You are correct, I was commenting on what the summary and the article said about the brief.
From the summary
The US solicitor general, which represents the federal government in the Supreme Court, on Friday filed an amicus brief in support of i4i, saying that the US Patent and Trademark Office should not be second-guessed by a jury
From the Article:
The amicus brief from the U.S. solicitor general says that the USPTO can be trusted to be the expert, over a jury:
I tried to address that subject "the brief" and not the merits of the case "their ruling on other matters". Upon rereading the actual words used in the brief, I realize that I was misled by the preceding statements, and that my original interpretation was in error in which I thought he made two points, first that a jury should not be used at all (with which I took issue) and secondly he questions the standard (which I did not address.)
From the Article
"The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard also furthers the reliance interests created by a patent grant by affording the patent holder enhanced protection against an erroneous jury finding of invalidity. By allowing a lay jury to second-guess the PTO's judgment even in close cases, the preponderance standard would diminish the expected value of patents and would reduce future inventors' incentives to innovate and to disclose their inventions to the public."
I should know better than to accept the spin a reporter puts on something someone said, and reread what was said until it replaces the spin. Thank you for illuminating this.
If the article is true, then Sprint has no chance of surviving and it will be two cell providers. I don't really believe the article, but 80% of the market in two carriers pocket is not good.
Does anyone else think it funny/interesting/sad that Deutsche Telekom bought Tmobile USA for $50.7B in 2001, plus another for $2.4B in 2007 and is only getting $39B?
Most of Asia would starve to death if they tried to live on potatoes They grow a third as many potatoes per acre in China as they do in Ireland, and a sixth in Vietnam. In Vietnam an acre of potatoes will not feed a family of four, but rice will easily. Milk is a stupid way to get Vitamin A you would need 2.2 liters per day to get the RDA, and the family of four would need milk from 1/4 cow and 1.25 additional acres for the 1/4 cow to graze on. Admit it, you don't know what you are talking about you Irish troll.
UK doesn't matter as we are discussing a US matter. Hearsay is not evidence in any event. Please provide Watford Electronics URLs other than savastore.com and saverstore.com prior to March 2008, I found no use of the term "app" on them on the Internet between April 2001 and March 2008 using the Internet Archive. I believe your memory may be faulty, BTW they started in 1972, not the 80's.
Nobody trademarked it before because.. its obvious
You are making a presumption that is not supported by the facts in evidence, Apple trademarked it at a time, when as far as anyone has been able to show, no one else was using the term. The courts (if it goes to trial), not you, not me , not the President, not everybody else, will make the determination if it was too generic.
SEO techniques would not wipe out past history, "App Store" is absent and "AppStore" shows up for one company prior to March 2008 when the Apple App Store opened.
You have confused the court's reaction to the brief with their ruling on other matters. What the Solicitor General said is not the position of the government, it is the position of the executive branch. The position of the government will only be known when the court rules.
The court may wish to reduce their involvement, but they cannot eliminate it because if someone violates the law, it falls under
Article III,Section 2 of the Constitution
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." Trials go to court.
Did you see the part about 2/3 of the cropland being available for other crops compared to potatoes? If you do not get enough calories you die of starvation long before vitamin deficiencies become an issue. Caloric intake is second only to water as the most fundamental nutritional requirement. If vitamins and minerals were all that mattered, you could eat celery, seashells, and vitamin tablets, but you would starve to death. The big issue one hears about with rice is its lack of vitamin A, but guess what? white potatoes don't have it either. It is easier to get a enough calories and a balanced diet raising rice and other things than by raising potatoes and fewer other things.
A japanese soldier could get by on three cups, about 0.5 kg of rice per day so a reasonable 12 kg (26 lb) load lasts three weeks, or he could carry 47kg (125 lb) and hope to hell they were edible by the end of that time. It looks like their problem was that they didn't get enough exercise lugging around potatoes/sarcasm
You are wrong if you telling me that if I invented "hastforks" that I could not trademark "Hastfork Store" or "Hast Store" because they are descriptive. Or that Kimberly-Clark can't register "Kleenex Store". If Apple can demonstrate that they marketed Apps before others used the term to describe their programs, suites, wares, or whatever for commercial purposes they should prevail in this.
