so why should people living hundreds of miles away pay your town's taxes?
Well, it could be because the infrastructure to ship all of those goods people are buying from Amazon and other online retailers is supported by sales tax. I'm assuming that Amazon's warehouses and office need police and fire protection, schools for their employees children and roads for the trucks to drive on, but I could be mistaken.
If Amazon were decent about it, they'd refund it to the customers.
Many would argue that the discount a business gets from collecting sales tax is already figured into the pricing of their products as it impacts their bottom line.
Special tax deals for individual companies is a recipe for corruption.
Not really. It's a hold over from the days when sales tax first started. States let businesses keep a portion of the sales tax to cover the costs of calculating it and remitting it. Back then, there were no computers and the like. However, the laws were never updated so, today, it is a windfall for them. But it isn't a "special tax deal." In the 40s, it made sense. Today, it doesn't. But then again, it does negate the notion that it is too expensive for online businesses to collect and remit sales/use tax when they actually would be getting paid to do so.
...by waving his or her hands, the surgeon can sift through medical images, such as CT scans or real-time X-rays, while in the middle of an operation
I know that everyone has different UI proclivities, but I have trouble understanding this one.
Seems to me, the ideal interface would allow the surgeon to use it without removing their hands from their work, or wasting energy flailing their hands around to get the info they want, or moving their vision elsewhere, etc.
If voice control doesn't work for them, I'd suggest a set of foot pedals to keep their hands free. That works well for guitarists, who also have to make precision hand movements.
Also perhaps a heads-up display. That works for fighter pilots, who need to stay absolutely focused on task.
That said, since my life could be quite literally in a surgeon's hands, I want them to be as comfortable as possible with whatever UI they choose. So having another option is good.:)
Actually, they already use footpedals for this in many hospitals. Works quite well. A much more low tech approach would be "Nurse, next page" and a nurse a keyboard and mouse would do the work. The reason, the doctors have had to leave the table in the past had to do with they were viewing physical images or crt screens, neither of which work very well right at the operating table. Now, with flat panel screens and even x-rays are digitized, they can have it right there in a very small footprint. The question, is how best for the surgeon to access the info?
In the past, the doctor left the table, because the images, whether digital or film, weren't located at the table. Other hospitals have used a foot controller, kind of like a cross between a guitar pedal and a trackball to accomplish this. The kinect is an interesting approach. Time will tell if putting down your surgical instruments to wave your hands around is an effective route to doing this or not.
I read the patent and I don't see why. While the patent in question has nothing to do with "as seen on tv" as the summary suggests, it is all about electronically analyzing purchasing habits to make recommendations for other purchases. My local grocery store has been doing this for years.
Your local grocery store tracks what television programs you watch that involve food and makes recommendations for produce based on what people watching the same programs have also watched and bought? That's a little creepy.
No, but my local grocery store tracks what I purchase and makes recommendations on that. I'm pretty sure those recommendations are based on purchases that other people have made who also purchased what I bought. I know that many on-line retailers do the same. The only novel thing is the television part. Even that isn't truly novel. I'm pretty sure P&G or Ford or Chevy are very aware of what people watch on tv and target their commercials accordingly. They just don't do it with a little button on a box.
Surely, Amazon is not trying to patent other people's copyrights
Even though you've heard the words "patent" and "copyright" in the context of intellectual property, they're not the same thing.
Of course they are not, but if I am broadcasting a TV show, the content of that show, audio, video, specific images, etc.is my IP. If I chose to show Rachel and Ross drinking coffee that is an artistic decision. I could have had them drink milk. Regardless, the entire contents of that show is my IP and can't be used without my permission. Just ask MLB or the NFL. If Amazon is then trying to use my IP to evaluate the viewer's purchasing habits, they still need my permission, do they not? The patent is about how they would go about doing it, but that doesn't mean they are allowed to do it.
Now if they would only get rid of the ribbon interface. BTW, did anybody else notice that the screenshot in the link looks an awful lot like XFCE with a transparent panel? Maybe it's not only gnome-shell/unity haters that are switching to XFCE, but MS, too!
No, it arrives at the TV using a totally different technique, therefore it is an entirely new, unique process that demands a separate patent.
Hell, to properly patent it, you need a third one to cover mobile phones and tablets, because they use cell phone networks, which also makes it entirely unique.
Maybe not for cell phones and tablets, because the patent refers to broadcast media such as television. Cable is not broadcast, nor is dsl, etc. WIFI and cell phones and almost any rf based wireless technology could be claimed to be broadcast, though.
