I agree, especially because the question is asked in the context of a world WITH copyright laws. If the question was "would any creative work financially fail in a world without copyright," then the answer would certainly be yes.
In THIS world, however, I would suspect that our copyright laws adequately prevent the most troubling forms of piracy (e.g. Sony making perfect DVD copies of Disney works and selling them at Best Buy). Of course that kind of piracy has never caused a creative work to fail because Disney would sue Sony into the ground.
They may be called Facebook "friends", but that is just Facebook's nomenclature for "a person with whom you want to share at least a subset of your Facebook information". News flash: Windows' "folders" aren't real folders, Twitter's "tweets" do not come from little birds, and you are not in physical contact with your Linkedin "connections."
If your talk about synonyms is implying that registration is that same as examination, then you are simply wrong. In the context of intellectual property, examination includes substantive review while registration does not. Even in plain English, I find it dubious that registration is a synonym for examination.
You are entitled to your own views of whether extended prosecution should be grounds for rejection, but as the law stands, it is not.
It appears that the declining quality of education in this country also failed to teach you that patents aren't registered
It also appears that you have failed to learn that 2004 (the year facebook was launched) > 1998 (the date of the application to which this application claims priority)
I was thinking this same thing after I noted how many people in forums were asking the same question: "Will Apple/AT&T demand the full amount upfront?" If you can't live without that $200 in the 10 days between now and launch day, maybe you should be rethinking your purchase.
Right, so you defend the position that there's no interpretation involved, then you go ahead and interpret the clause to mean that convicts can be denied the right although that appears nowhere in the actual text. You also interpret arms to mean "not nukes." So I'm just gonna go ahead and interpret "people" to mean "not you."
And it makes sense to grant a regulated monopoly in many cases. For example, when installing multiple competing gas, electric, telephone, and cable lines to every house is incredibly wasteful. You might think that competitors could come up with some kind of shared physical resource scheme, but that's a big collective action problem, easier solved by the government.
So now that we know why its at least reasonable to have cable monopolies, you can see why we also have to regulate that monopoly to prevent abuse.
One approach that looks good to me is to grant a physical monopoly to a fiber optic network supplier (who must remain completely data neutral) and let ISPs compete to offer different services over that network. Some may block BT traffic and have data caps for a lower price. Others will offer premium unlimited service for more.
Really, though, they're all very well qualified in their respective fields. They may lose their jobs, sure, but I doubt they'll have trouble finding others.
Not only that, but they'll probably find higher paying jobs. The most an astronaut can make is about $100k right now (starting around $65k). With qualifications that beat out thousands of other applicants, they probably turned down much more lucrative offers. They took the job because they wanted to be in space, not for the cash.
So yes, they'll land on their feet. But their dream will probably be gone.
I owned a smart phone before getting the iPhone, and the iPhone blew it away.
That said, I'm not getting an iPad because the only advantage I see is the bigger screen, which is also a disadvantage in terms of portability. For me, the iPhone killed the iPad market.
Slowing also wastes gas and increases congestion, smog, etc. And it makes me LATE.
If we don't care about the above, perhaps we should switch to gravel roads and install jack-in-the-box style "pop up" pedestrian cutouts every 10 feet along the road.
What you should have done was give everyone their own free printer, but make them supply the ink themselves (giving them the alternative option of printing to the workgroup laser). This scheme would probably pay for itself very quickly.
Try using the sleep button to end the call. I often hit it instinctively to turn off the screen during a call, and it hangs up on the person I'm talking to.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, especially because the question is asked in the context of a world WITH copyright laws. If the question was "would any creative work financially fail in a world without copyright," then the answer would certainly be yes.
In THIS world, however, I would suspect that our copyright laws adequately prevent the most troubling forms of piracy (e.g. Sony making perfect DVD copies of Disney works and selling them at Best Buy). Of course that kind of piracy has never caused a creative work to fail because Disney would sue Sony into the ground.
