicting obligations (for example, continuing legal education requirements, pro bono hour requirements, etc) in order to be able to practice law in every state. It's not even possible. Any argument one could make that having to do this means you are more aware of the laws of that state or better able to practice in that state are ridiculous on their face to anyone who has actually had to study for and take a bar exam. If you practiced law the same way the various bar exams wants you to, you'd be disbarred. So in short: Just because you read an article on wikipedia doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.
Uh, having one of the OpenSSL guys working down the hall, he certainly said he would shoot himself if he had to work with ASN.1 again.
I don't think you "get" it. Google open sourced this because they thought it would be cool, not because they think it is an amazingly new idea that nobody has ever done before. It's not like Google hasn't been using this internally for 5 years (Which of course, makes all the JSON comments humorous).
Have you ever met anyone who worked with ASN.1 and didn't run screaming for the hills?
Actually, I didn't actually hide the project from the public until Alan (project owner) emailed me and told me he wasn't going to file a counter notice (which i had encouraged him to do). Don't let facts get in the way though!
The problem is there is no limit on the number of continuations or RCE's you can file. Only fees for doing so :)
The new rules limited the number of each you could do.
Drug companies in particular, are well known for wearing down the patent office by filing continuation after continuation until they get all the claims they want for a particular drug, issued into patents.
Hence the reason they are so vehemently against these rules.
(It's humorous to read the argument GlaxoSmithKlein made that the "public" is clearly against these rules, by pointing out that amicus briefs were only filed on their side of the argument.)
We don't distribute it, so we aren't required to submit the changes back.
We of course, try to contribute back all the changes we possibly can.
If you look around, you'll see we just don't publicize all the changes we contribute back (and we in fact, didn't publicize this one ourselves).
Just FYI, Google Apps Education Edition is free for non-profits. It's a step up from the normal apps, in that it includes 24/7 support, etc.
But the one year window exists in a first to invent system, e.g., our system, *right now*.
First to file does not change what is prior art at all.
In both systems, prior art is more or less anything that is one year older than your patent filing date.
First to file vs first to invent only affects who would get an *otherwise valid* patent. It makes no more patents valid than were valid under a first to invent system.
In a first to invent system, if i file a patent, and you file a patent on the same thing, and both are otherwise valid (IE there is no prior art that invalidates it), the winner of the patent is the person who can prove they invented it first. Well, actually, it's much more complex than that, and the winner ends up being the person who can prove they have more money to spend on complex and intricate "interference" proceedings and appeals.
In a first to file system, if i file a patent, and you file a patent on the same thing, and both are otherwise valid, the winner of the patent is the person who filed first.
In *neither* system do you get a patent if there is prior art. The difference between the two systems is only in determining who will own a patent when two people claim the same thing.
Given that most small inventors don't have money to spend on interference proceedings (these often cost >100k), first to file helps them a lot.
What the fuck are you talking about.
Google has given back almost every useful change they have to GPL'd software.
They just don't make press releases about it.
Because Apple makes it possible to piggyback off spotlight, and intercept the spotlight calls to do your own thing.
Microsoft does not.
In fact, Microsoft's search uses secret OS hooks to do it's own work, and will display Microsoft search results, EVEN IF YOU DISABLE THEIR SEARCH AND CHOOSE ANOTHER USING THEIR SEARCH API.
Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about.
Even when stopped, it still processes indexing events!
(IAAL)
Yes, the Seventh Circuit has fucked this up.
Other courts have not
see Klocek v. Gateway, Stepsaver (if you want an appeals court decision), U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Orris, Specht v. Netscape (another federal appeals court decision).
Basically the entire line of cases that cite Klocek.
It's roughly split 50-50, my guess is SCOTUS will take it up sometime in the next 5 years.
Actually, Greg, being Apache software foundation chairman, has a fondness of the Apache License.
Don't let facts get in the way of anything, though
Running interference?
Full time writing specs?
Localization teams that don't work across products?
I see how this works - They have no idea how to actually get real work done, so every project has to assign people to:
1. Keep other people out of their way
2. Do things larger cross-product teams could take care of for them (localization, help with UI and branding).
No, they wrote code to avoid results that people don't find useful.
Pretty much none of the googlebombs returned relevant results, so they fixed that
The only NDA regular visitors is the NDA at the badge machine.
And you can simply press escape.
It will print "NDA declined" on your badge.
So if you don't want to sign the NDA, don't.
It's not like they kick you out of the building. It just means people will be more careful about what they tell you.
If you are there trying to talk about partnerships, or legal matters, or whatever, then yes, there is usually another NDA you have to sign, which I personally think is a reasonable thing to do
Except for the small little, uh, fact, that the majority shareholders are Larry and Sergey.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way.
GDMac uses spotlight importers to do its work, so you have nothing to fear.
Yeah man, I to wish someone could make money without having to do anything.
Sigh
It's about 10x faster than spotlight at answering queries, maybe more.