I wonder if the school administrator who turned them in realized the damage that would be done to these kids. Their lives are ruined. They will fight for a long long time to get this off their record.
Well yes, the two airplanes fly completely different types of missions. Predator is a low flying airplane (~10k feet). GH is an ultra high altitude airplane (~60k feet). The truth is, however, that the Predator likes to fall to the ground. I've heard stories of the pilot station doing constant reboots during missions. That doesn't sound too good to me.
Do you even need AI if you can do low-latency remote control?
Yes. I say this because of the high number of Predator crashes that are always blamed on "pilot" error. Compare that to Global Hawk which has one crash (which was in a very early stage of the aircraft -- late 90s I think), which has a totally autonomous flight control. None of the deployed GHs have crashed. I don't know how many Predators have crashed but for awhile it seemed like I was hearing about them once every 2-3 months.
My old company did 9 hours Mon-Thursday and then 4 hours on Friday you were out at 11:30 on Friday. It was great. I never minded going in at 7:30 and Fridays were almost always useless and low stress.
Patent attorneys know how to write claims correctly. It is not an easy task. Only a foolish inventor would write his patent for himself if he has no prior training in doing so. BTW, I have not read the patent involved in this current case so I can't comment on its quality.
Actually northrop is the lead on that competition and airbus is one of many subcontractors. The ridiculous and money wasting outcry from congress not trusting the air force's decision on that competition leads me to believe there is no way the new air force one will be given to anyone other to boeing. I'd be surprised if airbus even competed for it.
The airbus tanker was to be built in Alabama. In fact, the facility is either already built or currently under construction. So basically, the plane would have been just as American made as a boeing: all foreign parts and assembled in the US. The only difference is that northrop's plane was better, bigger, proven by use in other countries like Australia and created 25000 new jobs in the US. There was a lot of FUD spread by certain congressmen after northrop won that contract.
Judges also have to interpret laws that are not clear. It is impossible for their personal beliefs/knowledge to affect those interpretations. Court rulings are called "opinions" for a reason. Federal judges have life terms and as far as I know, cannot be removed unless they commit a crime.
CONTINUED = invalidated if the state of the art eclipses the parts they add in the continuation.
Sure but what you are discussing is called a "continuation-in-part" which is a continuation that adds new material to the old patent that isn't supported by the original specification. Continuations in part are tricky because they have two priority dates associated with them. A regular continuation is when the patentee claims different things that are supported by the original specification.
I haven't read the patent but the 1996 date will only be applicable to any parts of the claims that are supported by the specification as filed in 1996. Any new material in the claims will get the new date. But you probably knew this since you are a law student.
You obviously don't add a lot of music to your library very often. I only update my library when I have added several hundred songs. There is no way I'm going to manually use the file menu to add each folder. I'm not the only person who has this issue with itunes. Here is what I want: To be able to drag files to a folder and then have itunes recognize the new songs immediately. Apparently that is too much to ask for.
3) iTunes is one of the easiest to use ways of managing your digital music collection
Not really. It would be nice if apple would get its shit together and add auto library updating so I don't have to run some third party application every time I add music to my computer.
Novelty IS a requirement for patentability. Determining if something is patentable subject matter (what I said in my reply) is what Bilski concerned and it is part of the patentability analysis. Novelty is the next step. Look at the statute. 35 USC 101 is patentable subject matter, 35 USC 102 deals with novelty.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if the school administrator who turned them in realized the damage that would be done to these kids. Their lives are ruined. They will fight for a long long time to get this off their record.
Well yes, the two airplanes fly completely different types of missions. Predator is a low flying airplane (~10k feet). GH is an ultra high altitude airplane (~60k feet). The truth is, however, that the Predator likes to fall to the ground. I've heard stories of the pilot station doing constant reboots during missions. That doesn't sound too good to me.
Do you even need AI if you can do low-latency remote control?
Yes. I say this because of the high number of Predator crashes that are always blamed on "pilot" error. Compare that to Global Hawk which has one crash (which was in a very early stage of the aircraft -- late 90s I think), which has a totally autonomous flight control. None of the deployed GHs have crashed. I don't know how many Predators have crashed but for awhile it seemed like I was hearing about them once every 2-3 months.
But I thought big government was the answer? How will we get that without taxes?
My old company did 9 hours Mon-Thursday and then 4 hours on Friday you were out at 11:30 on Friday. It was great. I never minded going in at 7:30 and Fridays were almost always useless and low stress.
Patent attorneys know how to write claims correctly. It is not an easy task. Only a foolish inventor would write his patent for himself if he has no prior training in doing so. BTW, I have not read the patent involved in this current case so I can't comment on its quality.
What are they, $500?
More like $10,000 if you hire a good attorney to write it for you. Just the filing fees (USPTO fees) will exceed $500 though.
Um not really. Maybe you should read up on the topic. There's a reason the air force chose the northrop team.
She went to prison so it was probably more than just unethical. I believe she was guaranteed a position at boeing before she even left the air force.
Actually northrop is the lead on that competition and airbus is one of many subcontractors. The ridiculous and money wasting outcry from congress not trusting the air force's decision on that competition leads me to believe there is no way the new air force one will be given to anyone other to boeing. I'd be surprised if airbus even competed for it.
The airbus tanker was to be built in Alabama. In fact, the facility is either already built or currently under construction. So basically, the plane would have been just as American made as a boeing: all foreign parts and assembled in the US. The only difference is that northrop's plane was better, bigger, proven by use in other countries like Australia and created 25000 new jobs in the US. There was a lot of FUD spread by certain congressmen after northrop won that contract.
oops, meant to say "impossible to not affect those interpretations"
Judges also have to interpret laws that are not clear. It is impossible for their personal beliefs/knowledge to affect those interpretations. Court rulings are called "opinions" for a reason. Federal judges have life terms and as far as I know, cannot be removed unless they commit a crime.
federal judges are appointed, not elected
Having read the patent summary
That's your problem right there. You have to read the claims.
CONTINUED = invalidated if the state of the art eclipses the parts they add in the continuation.
Sure but what you are discussing is called a "continuation-in-part" which is a continuation that adds new material to the old patent that isn't supported by the original specification. Continuations in part are tricky because they have two priority dates associated with them. A regular continuation is when the patentee claims different things that are supported by the original specification.
Reread this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application
I haven't read the patent but the 1996 date will only be applicable to any parts of the claims that are supported by the specification as filed in 1996. Any new material in the claims will get the new date. But you probably knew this since you are a law student.
People around here can't even read the summary and you expect them to read claims from a patent!!!
Uhhh...the commerce clause. Not that I agree with it though.
Are you on a Mac? I'm on Windows.
You obviously don't add a lot of music to your library very often. I only update my library when I have added several hundred songs. There is no way I'm going to manually use the file menu to add each folder. I'm not the only person who has this issue with itunes. Here is what I want: To be able to drag files to a folder and then have itunes recognize the new songs immediately. Apparently that is too much to ask for.
3) iTunes is one of the easiest to use ways of managing your digital music collection
Not really. It would be nice if apple would get its shit together and add auto library updating so I don't have to run some third party application every time I add music to my computer.
Novelty IS a requirement for patentability. Determining if something is patentable subject matter (what I said in my reply) is what Bilski concerned and it is part of the patentability analysis. Novelty is the next step. Look at the statute. 35 USC 101 is patentable subject matter, 35 USC 102 deals with novelty.
You are also confusing the patentable subject matter analysis with the novelty analysis...
Novelty is not part of the patentable subject matter analysis. That is a completely different issue.