What it left me wondering, though, was why not whip out a note pad or sticky note?
Hi. I'm your lawyer. I'll be happy to bill you for the time it takes me to enter what I wrote on my note pad into the contract I am editing on my computer. Or to do the same for all my illegible-to-even-my-secretary revisions that I made to print out of the same contract when on the train home. Effectively I get to double bill you (no, I don't really do this, but it DOES cut into productivity to effectively do something twice).
Seriously, here's my thing as a law student: all my class notes are done via highlight coloring. Yellow for facts, green for issue, pink for reasoning, etc. That's great if I lug my book around. But if I were to download the pdfs of all my cases, and highlight them on my computer, as well as annotate (and search), it makes organizing notes and creating course outlines at the end of the year a lot easier and more productive. I am dying for a tablet PC. Just need to scrape up $1500+ somewhere.
The only thing I can come up with is the freedom to do what you want
Well my personal definition is basically the above. Faced with a situation, you can do A or B (and with true free will you may even do X which no one considered an option). I understand your point about determinism, i.e., why do I have choice A and B? Well because my past experiences and influences all led me to believe that A and B are choices, and people's (my parent's) prior experiences led to my existence and raising, ad infinitum, but for me it is a very simple case of "I cannot "choose" against God, yet Christianity's salvation is rooted in man's choice of God over evil." Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but that is a pretty big monkeywrench in my spiritual gears.
No, by definition if God knows what I will choose, then I cannot choose against what he knows I will. This is not like someone having a good hunch of what I will decide, this is God knowing what I will decide. Therefor, no matter how attractive the illusion that I am making my own choice, the reality is that I am not. I cannot choose against God's knowledge. And since salvation in Christianity is based on me "choosing" God's path, I'm pretty much saved or damned from the get-go since he already knows the outcome.
Reconcile Freewill and God's Omniscience for me. Until someone gives me an answer I think isn't total bunk or involves parallel universes, I just ain't buyin' the amighty. I am agnostic at best.
In addition, in the end, they have a strong brand. When the X-Box came out, I was among the "I will never give MS my money! Ever!" but over time, as more and more games came out for all systems and the X-Box had the best graphics, I weakened. Then there was Halo 2. I grew up and broke down. The X-Box is a hell of a console. I'll definitely get the next one. Not at first, simply because I've moved past the need to have a console/game the day it comes out, but the X-Box, with X-Box Live, is a superior platform for any game that comes out on all systems. I'll get a PS3 because some of the PS exclusive titles just make it worth it, but if I was going to get only one, I really think MS has established the X-Box to be not just a competitor, but a leader (XBL far surpasses any online matchmaking for a console for the price of 1 game a year).
You're getting confused by the fact that firewire is beating something that is extremely slow.
He's not confused, it's his point. Internal drive, 4200 RPM == slow and sucky. External Firewire drive, 7200 RPM == spins fast enough to make up for the connection latency. Therefore, an external 7200 RPM firewire drive is faster than a 4200 IDE. I'll confirm the boot up speed difference. My iBook boots much faster from my LaCie FW drive than from its internal drive. Random access and normal usage though? I can't make any claims in that regard.
I understand what you were saying. I was saying software should be patentable because it performs a function or method. Something more than, say, a book does. Because patents cover processes, such as manufacturing processes, then why not cover a software process?
No, he's spot on. The PTO, if it was really diligent, would slap down every non-novel and/or obvious patent application's claims, or at least the broad ones. The problem is that the PTO has an incentive to grant patents. They make money for every issued patent. They make substantially less for every rejected one. They should work harder at forcing the inventors to narrow the scope of the claims. At the end of the day, the examiner has the say if an application gets allowed or not.
If you don't want people to copy your ideas, don't put them out in public where people can see them. That's what trade secrets are for. If you can't use it without revealing what it is, then it wasn't non-obvious enough, now was it?
