True. It reminds me of an old BBspot.com article entitled "Security Hole Found In Sysadmin's Head". I wish I could find the article. Would anyone have a copy or a link by any chance?
This reminds me of the movie Free Enterprise. William Shatner discusses with a couple of soon-to-be 30-year-old Trekkies his idea of a musical Julius Caeser, full text, in which Shatner plays all the roles (well, except Calpurnia).
I think a quote from this movie would also apply to the musical Lord of the Rings:
"A musical Julius Caeser is probably the worst idea I've heard since New Coke."
1. Identify our position about a topic.
2. Select a set of representatives
3. Lobby to get support from other people
4. Go to elections
5. Do as we said that we were going to do in the congress.
6. Fire Rick Berman out of a cannon (sell tickets)
7. Profit!
Um, this is a dependent claim. The way claims are structured, you still have to incorporate everything that is in the claim tree upon which it depends. For example, the claim you listed depends upon claim 4 ("as claimed in claim 4"). Claim 4 depends from claim 1, so what you actually have is a really long claim that has all the elements of claim 1 plus all the elements of claim 4 plus all the elements of claim 5. They don't have patent protection on just this element. Otherwise, yes, that would be completely absurd.
Claim 1 (the only independent claim):
A music jukebox configured for storing a music library therein, said music jukebox comprising: a housing; an audio data receiver arranged to receive audio data from outside the housing; audio output structure located at least partially within the housing for outputting audio signals; data storage memory in the housing for storing audio data received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox including a user interface comprising a display device located at least partially within the housing, said display device providing a display which is viewable from outside the housing, and a plurality of manually operable function controllers on the housing, said music jukebox configured such that a music library of sound tracks is storable in digital form in the data storage memory as a result of audio data being received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox configured such that said music library is organizable into a master song list and at least one group of sound tracks wherein each group comprises at least one sound track selected from the master song list, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that indicia of said master song list and indicia of at least one group of sound tracks are displayable on said display, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that said plurality of manually operable function controllers is useable to select a group of sound tracks stored in the data storage memory and operate the music jukebox such that said music jukebox outputs audio signals through said audio output structure.
This patent does not appear to cover just user logins. It is the entire music jukebox structure, which might be the exact way an iPod is structured. If you look at the priority date, they can claim priority all the way back to July 9, 1997. Their patent protection is actually very specific, and they have to prove that all of the elements of the claim are contained within the iPod. The real question is: does anyone know of a digital music jukebox described just like this from before July 9, 1997? I don't think they can go after web sites who simply do user logins, but then in America, anyone can sue anybody no matter how baseless the charge is.
Patents are granted to everybody who applies, and it's just left up to the courts to decide if it's valid or not.
Um, despite/. hyperbole, a lot of patents do get completely rejected until the prosecution runs out. Even if they are granted, the claims tend to get whittled down a lot during prosecution.
As for small developers, it is possible to file under "small entity" status, which is cheaper. The most expensive part of getting a patent is the fees for the patent attorneys.
before anyone starts frothing at the mouth and gives the usual/. response of "What? Someone got a patent? Kill! Kill! Kill!", please read claims 1, 8 and 14 (the independent claims).
Okay, I would agree with you about the special equipment, but my main argument was that you have to specifically subscribe to and pay for the service in order to view or listen to it at all. Broadcast, on the other hand, is publicly available and free.
I guess the best analogy I could make is that it would be like the difference between a poster that is put up in a public space that all can see and a magazine like Playboy. Different rules apply since anyone can see the poster, but you have to specifically subscribe to Playboy in order to see it.
Selling human attention is ethically questionable.
Questionable? It's downright evil, if you ask me. Think of all the time wasted being bombarded by nonsense and the added stress factors, the people killed in highway accidents who were distracted by ads, and so on.
Plus, imagine if, say, Einstein or Newton or Shakespeare were distracted with ads and made to waste their time shredding boatloads of unsolicited credit card applications? I think the overall cost of unrestrained advertising is far greater than even the harsh critics believe.