I encourage you to also take "Facebook" literally.
http://www.best-microcontroller-projects.com/image-files/oscilloscope.jpg
They may be called Facebook "friends", but that is just Facebook's nomenclature for "a person with whom you want to share at least a subset of your Facebook information". News flash: Windows' "folders" aren't real folders, Twitter's "tweets" do not come from little birds, and you are not in physical contact with your Linkedin "connections."
I think they are trying to say that within the SSD category, value varies significantly.
"Let's take our clothes off first, before they freeze on us." - Works every time on the ladies.
If your talk about synonyms is implying that registration is that same as examination, then you are simply wrong. In the context of intellectual property, examination includes substantive review while registration does not. Even in plain English, I find it dubious that registration is a synonym for examination.
You are entitled to your own views of whether extended prosecution should be grounds for rejection, but as the law stands, it is not.
More like I failed my typing test and fat-fingered a 7 into an 8. However, as 1997 is even earlier than 1998, the typo does not change the analysis.
This is a continuing application claiming priority to an application originally filed in 1997.
It also appears that you have failed to learn that 2004 (the year facebook was launched) > 1998 (the date of the application to which this application claims priority)
Sounds like someone didn't RTFC(laims)
I was thinking this same thing after I noted how many people in forums were asking the same question: "Will Apple/AT&T demand the full amount upfront?" If you can't live without that $200 in the 10 days between now and launch day, maybe you should be rethinking your purchase.
Right, so you defend the position that there's no interpretation involved, then you go ahead and interpret the clause to mean that convicts can be denied the right although that appears nowhere in the actual text. You also interpret arms to mean "not nukes." So I'm just gonna go ahead and interpret "people" to mean "not you."
Well, sure you can. But I prefer California anyways (hate that NY snow).
Obviously... did you even RTF title?
I wish I had mod points. Would the OP rather have the government perform this function? Is that even possible?
But it's got what plants crave. It's got ELECTROLYTES!
So now that we know why its at least reasonable to have cable monopolies, you can see why we also have to regulate that monopoly to prevent abuse.
One approach that looks good to me is to grant a physical monopoly to a fiber optic network supplier (who must remain completely data neutral) and let ISPs compete to offer different services over that network. Some may block BT traffic and have data caps for a lower price. Others will offer premium unlimited service for more.
Really, though, they're all very well qualified in their respective fields. They may lose their jobs, sure, but I doubt they'll have trouble finding others.
Not only that, but they'll probably find higher paying jobs. The most an astronaut can make is about $100k right now (starting around $65k). With qualifications that beat out thousands of other applicants, they probably turned down much more lucrative offers. They took the job because they wanted to be in space, not for the cash.
So yes, they'll land on their feet. But their dream will probably be gone.
Which isn't surprising, since technology gets better with time.
I agree, and this supports my point that a new gizmo can be revolutionary even if you've already experienced and older, crappier gizmo.
However, if you don't think the original iPhone was a smartphone, then you have an unrealistic definition of "smartphone".
I owned a smart phone before getting the iPhone, and the iPhone blew it away. That said, I'm not getting an iPad because the only advantage I see is the bigger screen, which is also a disadvantage in terms of portability. For me, the iPhone killed the iPad market.
Slowing also wastes gas and increases congestion, smog, etc. And it makes me LATE. If we don't care about the above, perhaps we should switch to gravel roads and install jack-in-the-box style "pop up" pedestrian cutouts every 10 feet along the road.
What you should have done was give everyone their own free printer, but make them supply the ink themselves (giving them the alternative option of printing to the workgroup laser). This scheme would probably pay for itself very quickly.
From what I understand with the cost of living at the Ritz-Carlton, $250,000/year will barely pay your rent.
Try using the sleep button to end the call. I often hit it instinctively to turn off the screen during a call, and it hangs up on the person I'm talking to.