You are correct, when I skimmed it, I missed the television. However, it does specify broadcast media "such as television", which is interesting as the courts have already determined that cable is not considered broadcast media. So, this would seem to be a patent directed at radio and tv broadcast received over the airways.
What do you mean you have never seen anybody do that before. The actual patent isn't just about TV. Haven't you ever googled something and then the next thing you know you are seeing ads for products related to what you goodled? that is basically what Amazon is trying to patent.
So, does Amazon's spin on As Seen on TV advertising deserve a patent?"
Yes. If you read the patent, you'll see why.
I read the patent and I don't see why. While the patent in question has nothing to do with "as seen on tv" as the summary suggests, it is all about electronically analyzing purchasing habits to make recommendations for other purchases. My local grocery store has been doing this for years. Ebay was doing it before Amazon even existed.
The patent is basically about harvesting consumer data to perform market research and there are gobs of prior art in existence. So, no, it does not deserve a patent.
Does that mean that Amazon is paying royalties to every the manufacturer of every item in one of their "As seen on TV?" For instance, just because the sunglasses may be the product in questions, what about the shoes the model is wearing? Surely, Amazon is not trying to patent other people's copyrights or to use them in their own get rich scheme without paying the royalties, are they?
Gasoline is not priced by supply and demand, it is priced by what the market will bear.
You do realize "what the market will bear" is pretty much the DEFINITION of supply and demand? The two terms are EQUIVALENT.
You do realize that supply and demand only deals with markets where the demand is set by the consumers of the product. Oil and gas prices are set outside the the parameters of supply and demand because they are set by speculators/investors. Then the "market" gets the price that is set outside their control, so regardless of their consumption, the price is unchanged. In 1974, 87% of oil futures were purchased by oil companies and 13% by investors. Today, investors purchase 80% of oil futures. Investors, who speculate on the market are the ones setting the price, not the manufacturer (oil company) or consumer. So supply and demand doesn't really apply.
Well, yes, it is true that the demand for gas changes little with price -- that is called price inelasticity, as you say. But still, "supply and demand" is the same as "the market will bear".
But it is not the consumer market that is determining the pricing. Nor is it the manufacturers. Gas and oil is priced, today, by speculators, which has nothing to do with supply and demand. When Katrina hit the Gulf, it impacted less than 1% of the supply at the time and yet prices skyrocketed. Forces outside of the normal supply and demand model set the price. In 1974, 87% of oil futures were purchased by oil companies and 13% by investors. Today 80% is purchased by investors. Investors are outside of the supply and demand equation as they artificially control prices.
Gasoline is not priced by supply and demand, it is priced by what the market will bear.
What would you consider to be the difference between those two? Demand is currently basically equal to supply, so the price is set as high as it can be without people screaming bloody murder and switching to alternatives.
The price of gas is not set by the demand of the people consuming the gas. There is an excess of oil and gas on the market right now. When Katrina hit the Gulf, it did not impact the world supply of oil by more than 1% but gas prices increased 30%. Gas and oil prices are set by speculators, not supply and demand.
The present invention includes a mobile device which provides the user with the ability to schedule a meeting request from the mobile device itself. The mobile device creates an object representative of the meeting request and assigns the object a global identification number which uniquely identifies the object to other devices which encounter the object. In addition, the mobile device in accordance with one aspect of the present invention provides a property in the object which is indicative of whether the meeting request has already been transmitted. In this way, other devices which encounter the meeting request are capable of identifying it as a unique meeting request, and of determining whether the meeting request has already been transmitted, in order to alleviate the problem of duplicate meeting request transmissions.
Is that really patentable? Assigning a unique ID to a meeting request to alleviate duplicate requests? How can that not be obvious to someone "skilled in the art"?
Is there any other solution that's more obvious? "Hey Joe, I keep getting duplicate meeting requests from your Palm Pilot. Oh noooooos! Hey, I know, I'll send each meeting request in a different color, then if you get two purple ones you'll know it's a dupe".
Better yet, it is so vague that probably every laptop and table is also in violation of it, well every laptop and tablet not running Windows (ie Apple). My old palm pilot is also probably in violation, too.
but it isn't getting better mileage. It is easy to design to maximize horsepower. The difficult part is maximizing mpg while maintaining acceptable performance.