Bullshit. You can run a decompiler on the most non-obvious executable and see exactly what it does. The trivial ability to copy code as well as its transparency has turned the tables on the competitive market. Back in the day, to copy someone else's invention, you had to go out and buy the materials yourself and reverse engineer it. With code you effectively have to burn it onto your own CD and put it in a new box. It's not capitalism, it's free-riding, something the capitalist economy does not endorse.
Thats a good point - how come software patents are fine but patents on books are not?
Because a book is not functional and software is. How can people on slashdot hope to have an intelligent conversation about intellectual property if they don't even know what is covered and not covered by copyright, patents, etc.? You cannot cover a functional aspect of <an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium>. Let's examine both:
Copyright statute, 17 USC Sect. 102(b):
"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery..."
The following is what can be patented under 35 USC Sect 101:
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions of this title"
They cover mutually exclusive subject matter. Well how then can you have both a copyright and a patent on code? You have a copyright on the words of the program. Copyright is an anti-copying property right. Anyone copying those exact words, or derivative thereof, is committing copyright infringement. If you come up with your own, different way to do it, or you even come up with the exact same way in a vacuum, no copyright infringement since copyright fails if there was originality, i.e., you thought of it yourself vs. novelty, i.e., you were the first to think of it.
Patents however cover the functional aspect of your code. If someone makes, uses, sells, or offers to sell the same "process" in another language, even if they never saw yours, they are infringing your patent. To patent something, it must be novel. Originality is another, lesser part of the test.
Now, do you understand why there is no patent on creating a book about $genre (hint, a book is covered by copyright since it has no functional aspect)?
[Statute] Definitions 1. The term "wire communication" means any communication made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception.
2. The term "oral communication" means speech, except such speech as is transmitted over the public air waves by radio or other similar device.
3. The term "intercepting device" means any device or apparatus which is capable of transmitting, receiving, amplifying, or recording a wire or oral communication other than a hearing aid or similar device which is being used to correct subnormal hearing to normal and other than any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, facility, or a component thereof...
[snip/]
Prohibitions Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section any person who--
willfully commits an interception, attempts to commit an interception, or procures any other person to commit an interception or to attempt to commit an interception of any wire or oral communication shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned in the state prison for not more than five years, or imprisoned in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or both so fined and given one such imprisonment.
Proof of the installation of any intercepting device by any person under circumstances evincing an intent to commit an interception, which is not authorized or permitted by this section, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this subparagraph.
[/Statute]
So it's any conversation capturing device when that conversation occurs over a wire (and it covers just recording a street conversation between you and I). MA, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington are all multiparty consent states where everyone potentially being recorded must consent. If I were the counsel opposing the recorder, I would definitely argue their communications are both oral and coming over a wire. For IM, you could even make the wire case there as well.
I always admire it when people post AC. I mean, you don't even have the balls to say what you're going to say while hiding behind a registered handle (like I do)? That's a level of spinelessness I could never hope to achieve. Bravo.
They are satires. The sitcoms are not, though they are meant to portray humorous situations
I fail to see the difference. They are plotted on the same continuum of making fun of real life. The cartoons are only more extreme because they are not constrained by reality. *shrug*
Turn on TV at any given time in prime time and you'll see some moron man (Everyone Loves Raymond) being bossed around by his bitchy wife. I'm not gonna watch shit like that
and...
And if TV isn't going to entertain me, then I'm going to watch Family Guy and Futurama reruns until the cows come home
Wow. I wish I could even convey my disbelief. Let me hit you with the clue stick a couple times: In Family Guy, Peter is an idiot. In fact, the entire show centers around this. Same with Fry. Who are the intelligent, assertive characters that typically point out their counterparts' idiocy? Peg and Leela. You are too retarded for words.
So substitute the word "copyright" for "trademark" in my post, and the argument is still the same.
