I wasn't aware that the **AA had a fundamental right to make billions of dollars a year.
Ummm, yeah. That was kinda the whole point of my post (anonymous as it was). People should stop downloading stuff so the **AA can't blame piracy for the failure of their crappy business model. People justify piracy by saying "well I wasn't going to buy it anyway," my point being, "well then don't watch it at all. You don't have a right to be entertained."
The **AA business model is broken. Stop giving them excuses (piracy) to run to Congress for help.
Just because it has a broad title doesn't mean the claims aren't very specific.
Dear Feynman,
Please stop posting. Telling people that a patent's title has nothing to do with the claims, while true, quiets the uninformed weeping and gnashing of teeth we look for when posting patent topics. We would appreciate you taking your accuracy elsewhere. Thank you.
I can't believe all the tripe that that is modded insightful while the parent post wallows at 1. "Sears system is prior art." +5 Informative. If/.ers spent half the time they spend bitching instead reading the statutes and case law, they'd realize that 90% of what they consider "obvious," isn't. I'm sorry, but saying a mail order catalogue system makes implementing a potentially completely different algorithmic (or combination of algorithms) solution on a web site in 1997 obvious is idiotic. That's like saying I have a boat and I know about pond skimming bugs, so a hydrofoil is completely obvious. Whatever. Yes, there are bad patents out there, but this isn't one of them.
Satire n. - Irony, (nope) sarcasm (nope), or caustic wit (nope) used to attack (wrong target) or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
Sorry, no irony or sarcasm or caustic wit in your post and you attacked the specification, which means nothing in terms of infringement. Attacking the claims would have been another matter. Apparently it is you who has no grasp of satire since satire only works if you are mocking what is important.
Ever since my mandrake update borked my Netgear MA311v2 wireless nic. I have exactly the chicken egg problem: can't get the next update w/out the connectivity. I even tried 10.1 Community with no luck. OpenBSD always had great NIC support, but I got tired of dealing with chroot on my webserver (different machine) when I wanted to add gallery and other dynamic page processing stuff, so I switched both to Mandrake. Now I'm considering putting OpenBSD on my non-critical desktop to get the wirelss NIC support and keeping Mandrake on my webserver. How's that for backwards??
I ride the MBTA in Boston to work every day. My bag, along with everyone else's was searched both to and from work each day during the DNC. And by searched I mean sometimes looked into, sometimes only looked at, and sometimes rifled through.
The fear of terrorism, of which the PATRIOT Act is an extension of, basically chucked my Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure out the window. When I did not consent to a search, I was escorted off the train and told to hoof it home (which is 25 miles away). I do not have a car that I can take into work. A District Court judge ruled that the searches were "reasonable." The MBTA has expressed that they will continue these in the future at their discretion.
A minor inconvenience in the big scheme of things, but this is how it starts.
Dear sir or madam: you obviously have no grasp of patent law. Everything you quoted is completely irrelevant. The part you want to look at is:
1. A three-dimensional panning method comprising the steps of:
storing applied graphic information representing a three-dimensional object in a first three-dimensional coordinate modeling space;
defining a second three-dimensional coordinate space as a viewing space from which the object may be viewed, the viewing space being movable at a selected radial distance around a selected reference point in the modeling space;
inputting and storing further information including panning information specifying a position from which to view the object;
moving the viewing space to the specified position in response to the panning information, effecting a transform of the coordinates of the object to the viewing space and to a two-dimensional coordinate screen space; and
displaying a two-dimensional image of the transformed coordinates, providing a view of the object from the panned-to-position.
That is a claim. That is what determines if you are infringing or not. Forget the sepcification since that is just telling you of one way of practicing the invention. Note that the claim does not mention who makes your CPU or what display technology you are using. Therefore, it isn't "legal" if you use and AMD processor.
A) nice blanket statement. Becuase all lawyers are exactly the same. B) Just wait till you're accused of a crime you didn't commit. Murder, drug possession, hell, even speeding. Then we'll see who thinks lawyers suck.
There are bad lawyers like there are bad doctors, bad postmen, and bad engineers. Just because the bad ones are more visible does not mean they make up even a noticable minority. Do you hate all Palenstinians because a few choose to blow themselves up everyday?
The good thing about being a geek is that it's relatively easy for them to get out of jury duty.