Fully 50% of the world's population depends on rice as their primary source of calories. They do not do it because they are stupid or they are fascinated by it.
In Vietnam they get 6.14 tonnes/hectare for potatoes and only 3.9 tonnes/hectare with rice
Rice has 4.8 times as many calories as potatoes by weight so it produces 3 times as many calories from the same piece of land. So they could plant 2/3 of their cropland with other crops to makeup for the nutritional deficiencies of rice and still have more calories and a more varied diet than if they planted only potatoes. Potatoes are great in the Andes where rice wouldn't grow, but otherwise rice or another grain win handily.
It is a very impressive presentation, but I don't believe he said anything about population stabilizing at any number.
all we need to do...
Prelude to a gross over-simplication of a complex problem.
Fertility has a strong negative correlation to wealth and longevity. He definitely did not say that raising anybody's standard of living would reduce fertility. At one point, rather excitedly, he implied that better healthcare leads to longer life and lower fertility which leads to greater wealth, but he was careful only to discuss that the correlations that exist, not cause and effect. He also never pointed out any positive changes that were not caused by the policies of the countries themselves.
Words which invariably precede ill-conceived ideas. Pipelines consume materials and energy to construct and maintain, energy to operate and, as you say, you haven't actually worked out the collection issue or addressed the environmental issues created.
With 9 billion people in 2050 the state of the food supply in 2011 will not be particularly relevant.
GM hybrid rice promises to increase 15% beyond the best variety currently available. The modification is pretty benign, the male flower is sterile so self pollination does not occur, and a hybrid can be generated. GM does not automatically mean bad, but there are a number of transgenic ones that are dubious value.
AppStore is not the search term I used, I used "App Store" as used by Apple. Search engines return exact matches, and my statements were true and complete. Your citation isn't as authoritative as you might think, since that web page in not on the Internet Archive prior to September 15, 2008; however, I found that eWeek had a citation for the press release from 2007 that's valid. I was cautious about accepting your URL, only because I have seen "press releases" altered before.
SalesForce used the term AppExchange on their website and the search for "Appstore" on their website is rather telling: It appears that they used AppStore internally and in press releases in a manner similar to the way Microsoft used Chicago as the working name for Windows 95, but they never used the term in commercial manner (product or service). It is telling that they did not feel the need to clarify "Apple App Store" in the many references to "App Store" and "AppStore" which refer to purchasing Iphone/iPod applications from Apple. Prior use of the term does not prevent or invalidate registration, and I do not know if this evidence of one prior use would be sufficient to convince a judge that the term is generic.
The average Apple customer may well be an idiot, but he/she runs Windows not OSX, because iPods, iPads and iPhones weigh more heavily than iMacs, MacBooks and MacMinis on what constitutes "average".
Apple was not able to use the name McIntosh because it is a trademark associated with what your greengrocer sells. Your greengrocer may have large apples of that variety, but wouldn't describe them as Big Macs.
The Apple App Store opened in March 2008. If you do an Internet search for the term "App Store" prior to that you have a very hard time finding any legitimate results. (Google really needs to fix their date search, and Bing and Yahoo! were worse) I didn't find any, but going through lots of results manually is problematic. It is entirely possible that they actually did coin the term - so yes, seriously.
At the risk of being pedantic, it is not the "US", and it is not the "US Government" as the Article claims, it is the Executive branch. When bad legislation is passed it is Congress' fault, when bad federal court decisions are made it is the fault of the Judicial Branch, and when a bureaucrat speaks or acts it is the Executive branch. Once the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue, then it will be the US Government. I like to keep them separate so I can keep track of which one is selling us out the fastest.
I suspect that is one amicus brief that won't have any traction. Imagine trying to convince a court that a Federal agency should have final say instead of a court.
Slashdot Mirror
A Chinese grad student is sitting next to you, ask yourself this question before "accidentally" ratting him out, "Is this class graded on a curve?"
If not, I'd seriously question the wisdom of the government.
It's long list and you just earned a place.
You are correct, I was commenting on what the summary and the article said about the brief.