Now, imagine if life elsewhere is pestered with human ads at frequencies they use for academic communication (blanketing a version of wireless communication, for example). I can just see, after the tenth ad, one of them saying, "All right, to hell with them! This breed called 'homo sapiens'", pausing for a chuckle if they have deciphered what "sapiens" means, "are obviously a menace to sentient life. Let us pool our resources into wiping them out. I know, we are normally pacifists, but there are some things even pacifists cannot abide."
i can understand to an extent being wary of broadcast television being "indecent", but i think things have gone waaay out of hand. and besides, cable and satellite are private networks.
And this is really why I have such a big problem with applying decency standards to satellite radio and cable television. Broadcast radio and television are publicly available on the public airwaves and, until the spectrum was sold off by Reagan's FCC, public property.
With satellite radio and cable television, you have to get special equipment and/or connections, pay a fee for the service, and sometimes even pick very specific channels.
To give an example, my mother got sick and tired of the downward spiral of vulgarity on HBO. So, she cancelled it and has never subscribed to it again. It's that simple. There is no way that she could pick it up even by accident.
I am wondering, not to troll, but what kinds of uses does Solaris still find itself filling?
Well, ever since the station left orbit, Solaris has mostly been trying to figure out the remaining details of the nature of the universe that it has not yet determined. That, and ejecting the occasional plasmic pseudo-pod from its surface.
Seriously though, were the writers of the Solaris operating system thinking of something like the Sun God, were they just crazed Stanislaw Lem fans, or did something else cause them to give the operating system this name?
Why, by Jove you're right! I just checked out the FAQ at this site and apparently the LaserDisc is actually an analog format. The one player I remember also played CD's, but I guess the player simply uses the red CD laser for reading the analog encoded format. Pretty neat idea, really.
How is he "filled with rage"? He was making a coherent argument for a modicum of sane regulation in the marketplace of the modern mass production/mass media world. Perhaps you should "inquire within" to find the source of the rage you see...
Well, there used to be video phonographs back before Betamax came out. It was so neat because you could actually play theatre-released movies in your own house when you wanted! And, of course, the record buying clubs added a video section for video phonographs.
I think the parent poster is right about the lighter grooves, both from a logical standpoint and by the fact that the video phonographs came in special plastic containers so that you were not able to touch the actual medium. If you did, the medium would be ruined. Also, I wonder what they plan to do about scratches. Even the video phonographs would develop scratches and skip after a while. This is merely a nuisance when you are watching a movie, but would totally fubar any digital file, especially an executable.
Anyway, I don't think this is a particularly ingenious idea since it has been done before with video. The only real difference is that they are encoding the electrical signals differently so that 1's and 0's are recognized in a specific digital data framework.
"Patent Pending" gives you no legal protection at all. It only means that you paid your filing fees. It is generally used as a warning sign that they could sue you in the future for infringment if they are successful in being granted a patent. However, even if a patent is granted, the only thing you can sue over is infringement with regards to the specifically crafted claims that have been granted in the patent.
In the present example, if Amazon gets a patent from this application, they are not getting patent protection on "Personal Search History", they are getting patent protection on the claims as patented. Also, for anyone to infringe upon an Amazon patent, each and every limitation of an independent claim has to be present in the device that is supposedly infringing.
If you then find it's not granted, well, presumably that's because the patent officials found that your idea didn't meet one of the required criteria, in which case the chances are it was so obvious that revealing it hasn't hurt you anyway...
Theoretically this is true, but having more prior art is useful since rejection under 35 USC 102(b) or even 35 USC 102(a) or (e) is stronger and more easily upheld by the patent appeals board and other courts than a rejection under 35 USC 103(a). For those who don't know the distinction, 35 USC 102(a), (b) and (e) require that each and every limitation of the pending claim be taught by the reference. 35 USC 103(a) is a rejection based on an obvious combination of references, obvious design choice, etc. and is harder to have upheld by the Board or the courts.