You people make me sick. You live in a country that affords you the privilege of a trial in front of your peers and you can't spare one fucking day out of three years to help out??? There are countries in the world where "trial" means you get to stand up in front of a firing squad and get a cigarette. How many people have died over the last two hundred and almost thirty years so you could have the freedoms you have and this is how you show your appreciation?? It's "easy for [me] to get out of jury duty?" Get the fuck out of my country because you don't fucking deserve to be here. Oh wait, staying here because you disagree with me is another fucking freedom you have. People bitch here on/. all the time because of some bogus court ruling. Well guess who decides a case? The jury! But it's good people are putting there money where their mouth is and dodging jury duty. That's the way to change the system. gg, ass.
this is possibly one of the worst ideas I've read here. Engineers have a skewed view of the law. They expect it to be black and white and there to be a bright line that divides them. The fact is, no such bright line exists, nor should it for the simple fact that you cannot predict the human condition.
You cannot have an ordinance, written in 1850, that says "no vehicles in the park" and have it be meaningful. Why are there no vehicles in the park? To protect people walking? To preserve the pristine grass? To promote quiet throughout? In answering any of these questions there are hundreds of "vehicles" that have been created since the ordinance was enacted that fall on either side of the line: skateboards, bicycles, push scooters, electric scooters, gas-powered scooters, golf carts, segues, gas-powered cars, solar powered cars, someday hovercrafts or personal jetpacks, or hoverdisks. Is the answer to update the laws every time a new "vehicle" comes out?
If so, someone spends all there time each day updating laws only to go back next month and repeat. If not, then you have to take your best guess what a vehicle is which has led us to exactly what you are arguing we need to get rid of. Trying to codify the law into black and white will not, and cannot work.
Good to hear they work for some. Seriously. I hope that if I am ever shafted by a company, one will work for me. So far though, no such luck. But like I said, I wasn't really "injured" as a consumer of the companies I was adverse to, so I can't and won't really complain.
and truthfully, I don't have it either. First, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a law student, so I am generally pro-lawyer. That being said, I have also been a member of several "classes." I was a sprint customer for a couple years after 1998, I bought contacts from Bausch & Lomb during 2000 or something too and a couple others. As a member of these classes I got two things after our side won: jack and squat. I think I got a $10 credit off a Sprint bill and like $20 off one pair of contacts.
Now I realize a little multiplied by a lot equals a lot, but these were all little coupons for more of the offending party's products. And, again to be truthful, I never felt injured by either company so I wasn't really miffed about my lack of compensation.
But it all just proved to me that class actions might hurt the company (and I say "might" assuming everyone cashes their coupons in, which they won't) but they do not compensate the injured, which is the idea behind our civil system. Punishment is generally reserved for our criminal courts, compensation for our civil ones. The fact is, class action suits really don't benefit anyone.
A fair assessment. Truth be told, I've rarely bought it. There are only a few items I would be really pissed about croaking on me: PS2 at launch (different story now), an HDTV if I had one. I also consider the use. I got Applecare for my iBook because the iBook's always in my backpack. Same for my iPod. But if I bought an Apple desktop I probably wouldn't get Applecare because I expect to abuse it less. Ideally the dektop machine would just sit there.
Despite the fact that many plans claim not to replace it if you damage it, as long as it is not overtly wrecked by a human, I've never had a problem with a return.
They offer extended warranties on console systems? And people actually pay for that?
Yup. I paid an extra $30 when I bought my PS2 (at launch) and got the 3 (2 maybe?) years extended warranty. One year, 2 months later, my PS2 died because something was wrong with the fan and it overheated or something. I took it back to EB, showed them my warranty, and they gave me a new one. Not a refurb, either. Brand new. Worked great ever since.
These days, my metric is: would I be willing to pay full price again after a year for this without being majorly pissed? If the answer is no, then I get the warranty. I bought my Gamecube for $99 and didn't get the insurance because if it broke after a year, I'd be annoyed I'd pay another $100, but I'd cross that bridge if I came to it.
It's like any insurance. You hope you never need it, but you are glad you have it when you do.
The Congress can not pass a law without the President signing or vetoing it
Actually, they can pass it w/o him. They can pass it into law with a 2/3 vote after he sits on it (or if Congress is not in session), though I guess that falls under "without him vetoing it" since it is a "pocket veto."
For what it's worth, I would typically just leave this be, but I decided to jump in for kicks. Hope you don't mind too much.
I don't mind at all since I'm only continuing this (past my original reply actually) for kicks. Hell, this userid isn't even my original one. I just created it with the purpose of bringing up weaknesses in people's statements I thought were important without being my usual please-everyone self. If I'm a dick, I'm a dick. If I'm wrong, then prove it to me. I basically speak what I think to be the honest truth when using this userid (though i haven't used my original in a while). Anyways...
