And yet, somehow, we all know how to do everyone else's job better than they can! What a fucked up world -- should we all just shuffle our jobs around like in the game of Life? (Milton Bradley, not Conway)
But then the undeniably good teachers are forced to teach to standardized tests. A truly good teacher would know to adapt the lesson to the class dynamic, not the other way around.
The Virginia "Standards of Learning" exams are precisely the progress-measuring standardized tests you suggest, and as best as I can tell they only serve to hold the brightest kids and the best teachers back to some standardized common denominator.
In the US, maybe we'll start treating information the same way the IRS taxes money. Every quarter, you submit all of your own data, including off-shore data, for that quarter. Once a year, you file a report detailing all of your data. We'll call it a "voluntary" data reporting system.
And would also give the end-user no rights to the product, or at the very least would muddle the issue far more than any complex EULA would. You'd have to go to court in every case to figure out what the understanding of the parties was.
It still perplexes me how most Slashbots, many who come from engineering and science backgrounds and should therefore be somewhat inquisitive, can't be bothered to think legal issues through in any sort of intelligent manner. Being dismissive of the whole thing accomplishes nothing, no matter what your world view is. That's not an argument, it's mere contradiction!
They allow abusive entities such as the Free Software Foundation to go after Cisco. If only the software was distributed without cumbersome GLP and LGPL licensing restrictions, and was truly free like software wants to be, then Cisco wouldn't have been forced to violate the licenses.
You do realize you can file whatever you want with the PTO and, as long as it meets basic filing requirements and you send them your money, it will publish, right?
You do also realize that the mere publication has no legal effect unless the application subsequently issues as a patent, right?
Not to mention the poster's ignorance of Bilski is showing. This looks nothing like a pure business method patent application, and would easily survive the machine-or-transformation test.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, just because many Slashdotters have engineering backgrounds doesn't immediately give them tremendous insight into everything. This should be evident from the fact that patent attorneys have this same engineering/science background plus legal knowledge.
That's not to say this is a good patent application. It's crummy. But as parent said, there's plenty of that, and this application poses no threat.
IAAPL (I am a Patent Lawyer)... as an engineer, I loved Slashdot. As a lawyer, I now know better and just come on here for laughs. It's like watching Sarah Palin discuss patent law.
A very good argument could be made in this case that the liability in tort should be imposed on your employer rather than you, under the concept of vicarious liability. This is similar to respondeat superior in agency.
This is not to say you should do it, however. As many like to point out that breaking the law doesn't mean you're necessarily doing something unethical, operating within the law doesn't guarantee that you are being ethical, either.
There are arguments to be made as to why we shouldn't have patents and copyrights -- I've yet to hear anything worthwhile for why there shouldn't be a system of trademarks. What's so wrong about being able to know who makes what and what reputation to associate with a name?
True... but only because there are other instances of usage. If Apple had the first usage of iSomething, and then went about making a few other iProducts, and on top of that no one else entered the iStuff market when there was still a chance, people would likely come to associate iWidget exclusively with Apple. Only then would their influence extend over the entire iThingamajig product range.
Think about it this way: if I opened up a supermarket and called it Ford Supermarket, do you think the Ford Motor Company would be able to stop me? Probably not. Now what if I opened up a supermarket and called it Volkswagen Supermarket? Now I've probably got a problem.
Trademarks exist first and foremost for the protection of the consumer. Having marks readily associated with a product or service is a boon for industry. I'm not sure if you find it surprising, but even colors can be subject to trademark protection as long as, as with any trademark, it's not functional in nature. It's also there so competitors don't mooch off each other's good names.
But I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing your comment or anything -- you have a valid argument regarding the scope of trademark protection. Perhaps people shouldn't be asked to rely on such a simplistic schema to identify a product.
It's legal fiction, sure. I don't think you'll find any attorney who would disagree with you. There are a lot of legal fictions, but they exist because we've determined through the ages (and the concept of IP, especially trademarks, is really old) that they are beneficial to the progress of commerce and the useful arts and sciences.
Actually, not only does it make perfect sense for something like "Gmail" to be trademarkable, it's a decently strong mark (suggestive? possibly even arbitrary). If I say I have a Gmail address, what do you think I'm referring to? If you associate it with the Google service, then there's your justification for its trademark status right there.
That's not funny; it's sad. Intellectual property rights are demonized by those who don't understand them. While there are certainly intelligent arguments to be made about the scope of trademark, patent, copyright, trade secret, and antitrust law, you won't find it here.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not hold a bake sale and buy up the IP in bankruptcy? Surely some devoted fan can make this happen.
And yet, somehow, we all know how to do everyone else's job better than they can! What a fucked up world -- should we all just shuffle our jobs around like in the game of Life? (Milton Bradley, not Conway)
But then the undeniably good teachers are forced to teach to standardized tests. A truly good teacher would know to adapt the lesson to the class dynamic, not the other way around.