You know (and someone may have said this before), I think we may have found the/. equivalent of Godwin's Law. There should be some metric that is used to calculate the relevance of the post to American politics and the number of posts it takes before the Americans on/. start screaming for or against Bush and/or Kerry.
You know, people can apply for just about anything. All that Amazon has right now is an application. The question is, will they actually get a patent or not? If they do get one, what exactly are the claims? They may actually be able to get a patent, but the claim limitations could be so narrow that they are effectly getting zilch in the way of legal protection. A patent then becomes something on the order of - "Look what Og get!"
Well, there used to not be patent application publications in the U.S. at all. The USPTO started doing this in the year 2000 (cue Conan O'Brien!), thus copying what the Europeans had been doing for over a decade. Remember, a patent application does not give any legal protection. That is why you are not required to publish it. It is only after the patent has been granted, and you therefore have legel patent protection, that publication is required and is a matter of course.
In fact, not having an application published can actually be less advantageous. If, for example, you don't get a patent (happens quite often despite what crazed/.'ers say), the publication is still out there and can be used as prior art against a later application. In fact, it can help to apply for a patent even if you have no hope of ever getting one since the publication of it can be used as prior art against anyone else trying to patent the same thing.
(NOTE: The previous statement assumes without proof that the U.S. can be regarded as being in the real world.)
I must say that this is quite an assumption you are making! One of the reasons I have so few American friends is that there is nothing to talk to them about. Most of their lives are inundated with insane inanities. It is not just the president that seems to live in some bizzare nightmare world. Quite a large portion of the population is constantly babbling about nonsense.
One of the reasons why a system like this can take over, is people in America can usually develop some rationale and enough people will believe it and absorb it into their heads.
Actually, I think the real reason M$ and others file so many patent applications is to flood the patent office, thus making the pendency time increase like mad. By the time any of their competitors are even able to have a patent granted, the protection value is almost nil since the usefulness of their novel idea has become obsolete. If they keep doing this, the pendency will inflate to 20 years, which will render any granted patents completely useless.
Maybe it's time for ST to go on a diet then. Get back to the fundamentals that made it fascinating: a philosophical bent, an eye toward the future, and characters with souls.
Yeah, that's the problem with Berman & Co. They don't seem to realize that what makes good sci-fi, and thus makes rabid fans of us all:-), is an intelligent plot, deep characters, and a complex overall theme. What made the Original Series, and a lot of the old and good sci-fi movies like Forbidden Planet and Soylent Green, so wonderful were the plots that they had, not the special effects. Even when the special effects got better with The Next Generation, the episodes we remember are the ones with a great plot, not necessarily the ones with the best special effects.
So, our sci-fi series plan:
1) Obtain shoe-string budget from obsessed fans
2) Gather a crack team of sci-fi writers and thespians
3) FIRE BERMAN OUT OF A CANNON (SELL TICKETS)
4) Profit!
(Hey, this could really catch on...)
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, the old jokes repeat YOU!
True. It reminds me of an old BBspot.com article entitled "Security Hole Found In Sysadmin's Head". I wish I could find the article. Would anyone have a copy or a link by any chance?
I think a quote from this movie would also apply to the musical Lord of the Rings:
"A musical Julius Caeser is probably the worst idea I've heard since New Coke."
2. Select a set of representatives
3. Lobby to get support from other people
4. Go to elections
5. Do as we said that we were going to do in the congress.
6. Fire Rick Berman out of a cannon (sell tickets)
7. Profit!
Um, this is a dependent claim. The way claims are structured, you still have to incorporate everything that is in the claim tree upon which it depends. For example, the claim you listed depends upon claim 4 ("as claimed in claim 4"). Claim 4 depends from claim 1, so what you actually have is a really long claim that has all the elements of claim 1 plus all the elements of claim 4 plus all the elements of claim 5. They don't have patent protection on just this element. Otherwise, yes, that would be completely absurd.
