This case is nonprecedential so that could be why the opinion is so short. It would have been nice for the court to elaborate on why the patent fails the Bilski test.
Here's the claim:
1.
A method of determining whether an immunization schedule affects the incidence or severity of a chronic immune-mediated disorder in a treatment group of mammals, relative to a control group of mammals, which comprises:
immunizing mammals in the treatment group of mammals with one or more doses of one or more immunogens, according to said immunization schedule, and
comparing the incidence, prevalence, frequency or severity of said chronic immune-mediated disorder or the level of a marker of such a disorder, in the treatment group, with that in the control group.
As discussed here, it's difficult to see why immunization of animals is not transformative.
Very unlikely it was a cold sore if it was on your nose. Probably just a bad pimple. There are blood tests available but some give a lot of false positives. Go to an STD clinic if you want to be tested and ask for the IGG test. It is the better one.
Amazon would probably claim some type of derivate work infringement of its website. Not sure it would fly in court though. But winning isn't usually the goal in this type of situation. Getting it to just go away is the main goal.
This will go great with the current economic disaster and out of control college tuition rates. Good thing the current Congress isn't influenced by the music industry. Oh wait...
You are correct about the mutual understanding requirement but not reading a contract before you sign it is never a valid defense. I'm pretty sure the burden will be on the employer to prove they didn't notice the change before they signed...not on you to prove that they did read it. After all, they are the drafter and contracts are always construed against the drafter.
I didn't think the obvious needed to be stated. I think each of these points would be obvious in this case.
Your original statement was generic and not limited to Google. Not all expenses reduce a corporation's tax liability. Look up IRC 162(a) (expenses must be "ordinary and necessary") and the Supreme Court case Welch v. Helvering. There are many more cases on this issue.
They give away the browser and spend all of their revenue on development. So, how much taxable profit did the Mozilla foundation make anyway?
The IRS has nothing to gain from this. I smell a rat closeby!
Profit (income is the better term) is not limited to money earned off of selling products. You can argue that the money from Google was a gift (gifts are not taxable to the recipient but are to the donor, with a small exclusion) but since Google is most likely earning indirect benefits from giving the money to Mozilla, it shouldn't qualify as a gift. It looks more like payment for a service.
Construction workers make a lot more than you might think. For example, a friend of mine got paid $20/hr during college in Chicago to set up cones on the highway at night.
Actually you don't have to take it down but you risk being sued as a result. So the above poster who said there is a difference between a takedown notice and a legal threat really doesn't know what she is talking about.
That's because statutory damages for copyright are higher than what punitive damages would be. Actually, I think for copyright, the statutory damage takes the place of punitive damages.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the claim:
1. A method of determining whether an immunization schedule affects the incidence or severity of a chronic immune-mediated disorder in a treatment group of mammals, relative to a control group of mammals, which comprises:
immunizing mammals in the treatment group of mammals with one or more doses of one or more immunogens, according to said immunization schedule, and
comparing the incidence, prevalence, frequency or severity of said chronic immune-mediated disorder or the level of a marker of such a disorder, in the treatment group, with that in the control group.
As discussed here, it's difficult to see why immunization of animals is not transformative.
Number One! Go take a number two!
Nope. Doesn't help. Privileged in the legal sense means confidential. You obviously are not aware of that fact.
I'm confused. When you say privileged, do you mean that they are not public? Because all court papers are public by default.
Very unlikely it was a cold sore if it was on your nose. Probably just a bad pimple. There are blood tests available but some give a lot of false positives. Go to an STD clinic if you want to be tested and ask for the IGG test. It is the better one.
Amazon would probably claim some type of derivate work infringement of its website. Not sure it would fly in court though. But winning isn't usually the goal in this type of situation. Getting it to just go away is the main goal.
This will go great with the current economic disaster and out of control college tuition rates. Good thing the current Congress isn't influenced by the music industry. Oh wait...
Do you really believe EVERY expenditure by a public company is disclosed to the SEC??
Obviously he is not working for them yet.
Haha...when you get sued do you ask the attorney who sued you what you should do? Good luck.
Not many "research students" have enough money to pay an attorney $250-350/hour to look over their employment contracts.
I hunt in south Georgia and this year's acorn "crop" on our land has been a lot more plentiful than recent years.
You are correct about the mutual understanding requirement but not reading a contract before you sign it is never a valid defense. I'm pretty sure the burden will be on the employer to prove they didn't notice the change before they signed...not on you to prove that they did read it. After all, they are the drafter and contracts are always construed against the drafter.
I find it funny that you start out by saying you don't know what you're talking about and then you are modded informative.
I didn't think the obvious needed to be stated. I think each of these points would be obvious in this case.
Your original statement was generic and not limited to Google. Not all expenses reduce a corporation's tax liability. Look up IRC 162(a) (expenses must be "ordinary and necessary") and the Supreme Court case Welch v. Helvering. There are many more cases on this issue.
Uh...you are assuming that the money spent will qualify as a normal business expense. Not all money spent by a corporation is deductible.
They give away the browser and spend all of their revenue on development. So, how much taxable profit did the Mozilla foundation make anyway? The IRS has nothing to gain from this. I smell a rat closeby!
Profit (income is the better term) is not limited to money earned off of selling products. You can argue that the money from Google was a gift (gifts are not taxable to the recipient but are to the donor, with a small exclusion) but since Google is most likely earning indirect benefits from giving the money to Mozilla, it shouldn't qualify as a gift. It looks more like payment for a service.
Since Google is a profitable entity isn't this tax neutral to google?
If Mozilla loses its tax exemption then Google would have to contribute a lot more to give the same amount of money.
Construction workers make a lot more than you might think. For example, a friend of mine got paid $20/hr during college in Chicago to set up cones on the highway at night.
Actually you don't have to take it down but you risk being sued as a result. So the above poster who said there is a difference between a takedown notice and a legal threat really doesn't know what she is talking about.
You have to own a copyright for it to be a valid DMCA takedown notice. So no, we are not clear.
are not copyrightable. There is no "question" here.
The thing is though that people who pirate and purchase pirated games aren't in their market to begin with.
If you don't like, write your representatives and vote them out if they don't do anything about it.
That's because statutory damages for copyright are higher than what punitive damages would be. Actually, I think for copyright, the statutory damage takes the place of punitive damages.