To nitpick, my main problem with this whole argument is really around the "input" each has to the process. Congress drafts the law. Someone in Congress pours over the wording, gets support, and they vote on it. Then the president/states just say "mmmm ok." So I wouldn't say the President makes laws, like I wouldn't say the states "amend" the constitution (though especially after this conversation I wouldn't say congress amends it either _without_the_states_). I truly view the process, both amendments and "making law" as Congress getting it 90% there and thus they should get the majority of the credit, though strictly speaking 90% isn't 100%. I see where you and everyone is coming from, you still need the other 10%, but I feel that the other 90% deserves the majority of the credit of the process, and thus the slang for "Congress amends the constitution" should be ok. Saying the opposite, shouldn't. Likewise, Congress makes laws, the President doesn't. *shrug*
But you don't say the President makes laws do you?
Correct. I would say he signs the laws that Congress proposes, just like the states ratify the amendments proposed by Congress in the amendment process. Congress drafts them both, i.e., "making them" and the President/States sign them. Similar to the amendment process, you need both halves, but I, personally, would not say the "President makes laws." *shrug*
Let's compare directly. 2.......... does not equal.... 4 (without adding 2)
Congress... can not amend.... the Constitution (without states)
OK, now we're getting somewhere. I buy this argument. HOWEVER, Congress's job, it's very function, is to draft laws, some of which alter the Constitution (if ratified by the states to speak completely). To ignore Congress's primary function, in the context of the Constitutional amendment process makes no sense.
But I will concede your way of looking at it, in the context of the equation I provided, is not flawed.
Why, because then I'd be appointed since W doesn't want activist judges? He wants Justices that will strictly interpret the Constitution aka closed-minded judges.
As for being close-minded, I am no less close-minded than the other side claiming Congress has no part in the Amendment process. Christ, I even provided an authoritative link stating the opposite of the thread-parent's generalization "Congress can't amend the Constitution," yet I'm the one obviously in the dark.
Anyway, this comment struck a chord: "I assume you say that Congress makes the laws" Yes, actually I would say that. Contrary to your point, I am quite open-minded. Please correct my understanding that Congress makes the laws. And please don't tell me that a Senator/Representative authors it, gets it voted on in the House/Senate and then vice versa, and then signed by the President is not "making law" because the President is the one that signs it. To do this would rehash the amendment conversation since you need both halves. I'm serious: AFAIK Congress makes the laws. If your argument is other than the Congress/President example I just provided, please, please, please correct me.
And for any other potential respondents, i'll argue ad nauseam about this, so keep them coming. I won't budge. The argument people keep saying is like "2 = 4," but they keep leaving off "2+." You don't get to 4 unless you have both parts: "2+2." You might as well save your breath though, you'll never convince me otherwise.
No, that is assinine. You are so far removed from the process that it is not a correct analogy. I wouldn't even concede that a senator gets the ball rolling. It is a two part process, Congress is the first part, the states are the second. Only in rare circumstances can the states go at it alone. I never said the Congress amends it by itself. But to say that Congress has no part in the two part process of amending the Constitution is just as wrong.
The states CAN ammend without the Congress, Congress CAN NOT ammend without the states.
I never once said otherwise. In fact, in other replies in this thread, I said the exact same thing. My exception to the original post was that he did not add the qualifier "without the states." He simply said that Congress cannot amend the Constitution, which is only partially correct. I acknowledge that amendments are ratified by the states, but to imply that Congress absolutely cannot amend the Constitution is flat out wrong since they start the process of amending the Constitution 99% of the time. The states CAN amend the Constitution by themselves, but almost every time, they RATIFY proposed amendments. Erego, the states and the congress, together, amend the Constitution. Excluding the Congress half of the process is to neglect the way the system works most of the time. And THAT is easy to understand.
We could go back and forth forever. Congress is involved in amending the Constitution. Just deal with it. If they don't propose the amendments, then the amendments don't exist for the states to ratify. The only time the Constitution has been amended without Congress was the 18th Amendment, and that was repealed. You won't accept I'm right, nor will I accept you are. To continue to do the semantic dance is a waste of both our times. You won't convince me I'm wrong and it's pretty safe to say that I won't convince you either.
So what do the states vote on to amend the Constitution? They can't vote on nothing. They vote on the amendments Congress proposes. Thus, both Congress and the States together amend the Constitution. Other than the rare occurrence of the states getting together by themselves, the normal procedure is that the two work together to amend the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, yeah. That was kinda the whole point of my post (anonymous as it was). People should stop downloading stuff so the **AA can't blame piracy for the failure of their crappy business model. People justify piracy by saying "well I wasn't going to buy it anyway," my point being, "well then don't watch it at all. You don't have a right to be entertained."