It's about an 8% increase in fuel economy, which is pretty good, but downright impressive with almost twice the power. It's pretty disingenuous to imply that all they did was crank out more power. It's also not really a reasonable comparison to say 26 MPG "sucks" compared to a subcompact economy car, because it's phenomenal for a 400+ HP sports car.
I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't impressive, but the trend to higher and higher horsepower does nothing to reduce one's dependance on oil. Cars in the 70s got better mileage than cars today. I'm not saying everybody should be driving air cooled VWs (although I do have one), but if a 1972 car that was designed in the 1930s can get 27mpg around town how come a modern car 40 years later can't do any better?
The SUN gives us free energy. It's time we harnessed it.
Okay, I will rephrase that. There is no such thing as free usable energy. Solar energy is definitely free, but to convert it into usable energy definitely is not.
"Gasoline is not priced by supply and demand, it is priced by what the market will bear."
Isn't that the same?
No. Supply and demand has some kind of curve for both, and and equilibrium is reached between the two. Since the demand for gas is so inelastic, instead of an X supply and demand curve, it is closer to a sideways t. As such, gas companies can pretty much charge what they want. The reason they don't is because of public backlash (which translates into government oversight, which they don't want), not because of as prices go up, people buy less gas and prices drop. In reality, as the price of gas goes up, people buy less of everything else, but the overall demand for gas changes very little. Put differently, what the market will bear manifests doesn't mean it manifests itself by lower demand.
Gasoline is not priced by supply and demand, it is priced by what the market will bear.
Those are the same thing.
No it is not. Supply and demand means that as supply increases price decreases. With gasoline, price is set and doesn't changed based on consumer demand. Put differently, if there is a bumper crop of corn, corn prices go down. When prices go down, demand goes up and and equilibrium is found. With gas, prices are not tied directly to consumption and therefore normal supply and demand do not have a large impact on price or supply. Investor speculation is what drives the price of gasoline, which is a totally different model.
Slashdot Mirror
so why should people living hundreds of miles away pay your town's taxes?
Well, it could be because the infrastructure to ship all of those goods people are buying from Amazon and other online retailers is supported by sales tax. I'm assuming that Amazon's warehouses and office need police and fire protection, schools for their employees children and roads for the trucks to drive on, but I could be mistaken.
You can't give away sales tax in this manner.
If Amazon were decent about it, they'd refund it to the customers.
Many would argue that the discount a business gets from collecting sales tax is already figured into the pricing of their products as it impacts their bottom line.
It's not like a small start-up competitor for Amazon wouldn't get these same tax cuts in these same cities, right? Right? Please tell me I'm right.
You are right. A small start-up competitor or any retail business, for that matter, would have access to this.
Special tax deals for individual companies is a recipe for corruption.
Not really. It's a hold over from the days when sales tax first started. States let businesses keep a portion of the sales tax to cover the costs of calculating it and remitting it. Back then, there were no computers and the like. However, the laws were never updated so, today, it is a windfall for them. But it isn't a "special tax deal." In the 40s, it made sense. Today, it doesn't. But then again, it does negate the notion that it is too expensive for online businesses to collect and remit sales/use tax when they actually would be getting paid to do so.
...by waving his or her hands, the surgeon can sift through medical images, such as CT scans or real-time X-rays, while in the middle of an operation
I know that everyone has different UI proclivities, but I have trouble understanding this one.
Seems to me, the ideal interface would allow the surgeon to use it without removing their hands from their work, or wasting energy flailing their hands around to get the info they want, or moving their vision elsewhere, etc.
If voice control doesn't work for them, I'd suggest a set of foot pedals to keep their hands free. That works well for guitarists, who also have to make precision hand movements.
Also perhaps a heads-up display. That works for fighter pilots, who need to stay absolutely focused on task.
That said, since my life could be quite literally in a surgeon's hands, I want them to be as comfortable as possible with whatever UI they choose. So having another option is good. :)
Actually, they already use footpedals for this in many hospitals. Works quite well. A much more low tech approach would be "Nurse, next page" and a nurse a keyboard and mouse would do the work. The reason, the doctors have had to leave the table in the past had to do with they were viewing physical images or crt screens, neither of which work very well right at the operating table. Now, with flat panel screens and even x-rays are digitized, they can have it right there in a very small footprint. The question, is how best for the surgeon to access the info?