A music jukebox configured for storing a music library therein, said music jukebox comprising: a housing; an audio data receiver arranged to receive audio data from outside the housing; audio output structure located at least partially within the housing for outputting audio signals; data storage memory in the housing for storing audio data received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox including a user interface comprising a display device located at least partially within the housing, said display device providing a display which is viewable from outside the housing, and a plurality of manually operable function controllers on the housing, said music jukebox configured such that a music library of sound tracks is storable in digital form in the data storage memory as a result of audio data being received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox configured such that said music library is organizable into a master song list and at least one group of sound tracks wherein each group comprises at least one sound track selected from the master song list, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that indicia of said master song list and indicia of at least one group of sound tracks are displayable on said display, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that said plurality of manually operable function controllers is useable to select a group of sound tracks stored in the data storage memory and operate the music jukebox such that said music jukebox outputs audio signals through said audio output structure.
This patent does not appear to cover just user logins. It is the entire music jukebox structure, which might be the exact way an iPod is structured. If you look at the priority date, they can claim priority all the way back to July 9, 1997. Their patent protection is actually very specific, and they have to prove that all of the elements of the claim are contained within the iPod. The real question is: does anyone know of a digital music jukebox described just like this from before July 9, 1997? I don't think they can go after web sites who simply do user logins, but then in America, anyone can sue anybody no matter how baseless the charge is.
Well, I bet you they won't play that song on the radio!
(Before anyone mods me offtopic, it's an old Python song reference.)
Um, despite /. hyperbole, a lot of patents do get completely rejected until the prosecution runs out. Even if they are granted, the claims tend to get whittled down a lot during prosecution.
As for small developers, it is possible to file under "small entity" status, which is cheaper. The most expensive part of getting a patent is the fees for the patent attorneys.
before anyone starts frothing at the mouth and gives the usual /. response of "What? Someone got a patent? Kill! Kill! Kill!", please read claims 1, 8 and 14 (the independent claims).
I guess the best analogy I could make is that it would be like the difference between a poster that is put up in a public space that all can see and a magazine like Playboy. Different rules apply since anyone can see the poster, but you have to specifically subscribe to Playboy in order to see it.
Questionable? It's downright evil, if you ask me. Think of all the time wasted being bombarded by nonsense and the added stress factors, the people killed in highway accidents who were distracted by ads, and so on.
Plus, imagine if, say, Einstein or Newton or Shakespeare were distracted with ads and made to waste their time shredding boatloads of unsolicited credit card applications? I think the overall cost of unrestrained advertising is far greater than even the harsh critics believe.
Now, imagine if life elsewhere is pestered with human ads at frequencies they use for academic communication (blanketing a version of wireless communication, for example). I can just see, after the tenth ad, one of them saying, "All right, to hell with them! This breed called 'homo sapiens'", pausing for a chuckle if they have deciphered what "sapiens" means, "are obviously a menace to sentient life. Let us pool our resources into wiping them out. I know, we are normally pacifists, but there are some things even pacifists cannot abide."
And this is really why I have such a big problem with applying decency standards to satellite radio and cable television. Broadcast radio and television are publicly available on the public airwaves and, until the spectrum was sold off by Reagan's FCC, public property.
With satellite radio and cable television, you have to get special equipment and/or connections, pay a fee for the service, and sometimes even pick very specific channels.
To give an example, my mother got sick and tired of the downward spiral of vulgarity on HBO. So, she cancelled it and has never subscribed to it again. It's that simple. There is no way that she could pick it up even by accident.
Well, ever since the station left orbit, Solaris has mostly been trying to figure out the remaining details of the nature of the universe that it has not yet determined. That, and ejecting the occasional plasmic pseudo-pod from its surface.
Seriously though, were the writers of the Solaris operating system thinking of something like the Sun God, were they just crazed Stanislaw Lem fans, or did something else cause them to give the operating system this name?
Why, by Jove you're right! I just checked out the FAQ at this site and apparently the LaserDisc is actually an analog format. The one player I remember also played CD's, but I guess the player simply uses the red CD laser for reading the analog encoded format. Pretty neat idea, really.
How is he "filled with rage"? He was making a coherent argument for a modicum of sane regulation in the marketplace of the modern mass production/mass media world. Perhaps you should "inquire within" to find the source of the rage you see...
