Because:
A. File sharing has caused RIAA lawsuits
B. RIAA lawsuits have pissed off customers
C. Pissed off customers look for other things to buy instead of CD's.
It's also worth noting that people who settle/lose to the RIAA are dead broke and can no long afford to buy music CDs.
The second is not a patent on "moistening stamps and envelopes". Take ONE LOOK at the very few claims. It's for an apparatus that moistens adhesives (stamps, envelopes, whatever). To act like this is a patent for a method of licking a stamp is moronic.
To quote the patent: "The applicator may be in the form of a human tongue and the closure may be in the form of a human lip."
By the way, this was patented in 1981 and is expired.
What does that have to do with anything? Yes, it's expired. That still means someone at the patent office got this application, reviewed it, and approved it.
So where are we at? You have a freaking DESIGN patent (still chuckling about that), a story about the Australian patent system, a 26 year-old patent for a machine that seals envelopes, and clip-on drink umbrellas. WOW, you've REALLY failed to convince me that the US Patent system has demonstrated that it is broken. (A DESIGN patent? I said right up front that you probably don't know much about the patent system and you come back with a DESIGN patent. QED.) Please clarify about those drink umbrellas, though. That'll really knock it out of the park.
For someone so concerned about polite conversation, you sure like ranting like a common troll. Or did you sleep through Netiquette class?
I can't possibly fathom what the problem is with the cocktail umbrella.
There's nothing novel about. It's not a new invention, it's a tacky oversized version of an existing product. The issue is the prior art is incredibly obvious. The patent examiner is supposed to be denying patents on stuff like this.
Patents themselves are not the issue (so thanks for generalizing me as a "Slashdot patent-hater") the problem is the system that currently grants them. The system of review is not open enough or at the very least is staffed by people who don't really have much grasp of the fields they are granting patents for. Things like the Amazon One-Click purchases are handy for shoppers, but they aren't original on the level of "only you should have the ability to use it". I'm sure if we track online shopping back to its roots we would see that One Click was long ago thought up but not implemented to prevent accidental purchasing by consumers who mis-click.
There is no patent. There is a patent application.
Once again, you forgot to the word "yet" at the end of that first sentence. With the way the patent system has already demonstrated it is broken, what with granting individuals patents on such modern breakthroughs as the wheel and forks, do have any doubt this will become a patent in the end?
Maybe that's the question we're really trying to ask here. If dog/cockfighting is illegal, why is possession of materials relating to it legal, whereas videos and literature about the cruel exploitation of another species is not?
So some people are trying to silence magazines about a subject they object to, and Amazon refuses to be intimidated or allow them to intimidate others on their property. Sounds more like a good way to handle free speech to me.
I would normally agree with this sentiment, except in the context we have here. Cockfighting/dogfighting is against the law. This isn't just another case of Christian fundamentalists trying to tell everyone else how to live. Should Amazon be allowed to sell videos about child molestation, or snuff films, too? I'm sorry to have to pull out this old political weapon, but making items like this available on Amazon is only going to make the business more profitable. The FBI raids the houses of people distributing kiddie porn, but video depicting illegal activities are allowed on Amazon. Am I missing something here?
If that happens, some company will spring up outside the USA that will charge a monthly fee to tunnel your Internet traffic through their servers via SSH. And they'll send you the server's public key fingerprint via postal mail so that you can verify that there's no man-in-the-middle attack.
I thought it was a little weird when they said they liked Dashboard Confessional after I talked about their last album. They named all sorts of death metal bands are their favorite groups when we first met.
So, when people say "Ogg Vorbis" what they're actually referring to is a Vorbis audio stream inside an Ogg container. Presumably, it's possible to have a file with a raw Vorbis bitstream (without the Ogg container), and it's certainly possible to have an Ogg container without a Vorbis bitstream. This is also why Ogg Theora files have an.ogg extension; they're actually files with a Theora video stream and (probably) Vorbis audio stream, inside an Ogg container.
So is the only difference between an Ogg Theora and a.OGM file that.OGM doesn't use Theora for its video streams? Why is the extension different when they're both Ogg containers?