In the past, the doctor left the table, because the images, whether digital or film, weren't located at the table. Other hospitals have used a foot controller, kind of like a cross between a guitar pedal and a trackball to accomplish this. The kinect is an interesting approach. Time will tell if putting down your surgical instruments to wave your hands around is an effective route to doing this or not.
Wouldn't it be easier to just eliminate all crapware including Windows?
I read the patent and I don't see why. While the patent in question has nothing to do with "as seen on tv" as the summary suggests, it is all about electronically analyzing purchasing habits to make recommendations for other purchases. My local grocery store has been doing this for years.
Your local grocery store tracks what television programs you watch that involve food and makes recommendations for produce based on what people watching the same programs have also watched and bought? That's a little creepy.
No, but my local grocery store tracks what I purchase and makes recommendations on that. I'm pretty sure those recommendations are based on purchases that other people have made who also purchased what I bought. I know that many on-line retailers do the same. The only novel thing is the television part. Even that isn't truly novel. I'm pretty sure P&G or Ford or Chevy are very aware of what people watch on tv and target their commercials accordingly. They just don't do it with a little button on a box.
Surely, Amazon is not trying to patent other people's copyrights
Even though you've heard the words "patent" and "copyright" in the context of intellectual property, they're not the same thing.
Of course they are not, but if I am broadcasting a TV show, the content of that show, audio, video, specific images, etc.is my IP. If I chose to show Rachel and Ross drinking coffee that is an artistic decision. I could have had them drink milk. Regardless, the entire contents of that show is my IP and can't be used without my permission. Just ask MLB or the NFL. If Amazon is then trying to use my IP to evaluate the viewer's purchasing habits, they still need my permission, do they not? The patent is about how they would go about doing it, but that doesn't mean they are allowed to do it.
is complete.
He's just trying to make it more enticing for Google to buy them out, or maybe Oracle.
Now if they would only get rid of the ribbon interface. BTW, did anybody else notice that the screenshot in the link looks an awful lot like XFCE with a transparent panel? Maybe it's not only gnome-shell/unity haters that are switching to XFCE, but MS, too!
No, it arrives at the TV using a totally different technique, therefore it is an entirely new, unique process that demands a separate patent.
Hell, to properly patent it, you need a third one to cover mobile phones and tablets, because they use cell phone networks, which also makes it entirely unique.
Maybe not for cell phones and tablets, because the patent refers to broadcast media such as television. Cable is not broadcast, nor is dsl, etc. WIFI and cell phones and almost any rf based wireless technology could be claimed to be broadcast, though.
You are correct, when I skimmed it, I missed the television. However, it does specify broadcast media "such as television", which is interesting as the courts have already determined that cable is not considered broadcast media. So, this would seem to be a patent directed at radio and tv broadcast received over the airways.
What do you mean you have never seen anybody do that before. The actual patent isn't just about TV. Haven't you ever googled something and then the next thing you know you are seeing ads for products related to what you goodled? that is basically what Amazon is trying to patent.
So, does Amazon's spin on As Seen on TV advertising deserve a patent?"
Yes. If you read the patent, you'll see why.
I read the patent and I don't see why. While the patent in question has nothing to do with "as seen on tv" as the summary suggests, it is all about electronically analyzing purchasing habits to make recommendations for other purchases. My local grocery store has been doing this for years. Ebay was doing it before Amazon even existed.
The patent is basically about harvesting consumer data to perform market research and there are gobs of prior art in existence. So, no, it does not deserve a patent.
As patents can be varied just by the language used in it, we should apply for a "as seen on the internet" patent, Amazon don't have that one do they?!
But, since you can view the internet on your TV, would that not then be as seen on TV, too?
Does that mean that Amazon is paying royalties to every the manufacturer of every item in one of their "As seen on TV?" For instance, just because the sunglasses may be the product in questions, what about the shoes the model is wearing? Surely, Amazon is not trying to patent other people's copyrights or to use them in their own get rich scheme without paying the royalties, are they?
You do realize "what the market will bear" is pretty much the DEFINITION of supply and demand? The two terms are EQUIVALENT.
You do realize that supply and demand only deals with markets where the demand is set by the consumers of the product. Oil and gas prices are set outside the the parameters of supply and demand because they are set by speculators/investors. Then the "market" gets the price that is set outside their control, so regardless of their consumption, the price is unchanged. In 1974, 87% of oil futures were purchased by oil companies and 13% by investors. Today, investors purchase 80% of oil futures. Investors, who speculate on the market are the ones setting the price, not the manufacturer (oil company) or consumer. So supply and demand doesn't really apply.