Well, at least until they make the U.S. the 11th province.
I think the parent poster is right about the lighter grooves, both from a logical standpoint and by the fact that the video phonographs came in special plastic containers so that you were not able to touch the actual medium. If you did, the medium would be ruined. Also, I wonder what they plan to do about scratches. Even the video phonographs would develop scratches and skip after a while. This is merely a nuisance when you are watching a movie, but would totally fubar any digital file, especially an executable.
Anyway, I don't think this is a particularly ingenious idea since it has been done before with video. The only real difference is that they are encoding the electrical signals differently so that 1's and 0's are recognized in a specific digital data framework.
In the present example, if Amazon gets a patent from this application , they are not getting patent protection on "Personal Search History", they are getting patent protection on the claims as patented. Also, for anyone to infringe upon an Amazon patent, each and every limitation of an independent claim has to be present in the device that is supposedly infringing.
If you then find it's not granted, well, presumably that's because the patent officials found that your idea didn't meet one of the required criteria, in which case the chances are it was so obvious that revealing it hasn't hurt you anyway...
Theoretically this is true, but having more prior art is useful since rejection under 35 USC 102(b) or even 35 USC 102(a) or (e) is stronger and more easily upheld by the patent appeals board and other courts than a rejection under 35 USC 103(a). For those who don't know the distinction, 35 USC 102(a), (b) and (e) require that each and every limitation of the pending claim be taught by the reference. 35 USC 103(a) is a rejection based on an obvious combination of references, obvious design choice, etc. and is harder to have upheld by the Board or the courts.
You know (and someone may have said this before), I think we may have found the /. equivalent of Godwin's Law. There should be some metric that is used to calculate the relevance of the post to American politics and the number of posts it takes before the Americans on /. start screaming for or against Bush and/or Kerry.
You know, people can apply for just about anything. All that Amazon has right now is an application. The question is, will they actually get a patent or not? If they do get one, what exactly are the claims? They may actually be able to get a patent, but the claim limitations could be so narrow that they are effectly getting zilch in the way of legal protection. A patent then becomes something on the order of - "Look what Og get!"
In fact, not having an application published can actually be less advantageous. If, for example, you don't get a patent (happens quite often despite what crazed /.'ers say), the publication is still out there and can be used as prior art against a later application. In fact, it can help to apply for a patent even if you have no hope of ever getting one since the publication of it can be used as prior art against anyone else trying to patent the same thing.
Or, to take a line from Star Trek VI:
Spock: Jim, they are dying.
Kirk: Let them die!
I must say that this is quite an assumption you are making! One of the reasons I have so few American friends is that there is nothing to talk to them about. Most of their lives are inundated with insane inanities. It is not just the president that seems to live in some bizzare nightmare world. Quite a large portion of the population is constantly babbling about nonsense.
One of the reasons why a system like this can take over, is people in America can usually develop some rationale and enough people will believe it and absorb it into their heads.
Actually, I think the real reason M$ and others file so many patent applications is to flood the patent office, thus making the pendency time increase like mad. By the time any of their competitors are even able to have a patent granted, the protection value is almost nil since the usefulness of their novel idea has become obsolete. If they keep doing this, the pendency will inflate to 20 years, which will render any granted patents completely useless.
Yeah, that's the problem with Berman & Co. They don't seem to realize that what makes good sci-fi, and thus makes rabid fans of us all :-), is an intelligent plot, deep characters, and a complex overall theme. What made the Original Series, and a lot of the old and good sci-fi movies like Forbidden Planet and Soylent Green, so wonderful were the plots that they had, not the special effects. Even when the special effects got better with The Next Generation, the episodes we remember are the ones with a great plot, not necessarily the ones with the best special effects.
So, our sci-fi series plan:
1) Obtain shoe-string budget from obsessed fans
2) Gather a crack team of sci-fi writers and thespians
3) FIRE BERMAN OUT OF A CANNON (SELL TICKETS)
4) Profit!
(Hey, this could really catch on...)