From the summary
The US solicitor general, which represents the federal government in the Supreme Court, on Friday filed an amicus brief in support of i4i, saying that the US Patent and Trademark Office should not be second-guessed by a jury
From the Article:
The amicus brief from the U.S. solicitor general says that the USPTO can be trusted to be the expert, over a jury:
I tried to address that subject "the brief" and not the merits of the case "their ruling on other matters". Upon rereading the actual words used in the brief, I realize that I was misled by the preceding statements, and that my original interpretation was in error in which I thought he made two points, first that a jury should not be used at all (with which I took issue) and secondly he questions the standard (which I did not address.) From the Article
"The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard also furthers the reliance interests created by a patent grant by affording the patent holder enhanced protection against an erroneous jury finding of invalidity. By allowing a lay jury to second-guess the PTO's judgment even in close cases, the preponderance standard would diminish the expected value of patents and would reduce future inventors' incentives to innovate and to disclose their inventions to the public."
I should know better than to accept the spin a reporter puts on something someone said, and reread what was said until it replaces the spin. Thank you for illuminating this.
Noted.
If the article is true, then Sprint has no chance of surviving and it will be two cell providers. I don't really believe the article, but 80% of the market in two carriers pocket is not good.
Does anyone else think it funny/interesting/sad that Deutsche Telekom bought Tmobile USA for $50.7B in 2001, plus another for $2.4B in 2007 and is only getting $39B?
Most of Asia would starve to death if they tried to live on potatoes They grow a third as many potatoes per acre in China as they do in Ireland, and a sixth in Vietnam. In Vietnam an acre of potatoes will not feed a family of four, but rice will easily. Milk is a stupid way to get Vitamin A you would need 2.2 liters per day to get the RDA, and the family of four would need milk from 1/4 cow and 1.25 additional acres for the 1/4 cow to graze on. Admit it, you don't know what you are talking about you Irish troll.
UK doesn't matter as we are discussing a US matter. Hearsay is not evidence in any event. Please provide Watford Electronics URLs other than savastore.com and saverstore.com prior to March 2008, I found no use of the term "app" on them on the Internet between April 2001 and March 2008 using the Internet Archive. I believe your memory may be faulty, BTW they started in 1972, not the 80's.
Nobody trademarked it before because.. its obvious
You are making a presumption that is not supported by the facts in evidence, Apple trademarked it at a time, when as far as anyone has been able to show, no one else was using the term. The courts (if it goes to trial), not you, not me , not the President, not everybody else, will make the determination if it was too generic.
SEO techniques would not wipe out past history, "App Store" is absent and "AppStore" shows up for one company prior to March 2008 when the Apple App Store opened.
You have confused the court's reaction to the brief with their ruling on other matters. What the Solicitor General said is not the position of the government, it is the position of the executive branch. The position of the government will only be known when the court rules.
The court may wish to reduce their involvement, but they cannot eliminate it because if someone violates the law, it falls under Article III,Section 2 of the Constitution "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." Trials go to court.
Did you see the part about 2/3 of the cropland being available for other crops compared to potatoes? If you do not get enough calories you die of starvation long before vitamin deficiencies become an issue. Caloric intake is second only to water as the most fundamental nutritional requirement. If vitamins and minerals were all that mattered, you could eat celery, seashells, and vitamin tablets, but you would starve to death. The big issue one hears about with rice is its lack of vitamin A, but guess what? white potatoes don't have it either. It is easier to get a enough calories and a balanced diet raising rice and other things than by raising potatoes and fewer other things.
A japanese soldier could get by on three cups, about 0.5 kg of rice per day so a reasonable 12 kg (26 lb) load lasts three weeks, or he could carry 47kg (125 lb) and hope to hell they were edible by the end of that time. It looks like their problem was that they didn't get enough exercise lugging around potatoes /sarcasm
IE is not a product, it is an abbreviation. Internet Explorer is a registered trademark - both the term and the logo: http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx
You are wrong if you telling me that if I invented "hastforks" that I could not trademark "Hastfork Store" or "Hast Store" because they are descriptive. Or that Kimberly-Clark can't register "Kleenex Store". If Apple can demonstrate that they marketed Apps before others used the term to describe their programs, suites, wares, or whatever for commercial purposes they should prevail in this.
Fully 50% of the world's population depends on rice as their primary source of calories. They do not do it because they are stupid or they are fascinated by it.