And still misguided. There ARE limitations to what you can claim a trademark in. Someone CAN open an amusement park using "I'm loving it" and not infringe McDonald's BECAUSE they are marketing different consumer goods. That's the existing law today. Yeesh. But what McDonald's would sue under is Trademark dilution, a completely different cause of action. However, they would probably lose because "Mc" is a famous mark that everyone associates with McDonald's whereas "I'm lovin' it" has not gained nearly the fame the "Mc" family of marks has.
For the record, there are duration limitations to trademarks too so that if McDonalds isn't using a trademark in commerce when it comes time to renew the mark, they will lose the mark and anyone may use it on anything, including fast food.
Now, as for your war of attrition complaint, well that comes down to economics. McDonalds can afford the best lawyers and can afford to wear competition down. If we level the playing field, well then we just go to socialized law, at which point the lawyer you would get could be some knucklehead who got his JD from a 5th tier school while McDonalds gets a Harvard grad just because they can pay off whoever is assinging counsel that day. Money talks and always will.
Slashdot Mirror
No because that's the reason they are rejecting it. The crimping is not legally distinct.
Only if you're running Gentoo.
-truth
Hi. I'm your lawyer. I'll be happy to bill you for the time it takes me to enter what I wrote on my note pad into the contract I am editing on my computer. Or to do the same for all my illegible-to-even-my-secretary revisions that I made to print out of the same contract when on the train home. Effectively I get to double bill you (no, I don't really do this, but it DOES cut into productivity to effectively do something twice).
Seriously, here's my thing as a law student: all my class notes are done via highlight coloring. Yellow for facts, green for issue, pink for reasoning, etc. That's great if I lug my book around. But if I were to download the pdfs of all my cases, and highlight them on my computer, as well as annotate (and search), it makes organizing notes and creating course outlines at the end of the year a lot easier and more productive. I am dying for a tablet PC. Just need to scrape up $1500+ somewhere.
-truth
-truth
Then God is not omniscient.
-truth
Well my personal definition is basically the above. Faced with a situation, you can do A or B (and with true free will you may even do X which no one considered an option). I understand your point about determinism, i.e., why do I have choice A and B? Well because my past experiences and influences all led me to believe that A and B are choices, and people's (my parent's) prior experiences led to my existence and raising, ad infinitum, but for me it is a very simple case of "I cannot "choose" against God, yet Christianity's salvation is rooted in man's choice of God over evil." Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but that is a pretty big monkeywrench in my spiritual gears.
-truth
-truth
-truth
-truth
He's not confused, it's his point. Internal drive, 4200 RPM == slow and sucky. External Firewire drive, 7200 RPM == spins fast enough to make up for the connection latency. Therefore, an external 7200 RPM firewire drive is faster than a 4200 IDE. I'll confirm the boot up speed difference. My iBook boots much faster from my LaCie FW drive than from its internal drive. Random access and normal usage though? I can't make any claims in that regard.
-truth
-truth
-truth
Bullshit. You can run a decompiler on the most non-obvious executable and see exactly what it does. The trivial ability to copy code as well as its transparency has turned the tables on the competitive market. Back in the day, to copy someone else's invention, you had to go out and buy the materials yourself and reverse engineer it. With code you effectively have to burn it onto your own CD and put it in a new box. It's not capitalism, it's free-riding, something the capitalist economy does not endorse.
-truth
Because a book is not functional and software is. How can people on slashdot hope to have an intelligent conversation about intellectual property if they don't even know what is covered and not covered by copyright, patents, etc.? You cannot cover a functional aspect of <an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium>. Let's examine both:
Copyright statute, 17 USC Sect. 102(b):
"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery..."
The following is what can be patented under 35 USC Sect 101:
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions of this title"
They cover mutually exclusive subject matter. Well how then can you have both a copyright and a patent on code? You have a copyright on the words of the program. Copyright is an anti-copying property right. Anyone copying those exact words, or derivative thereof, is committing copyright infringement. If you come up with your own, different way to do it, or you even come up with the exact same way in a vacuum, no copyright infringement since copyright fails if there was originality, i.e., you thought of it yourself vs. novelty, i.e., you were the first to think of it.