I am limited on how much the HMOs will pay me to see those patients, however. And my overhead is somewhat fixed (have to pay that secretary that works for me, etc.) If I spend less time seeing each patient, I get to see more patients and hopefully break even.
If you are forced to cut services to "break even" wouldn't this imply you are not charging enough for your services to start with? HMOs limit the amount they pay you, but you shouldn't let them lord over your own fees. If the HMOs benefit is not enough to cover their doctor's visit, the patient needs to cover the rest or take it up with their HMO, IMHO. Health Insurance will continue to bilk the patient in the name of their own profitability if the subscriber base keeps putting up with it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also worth noting that people who settle/lose to the RIAA are dead broke and can no long afford to buy music CDs.
I guess their Kamikaze warfare tactics paid off.
To quote the patent: "The applicator may be in the form of a human tongue and the closure may be in the form of a human lip."
What does that have to do with anything? Yes, it's expired. That still means someone at the patent office got this application, reviewed it, and approved it.
For someone so concerned about polite conversation, you sure like ranting like a common troll. Or did you sleep through Netiquette class?
There's nothing novel about. It's not a new invention, it's a tacky oversized version of an existing product. The issue is the prior art is incredibly obvious. The patent examiner is supposed to be denying patents on stuff like this.
Patents themselves are not the issue (so thanks for generalizing me as a "Slashdot patent-hater") the problem is the system that currently grants them. The system of review is not open enough or at the very least is staffed by people who don't really have much grasp of the fields they are granting patents for. Things like the Amazon One-Click purchases are handy for shoppers, but they aren't original on the level of "only you should have the ability to use it". I'm sure if we track online shopping back to its roots we would see that One Click was long ago thought up but not implemented to prevent accidental purchasing by consumers who mis-click.
Also, I will say I found the wheel has not been patented. Once again, yet.
But I will give you a couple more:
Here's a patent on moistening stamps and envelopes. Yes, that includes licking them.
Or how about a larger version of cocktail umbrellas to shade your drink from the sun.
Replying to your other post...
Here's your Fork patent.
Patent for the Fork.
And I was mistaken on the wheel. Someone in Australia is trying to patent the wheel, but he hasn't yet.
But they are learning. About the glorious company that is Microsoft! Now, comrades! Let us play the Microsoft National Anthem.
[starts playing special approved version of Rolling Stones' "Start Me Up" with symphonic accompaniment]
Once again, you forgot to the word "yet" at the end of that first sentence. With the way the patent system has already demonstrated it is broken, what with granting individuals patents on such modern breakthroughs as the wheel and forks, do have any doubt this will become a patent in the end?
Maybe that's the question we're really trying to ask here. If dog/cockfighting is illegal, why is possession of materials relating to it legal, whereas videos and literature about the cruel exploitation of another species is not?
This isn't just selling magazines. They offer graphic DVDs of animal fights as well.
You forgot the word "yet" on the end of that sentence.
This post brought to you by Scope mouthwash.
I would normally agree with this sentiment, except in the context we have here. Cockfighting/dogfighting is against the law. This isn't just another case of Christian fundamentalists trying to tell everyone else how to live. Should Amazon be allowed to sell videos about child molestation, or snuff films, too? I'm sorry to have to pull out this old political weapon, but making items like this available on Amazon is only going to make the business more profitable. The FBI raids the houses of people distributing kiddie porn, but video depicting illegal activities are allowed on Amazon. Am I missing something here?
Or you could just set up a Firefox Quick Search with this URL.
What were the President and the CIA doing in Boston?
In Soviet Russia toys welcome YOU.
(once you install the batteries)
Hey, anyone here have Micro Machines as a kid? Imagine having a Micro Machine jet with real working engines.
I thought it was a little weird when they said they liked Dashboard Confessional after I talked about their last album. They named all sorts of death metal bands are their favorite groups when we first met.
Oblig Breakfast Club:
[John hands you shades]
"For better hallway privacy."
Now, if you're excuse me, I need to get back to setting up my Linkskey router...
NO!
and that is a FEATURE!