An integral part of the photo, like Exif? Why didn't I think of that?
Perhaps they are patenting the GUI flip? No one has done that before, except a GUI for every OS years ago.
I know, it's a patent for a computer system that does all of the above! Brillian1.
Someone please end software patents.
First off, this is a patent application. That means it has not been granted yet. Second, I don't believe the problem is cause by software patents. The problem is that the examiners at the USPTO have very little time (I think less than a day per application) to decide whether to grant it or not. That usually isn't enough time to decide if there is prior art. Of course, this "invention" seems pretty obvious to everyone here. But who knows what kind of background the examiner has...
So my point is that there may be other issues with software patents but your complaint that this is obvious isn't a problem with only software patents. It's a problem with the entire system that can be fixed only by giving the USPTO more resources.
Specifically, may a code-writing organization
prevent a website operator from posting the text of a model code
where the code is identified simply as the building code of a city
that enacted the model code as law? Our short answer is that as
law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject to
the copyright holder's exclusive prerogatives.
The holder of the copyright could lay low forever, and only sue those who they want to sue.
If they threaten him with a suit or even tell him to stop doing what he's doing, he can file a declaratory judgment lawsuit against them to force a court to tell him if the copyright is valid. This happens a lot in patent cases. Someone sends out a letter requesting a license of a patent they own and they get a lawsuit in return. The Supreme Court recently ruled on declaratory judgments and made it easier to bring them.
DARPA had a project going on for awhile called UCAR, which was an unmanned autonomous combat helicopter. Unfortunately the war took all the money and DARPA had to cancel the competitions between Lockheed and Northrop.
If they don't remove it I believe the FCRA allows you to sue them for $1000 for each time they violate it. The law also allows you to get attorney's fees so many lawyers will do this work for free for you.
With or without this law, the kids could still get access to the game at a neighbor's house. You've just reinforced the idea that it should be the parents' responsibility. If parents aren't somewhat aware of what their kids are doing at their friends' houses then they aren't very good parents now are they?
Any lawyers here want to help out? Isn't this an unconstitutional denial of due process? Seems like there is too not enough notice of what the law actually is. Should also have some problems with free speech rights.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a patent. It's a patent application.
An integral part of the photo, like Exif? Why didn't I think of that?
Perhaps they are patenting the GUI flip? No one has done that before, except a GUI for every OS years ago.
I know, it's a patent for a computer system that does all of the above! Brillian1.
Someone please end software patents.
First off, this is a patent application. That means it has not been granted yet. Second, I don't believe the problem is cause by software patents. The problem is that the examiners at the USPTO have very little time (I think less than a day per application) to decide whether to grant it or not. That usually isn't enough time to decide if there is prior art. Of course, this "invention" seems pretty obvious to everyone here. But who knows what kind of background the examiner has...
So my point is that there may be other issues with software patents but your complaint that this is obvious isn't a problem with only software patents. It's a problem with the entire system that can be fixed only by giving the USPTO more resources.
thus preventing the legitimate copyright holder from keeping their copyright.
punish the criminal. in this case that is whoever sent the notices.
This is slashdot. Don't you know that around here simply owning a copyright considered a criminal act and illegitimate.
Specifically, may a code-writing organization prevent a website operator from posting the text of a model code where the code is identified simply as the building code of a city that enacted the model code as law? Our short answer is that as law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject to the copyright holder's exclusive prerogatives.
The holder of the copyright could lay low forever, and only sue those who they want to sue.
If they threaten him with a suit or even tell him to stop doing what he's doing, he can file a declaratory judgment lawsuit against them to force a court to tell him if the copyright is valid. This happens a lot in patent cases. Someone sends out a letter requesting a license of a patent they own and they get a lawsuit in return. The Supreme Court recently ruled on declaratory judgments and made it easier to bring them.
The vendors print the laws. They don't write them.
DARPA had a project going on for awhile called UCAR, which was an unmanned autonomous combat helicopter. Unfortunately the war took all the money and DARPA had to cancel the competitions between Lockheed and Northrop.
Northrop currently has an unmanned helicopter called Firescout that has autonomously landed on a Navy ship while the ship was moving.
My point is that this type of work is nothing new.
If they don't remove it I believe the FCRA allows you to sue them for $1000 for each time they violate it. The law also allows you to get attorney's fees so many lawyers will do this work for free for you.
same for me in windows. firefox 3.0.1
Well this sure puts an end to General Atomics's claim that one Global Hawk costs over $100m.
Does the copyright law say that a license to practice law allows him to read that text and do whatever he wants with it?
Yes. Copyright law says that works by the federal government do not get copyright protection. Please see 17 USC 105.
"I don't like how expensive this product is or who made it, therefore I'm stealing it" is not valid.
No you've got it wrong. He only has a problem with the people who distribute the music (RIAA), not those who make it (the artists).
DISTRIBUTING is the issue and unless she has logs which show exactly how many times she distributed it, she can fuck off.
If the RIAA does not have proof that she distributed to the number of people they claim she distributed to, it can fuck off as well.
Those who pirate movies are going to do it anyways. I highly doubt delaying them a few hours is going to change their weekend plans.
But I bet you never say "I wish there was a heaven for that guy" when someone dies in a really heroic act.
With or without this law, the kids could still get access to the game at a neighbor's house. You've just reinforced the idea that it should be the parents' responsibility. If parents aren't somewhat aware of what their kids are doing at their friends' houses then they aren't very good parents now are they?
It requires that parental lockouts be put in place.
I think a better parental lockout already exists: They can just refuse to buy those games that they believe to be inappropriate for children.
Last I checked Apple is an American company and as far as I know, /. is an American website. You go away.
But there is some stuff to be learned from how Jobs designs products and analyses the market
analyzes
Because when a candidate constantly changes his/her position, it is difficult to know who or what you are voting for.
Your missing one: He can vote "Present".
which is something he has done many many times
Isn't the manslaughter vs. murder decision usually given to the jury?
Their use of the laws they claim she violated is too vague to be enough notice for due process.
Any lawyers here want to help out? Isn't this an unconstitutional denial of due process? Seems like there is too not enough notice of what the law actually is. Should also have some problems with free speech rights.
Most of the time the defendant is not awarded attorneys fees without the plaintiff doing something very egregious.