The **AA business model is broken. Stop giving them excuses (piracy) to run to Congress for help.
-truth
Dear Feynman,
Please stop posting. Telling people that a patent's title has nothing to do with the claims, while true, quiets the uninformed weeping and gnashing of teeth we look for when posting patent topics. We would appreciate you taking your accuracy elsewhere. Thank you.
-CmdrTaco
-truth
Sorry, no irony or sarcasm or caustic wit in your post and you attacked the specification, which means nothing in terms of infringement. Attacking the claims would have been another matter. Apparently it is you who has no grasp of satire since satire only works if you are mocking what is important.
-truth
-truth
The fear of terrorism, of which the PATRIOT Act is an extension of, basically chucked my Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure out the window. When I did not consent to a search, I was escorted off the train and told to hoof it home (which is 25 miles away). I do not have a car that I can take into work. A District Court judge ruled that the searches were "reasonable." The MBTA has expressed that they will continue these in the future at their discretion.
A minor inconvenience in the big scheme of things, but this is how it starts.
-truth
-truth
1. A three-dimensional panning method comprising the steps of:
That is a claim. That is what determines if you are infringing or not. Forget the sepcification since that is just telling you of one way of practicing the invention. Note that the claim does not mention who makes your CPU or what display technology you are using. Therefore, it isn't "legal" if you use and AMD processor.
-truth
A) nice blanket statement. Becuase all lawyers are exactly the same. B) Just wait till you're accused of a crime you didn't commit. Murder, drug possession, hell, even speeding. Then we'll see who thinks lawyers suck.
There are bad lawyers like there are bad doctors, bad postmen, and bad engineers. Just because the bad ones are more visible does not mean they make up even a noticable minority. Do you hate all Palenstinians because a few choose to blow themselves up everyday?
-truth
You people make me sick. You live in a country that affords you the privilege of a trial in front of your peers and you can't spare one fucking day out of three years to help out??? There are countries in the world where "trial" means you get to stand up in front of a firing squad and get a cigarette. How many people have died over the last two hundred and almost thirty years so you could have the freedoms you have and this is how you show your appreciation?? It's "easy for [me] to get out of jury duty?" Get the fuck out of my country because you don't fucking deserve to be here. Oh wait, staying here because you disagree with me is another fucking freedom you have. People bitch here on /. all the time because of some bogus court ruling. Well guess who decides a case? The jury! But it's good people are putting there money where their mouth is and dodging jury duty. That's the way to change the system. gg, ass.
-truth
You cannot have an ordinance, written in 1850, that says "no vehicles in the park" and have it be meaningful. Why are there no vehicles in the park? To protect people walking? To preserve the pristine grass? To promote quiet throughout? In answering any of these questions there are hundreds of "vehicles" that have been created since the ordinance was enacted that fall on either side of the line: skateboards, bicycles, push scooters, electric scooters, gas-powered scooters, golf carts, segues, gas-powered cars, solar powered cars, someday hovercrafts or personal jetpacks, or hoverdisks. Is the answer to update the laws every time a new "vehicle" comes out?
If so, someone spends all there time each day updating laws only to go back next month and repeat. If not, then you have to take your best guess what a vehicle is which has led us to exactly what you are arguing we need to get rid of. Trying to codify the law into black and white will not, and cannot work.
-truth
-truth
Now I realize a little multiplied by a lot equals a lot, but these were all little coupons for more of the offending party's products. And, again to be truthful, I never felt injured by either company so I wasn't really miffed about my lack of compensation.
But it all just proved to me that class actions might hurt the company (and I say "might" assuming everyone cashes their coupons in, which they won't) but they do not compensate the injured, which is the idea behind our civil system. Punishment is generally reserved for our criminal courts, compensation for our civil ones. The fact is, class action suits really don't benefit anyone.
Except maybe the lawyers. There. I said it.
-truth
Despite the fact that many plans claim not to replace it if you damage it, as long as it is not overtly wrecked by a human, I've never had a problem with a return.
-truth
Yup. I paid an extra $30 when I bought my PS2 (at launch) and got the 3 (2 maybe?) years extended warranty. One year, 2 months later, my PS2 died because something was wrong with the fan and it overheated or something. I took it back to EB, showed them my warranty, and they gave me a new one. Not a refurb, either. Brand new. Worked great ever since.