In Vietnam they get 6.14 tonnes/hectare for potatoes and only 3.9 tonnes/hectare with rice
Rice has 4.8 times as many calories as potatoes by weight so it produces 3 times as many calories from the same piece of land. So they could plant 2/3 of their cropland with other crops to makeup for the nutritional deficiencies of rice and still have more calories and a more varied diet than if they planted only potatoes. Potatoes are great in the Andes where rice wouldn't grow, but otherwise rice or another grain win handily.
It is a very impressive presentation, but I don't believe he said anything about population stabilizing at any number.
all we need to do ...
Prelude to a gross over-simplication of a complex problem.
Fertility has a strong negative correlation to wealth and longevity. He definitely did not say that raising anybody's standard of living would reduce fertility. At one point, rather excitedly, he implied that better healthcare leads to longer life and lower fertility which leads to greater wealth, but he was careful only to discuss that the correlations that exist, not cause and effect. He also never pointed out any positive changes that were not caused by the policies of the countries themselves.
All we have to do...
Words which invariably precede ill-conceived ideas. Pipelines consume materials and energy to construct and maintain, energy to operate and, as you say, you haven't actually worked out the collection issue or addressed the environmental issues created.
There is still clearly enough food in the world.
With 9 billion people in 2050 the state of the food supply in 2011 will not be particularly relevant.
GM hybrid rice promises to increase 15% beyond the best variety currently available. The modification is pretty benign, the male flower is sterile so self pollination does not occur, and a hybrid can be generated. GM does not automatically mean bad, but there are a number of transgenic ones that are dubious value.
AppStore is not the search term I used, I used "App Store" as used by Apple. Search engines return exact matches, and my statements were true and complete. Your citation isn't as authoritative as you might think, since that web page in not on the Internet Archive prior to September 15, 2008; however, I found that eWeek had a citation for the press release from 2007 that's valid. I was cautious about accepting your URL, only because I have seen "press releases" altered before.
SalesForce used the term AppExchange on their website and the search for "Appstore" on their website is rather telling: It appears that they used AppStore internally and in press releases in a manner similar to the way Microsoft used Chicago as the working name for Windows 95, but they never used the term in commercial manner (product or service). It is telling that they did not feel the need to clarify "Apple App Store" in the many references to "App Store" and "AppStore" which refer to purchasing Iphone/iPod applications from Apple. Prior use of the term does not prevent or invalidate registration, and I do not know if this evidence of one prior use would be sufficient to convince a judge that the term is generic.
The average Apple customer may well be an idiot, but he/she runs Windows not OSX, because iPods, iPads and iPhones weigh more heavily than iMacs, MacBooks and MacMinis on what constitutes "average".
Apple was not able to use the name McIntosh because it is a trademark associated with what your greengrocer sells. Your greengrocer may have large apples of that variety, but wouldn't describe them as Big Macs.
The Apple App Store opened in March 2008. If you do an Internet search for the term "App Store" prior to that you have a very hard time finding any legitimate results. (Google really needs to fix their date search, and Bing and Yahoo! were worse) I didn't find any, but going through lots of results manually is problematic. It is entirely possible that they actually did coin the term - so yes, seriously.
At the risk of being pedantic, it is not the "US", and it is not the "US Government" as the Article claims, it is the Executive branch. When bad legislation is passed it is Congress' fault, when bad federal court decisions are made it is the fault of the Judicial Branch, and when a bureaucrat speaks or acts it is the Executive branch. Once the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue, then it will be the US Government. I like to keep them separate so I can keep track of which one is selling us out the fastest.
I suspect that is one amicus brief that won't have any traction. Imagine trying to convince a court that a Federal agency should have final say instead of a court.
for Microsoft's corporate philosophy.
Yeah, but check out the talk page. There is a lot more information on the design there than in the main article.
People in Hell want iced water. But that ain't gonna happen either.
The thirty second samples from iTunes will facilitate pirating of music, giving the RIAA a potential revenue 43 times the GDP of the entire planet.
"Good things from the garden, Garden in the valley, Valley of the Jolly 'Ho, Ho, Ho' Green Giant!"
Where was that $39 billion? In consumers' pockets.