The Virginia "Standards of Learning" exams are precisely the progress-measuring standardized tests you suggest, and as best as I can tell they only serve to hold the brightest kids and the best teachers back to some standardized common denominator.
Fortunately for Microsoft, normal people with jobs can afford to pay for a better operating system.
In the US, maybe we'll start treating information the same way the IRS taxes money. Every quarter, you submit all of your own data, including off-shore data, for that quarter. Once a year, you file a report detailing all of your data. We'll call it a "voluntary" data reporting system.
And would also give the end-user no rights to the product, or at the very least would muddle the issue far more than any complex EULA would. You'd have to go to court in every case to figure out what the understanding of the parties was.
It still perplexes me how most Slashbots, many who come from engineering and science backgrounds and should therefore be somewhat inquisitive, can't be bothered to think legal issues through in any sort of intelligent manner. Being dismissive of the whole thing accomplishes nothing, no matter what your world view is. That's not an argument, it's mere contradiction!
Actually, I submit that *nothing* sounds absolutely crazy when you qualify it with "in Japan."
Yes.
They allow abusive entities such as the Free Software Foundation to go after Cisco. If only the software was distributed without cumbersome GLP and LGPL licensing restrictions, and was truly free like software wants to be, then Cisco wouldn't have been forced to violate the licenses.
For shame.
Just because you can split the atom of a molecule doesn't mean you can lead the nation with a microphone.
You do realize you can file whatever you want with the PTO and, as long as it meets basic filing requirements and you send them your money, it will publish, right?
You do also realize that the mere publication has no legal effect unless the application subsequently issues as a patent, right?
I suppose (in the US) you could reject under 112, first paragraph. I wouldn't know, since I don't write claims that sloppily.
Not to mention the poster's ignorance of Bilski is showing. This looks nothing like a pure business method patent application, and would easily survive the machine-or-transformation test.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, just because many Slashdotters have engineering backgrounds doesn't immediately give them tremendous insight into everything. This should be evident from the fact that patent attorneys have this same engineering/science background plus legal knowledge.
That's not to say this is a good patent application. It's crummy. But as parent said, there's plenty of that, and this application poses no threat.
We'll probably be too dumb to figure out where Belgium is and give up. /pandering
Besides, we have reputable citizens that are arrested abroad for far less insidious reasons. You don't need to lecture us; we know how it is.
Yea, I tried playing again recently ... it's better as a memory.
No you won't. I always introduce myself as an engineer.
You must be new here.
IAAPL (I am a Patent Lawyer) ... as an engineer, I loved Slashdot. As a lawyer, I now know better and just come on here for laughs. It's like watching Sarah Palin discuss patent law.
... you insensitive clod! :(
There's a legal way to do this ... c'mon Activision!
A very good argument could be made in this case that the liability in tort should be imposed on your employer rather than you, under the concept of vicarious liability. This is similar to respondeat superior in agency.
This is not to say you should do it, however. As many like to point out that breaking the law doesn't mean you're necessarily doing something unethical, operating within the law doesn't guarantee that you are being ethical, either.
The new mission s/w sounds surprisingly like LOGO. :)
There are arguments to be made as to why we shouldn't have patents and copyrights -- I've yet to hear anything worthwhile for why there shouldn't be a system of trademarks. What's so wrong about being able to know who makes what and what reputation to associate with a name?
True ... but only because there are other instances of usage. If Apple had the first usage of iSomething, and then went about making a few other iProducts, and on top of that no one else entered the iStuff market when there was still a chance, people would likely come to associate iWidget exclusively with Apple. Only then would their influence extend over the entire iThingamajig product range.
Think about it this way: if I opened up a supermarket and called it Ford Supermarket, do you think the Ford Motor Company would be able to stop me? Probably not. Now what if I opened up a supermarket and called it Volkswagen Supermarket? Now I've probably got a problem.
Trademarks exist first and foremost for the protection of the consumer. Having marks readily associated with a product or service is a boon for industry. I'm not sure if you find it surprising, but even colors can be subject to trademark protection as long as, as with any trademark, it's not functional in nature. It's also there so competitors don't mooch off each other's good names.
But I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing your comment or anything -- you have a valid argument regarding the scope of trademark protection. Perhaps people shouldn't be asked to rely on such a simplistic schema to identify a product.
It's legal fiction, sure. I don't think you'll find any attorney who would disagree with you. There are a lot of legal fictions, but they exist because we've determined through the ages (and the concept of IP, especially trademarks, is really old) that they are beneficial to the progress of commerce and the useful arts and sciences.
Actually, not only does it make perfect sense for something like "Gmail" to be trademarkable, it's a decently strong mark (suggestive? possibly even arbitrary). If I say I have a Gmail address, what do you think I'm referring to? If you associate it with the Google service, then there's your justification for its trademark status right there.
That's not funny; it's sad. Intellectual property rights are demonized by those who don't understand them. While there are certainly intelligent arguments to be made about the scope of trademark, patent, copyright, trade secret, and antitrust law, you won't find it here.