These days, my metric is: would I be willing to pay full price again after a year for this without being majorly pissed? If the answer is no, then I get the warranty. I bought my Gamecube for $99 and didn't get the insurance because if it broke after a year, I'd be annoyed I'd pay another $100, but I'd cross that bridge if I came to it.
It's like any insurance. You hope you never need it, but you are glad you have it when you do.
-truth
Actually, they can pass it w/o him. They can pass it into law with a 2/3 vote after he sits on it (or if Congress is not in session), though I guess that falls under "without him vetoing it" since it is a "pocket veto."
For what it's worth, I would typically just leave this be, but I decided to jump in for kicks. Hope you don't mind too much.
I don't mind at all since I'm only continuing this (past my original reply actually) for kicks. Hell, this userid isn't even my original one. I just created it with the purpose of bringing up weaknesses in people's statements I thought were important without being my usual please-everyone self. If I'm a dick, I'm a dick. If I'm wrong, then prove it to me. I basically speak what I think to be the honest truth when using this userid (though i haven't used my original in a while). Anyways...
To nitpick, my main problem with this whole argument is really around the "input" each has to the process. Congress drafts the law. Someone in Congress pours over the wording, gets support, and they vote on it. Then the president/states just say "mmmm ok." So I wouldn't say the President makes laws, like I wouldn't say the states "amend" the constitution (though especially after this conversation I wouldn't say congress amends it either _without_the_states_). I truly view the process, both amendments and "making law" as Congress getting it 90% there and thus they should get the majority of the credit, though strictly speaking 90% isn't 100%. I see where you and everyone is coming from, you still need the other 10%, but I feel that the other 90% deserves the majority of the credit of the process, and thus the slang for "Congress amends the constitution" should be ok. Saying the opposite, shouldn't. Likewise, Congress makes laws, the President doesn't. *shrug*
-truth
Correct. I would say he signs the laws that Congress proposes, just like the states ratify the amendments proposed by Congress in the amendment process. Congress drafts them both, i.e., "making them" and the President/States sign them. Similar to the amendment process, you need both halves, but I, personally, would not say the "President makes laws." *shrug*
-truth
2.......... does not equal.... 4 (without adding 2)
Congress... can not amend
OK, now we're getting somewhere. I buy this argument. HOWEVER, Congress's job, it's very function, is to draft laws, some of which alter the Constitution (if ratified by the states to speak completely). To ignore Congress's primary function, in the context of the Constitutional amendment process makes no sense.
But I will concede your way of looking at it, in the context of the equation I provided, is not flawed.
-truth
Why, because then I'd be appointed since W doesn't want activist judges? He wants Justices that will strictly interpret the Constitution aka closed-minded judges.
As for being close-minded, I am no less close-minded than the other side claiming Congress has no part in the Amendment process. Christ, I even provided an authoritative link stating the opposite of the thread-parent's generalization "Congress can't amend the Constitution," yet I'm the one obviously in the dark.
Anyway, this comment struck a chord: "I assume you say that Congress makes the laws" Yes, actually I would say that. Contrary to your point, I am quite open-minded. Please correct my understanding that Congress makes the laws. And please don't tell me that a Senator/Representative authors it, gets it voted on in the House/Senate and then vice versa, and then signed by the President is not "making law" because the President is the one that signs it. To do this would rehash the amendment conversation since you need both halves. I'm serious: AFAIK Congress makes the laws. If your argument is other than the Congress/President example I just provided, please, please, please correct me.
And you didn't post anonymously. ;-)
-truth
-truth
-truth
I never once said otherwise. In fact, in other replies in this thread, I said the exact same thing. My exception to the original post was that he did not add the qualifier "without the states." He simply said that Congress cannot amend the Constitution, which is only partially correct. I acknowledge that amendments are ratified by the states, but to imply that Congress absolutely cannot amend the Constitution is flat out wrong since they start the process of amending the Constitution 99% of the time. The states CAN amend the Constitution by themselves, but almost every time, they RATIFY proposed amendments. Erego, the states and the congress, together, amend the Constitution. Excluding the Congress half of the process is to neglect the way the system works most of the time. And THAT is easy to understand.
-truth
-truth
should be "I'll play the game."
So what do the states vote on to amend the Constitution? They can't vote on nothing. They vote on the amendments Congress proposes. Thus, both Congress and the States together amend the Constitution. Other than the rare occurrence of the states getting together by themselves, the normal procedure is that the two work together to amend the Constitution.
-truth