Patents however cover the functional aspect of your code. If someone makes, uses, sells, or offers to sell the same "process" in another language, even if they never saw yours, they are infringing your patent. To patent something, it must be novel. Originality is another, lesser part of the test.
Now, do you understand why there is no patent on creating a book about $genre (hint, a book is covered by copyright since it has no functional aspect)?
-truth
M.G.L 272, Section 99 (sorry if the format is wrong, don't have my bluebook handy)
[Statute]
Definitions
1. The term "wire communication" means any communication made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception.
2. The term "oral communication" means speech, except such speech as is transmitted over the public air waves by radio or other similar device.
3. The term "intercepting device" means any device or apparatus which is capable of transmitting, receiving, amplifying, or recording a wire or oral communication other than a hearing aid or similar device which is being used to correct subnormal hearing to normal and other than any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, facility, or a component thereof...
[snip/]
Prohibitions
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section any person who--
willfully commits an interception, attempts to commit an interception, or procures any other person to commit an interception or to attempt to commit an interception of any wire or oral communication shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned in the state prison for not more than five years, or imprisoned in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or both so fined and given one such imprisonment.
Proof of the installation of any intercepting device by any person under circumstances evincing an intent to commit an interception, which is not authorized or permitted by this section, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this subparagraph.
[/Statute]
So it's any conversation capturing device when that conversation occurs over a wire (and it covers just recording a street conversation between you and I). MA, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington are all multiparty consent states where everyone potentially being recorded must consent. If I were the counsel opposing the recorder, I would definitely argue their communications are both oral and coming over a wire. For IM, you could even make the wire case there as well.
-truth
-truth
-truth
-truth
I fail to see the difference. They are plotted on the same continuum of making fun of real life. The cartoons are only more extreme because they are not constrained by reality. *shrug*
-truth
and...
And if TV isn't going to entertain me, then I'm going to watch Family Guy and Futurama reruns until the cows come home
Wow. I wish I could even convey my disbelief. Let me hit you with the clue stick a couple times: In Family Guy, Peter is an idiot. In fact, the entire show centers around this. Same with Fry. Who are the intelligent, assertive characters that typically point out their counterparts' idiocy? Peg and Leela. You are too retarded for words.
-truth
Sounds like someone that doesn't have a wife. Good show, ol' chap. ALL of my purchases have to go through the missus.
-truth
Shamelessly biting School of Rock,
-truth
And still misguided. There ARE limitations to what you can claim a trademark in. Someone CAN open an amusement park using "I'm loving it" and not infringe McDonald's BECAUSE they are marketing different consumer goods. That's the existing law today. Yeesh. But what McDonald's would sue under is Trademark dilution, a completely different cause of action. However, they would probably lose because "Mc" is a famous mark that everyone associates with McDonald's whereas "I'm lovin' it" has not gained nearly the fame the "Mc" family of marks has.
For the record, there are duration limitations to trademarks too so that if McDonalds isn't using a trademark in commerce when it comes time to renew the mark, they will lose the mark and anyone may use it on anything, including fast food.
Now, as for your war of attrition complaint, well that comes down to economics. McDonalds can afford the best lawyers and can afford to wear competition down. If we level the playing field, well then we just go to socialized law, at which point the lawyer you would get could be some knucklehead who got his JD from a 5th tier school while McDonalds gets a Harvard grad just because they can pay off whoever is assinging counsel that day. Money talks and always will.
-truth
What does the umbrella of law that both fall under have to do with confusion?
Intellectual Property
1)copyright
2)patent
3)trademark
shou ld be no less confusing than
Torts
1)negligence
2)intentional torts (e.g., battery)
No one confuses battery and product liability do they?
-truth
-truth