Well, yes, it is true that the demand for gas changes little with price -- that is called price inelasticity, as you say. But still, "supply and demand" is the same as "the market will bear".
But it is not the consumer market that is determining the pricing. Nor is it the manufacturers. Gas and oil is priced, today, by speculators, which has nothing to do with supply and demand. When Katrina hit the Gulf, it impacted less than 1% of the supply at the time and yet prices skyrocketed. Forces outside of the normal supply and demand model set the price. In 1974, 87% of oil futures were purchased by oil companies and 13% by investors. Today 80% is purchased by investors. Investors are outside of the supply and demand equation as they artificially control prices.
Gasoline is not priced by supply and demand, it is priced by what the market will bear.
What would you consider to be the difference between those two? Demand is currently basically equal to supply, so the price is set as high as it can be without people screaming bloody murder and switching to alternatives.
The price of gas is not set by the demand of the people consuming the gas. There is an excess of oil and gas on the market right now. When Katrina hit the Gulf, it did not impact the world supply of oil by more than 1% but gas prices increased 30%. Gas and oil prices are set by speculators, not supply and demand.
Here's the patent in question:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=L-ELAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,370,566
The present invention includes a mobile device which provides the user with the ability to schedule a meeting request from the mobile device itself. The mobile device creates an object representative of the meeting request and assigns the object a global identification number which uniquely identifies the object to other devices which encounter the object. In addition, the mobile device in accordance with one aspect of the present invention provides a property in the object which is indicative of whether the meeting request has already been transmitted. In this way, other devices which encounter the meeting request are capable of identifying it as a unique meeting request, and of determining whether the meeting request has already been transmitted, in order to alleviate the problem of duplicate meeting request transmissions.
Is that really patentable? Assigning a unique ID to a meeting request to alleviate duplicate requests? How can that not be obvious to someone "skilled in the art"?
Is there any other solution that's more obvious? "Hey Joe, I keep getting duplicate meeting requests from your Palm Pilot. Oh noooooos! Hey, I know, I'll send each meeting request in a different color, then if you get two purple ones you'll know it's a dupe".
Better yet, it is so vague that probably every laptop and table is also in violation of it, well every laptop and tablet not running Windows (ie Apple). My old palm pilot is also probably in violation, too.
Did you put your reply in his quote?
but it isn't getting better mileage. It is easy to design to maximize horsepower. The difficult part is maximizing mpg while maintaining acceptable performance.
It's about an 8% increase in fuel economy, which is pretty good, but downright impressive with almost twice the power. It's pretty disingenuous to imply that all they did was crank out more power. It's also not really a reasonable comparison to say 26 MPG "sucks" compared to a subcompact economy car, because it's phenomenal for a 400+ HP sports car.
I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't impressive, but the trend to higher and higher horsepower does nothing to reduce one's dependance on oil. Cars in the 70s got better mileage than cars today. I'm not saying everybody should be driving air cooled VWs (although I do have one), but if a 1972 car that was designed in the 1930s can get 27mpg around town how come a modern car 40 years later can't do any better?
The SUN gives us free energy. It's time we harnessed it.
Okay, I will rephrase that. There is no such thing as free usable energy. Solar energy is definitely free, but to convert it into usable energy definitely is not.
"Gasoline is not priced by supply and demand, it is priced by what the market will bear."
Isn't that the same?
No. Supply and demand has some kind of curve for both, and and equilibrium is reached between the two. Since the demand for gas is so inelastic, instead of an X supply and demand curve, it is closer to a sideways t. As such, gas companies can pretty much charge what they want. The reason they don't is because of public backlash (which translates into government oversight, which they don't want), not because of as prices go up, people buy less gas and prices drop. In reality, as the price of gas goes up, people buy less of everything else, but the overall demand for gas changes very little. Put differently, what the market will bear manifests doesn't mean it manifests itself by lower demand.
Gasoline is not priced by supply and demand, it is priced by what the market will bear.
Those are the same thing.
No it is not. Supply and demand means that as supply increases price decreases. With gasoline, price is set and doesn't changed based on consumer demand. Put differently, if there is a bumper crop of corn, corn prices go down. When prices go down, demand goes up and and equilibrium is found. With gas, prices are not tied directly to consumption and therefore normal supply and demand do not have a large impact on price or supply. Investor speculation is what drives the price of gasoline, which is a totally different model.