But a strict use requirement on the validity of the patent itself doesn't let the patent be bought, held, and sold to companies that actually want to use them.
The problem with your logic is that you are assuming that companies should be allowed to create patents that are not useful to them. If a patent wasn't useful then they wouln't implement them, and therefore the patent in that case should be invalidated.
If there was a short time period (say 2-3 years) where they were given the chance to put the patent in active use before invalidation, then if they had no plans to market a device with the patent, then they could sell the patent to someone who would. If you further imposed the requirement that you actually need a functioning prototype that demonstrates the patent, then by selling it the purchasing company would have a functioning unit and still time to bring it to market and validate the patent for the full 20 years before it expires.
Or remove all patents and get rid of a large number of useless laywers and government personnel.
In Canada you cannot patent software on its own, simply because it does not pass the crieteria of being useful. Software on it's own does nothing and therefore is not useful.
Software can only be patented as part of an overall device that does something useful. So if you patented say a GPS unit that contained software that's fine as you can patent the entire device, but you couldn't patent just the software that was in the GPS unit. You could copyright it however.
In the narrow view of this scenario you seem to have a point. But in the grand view of all invention you have completely lost your footing. If a simple swap of patent ownership was made, you'd be happy to see Vonage protected by these old patents that they supposedly infringe.
Actually no. I've got no grudge against AT&T - I actually worked for them at one point in my career. I'm advocating the immediate cancellation of all patents (except design patents that actually take some creativity).
How about going back to the idea that you have to have a functioning prototype to get a patent? That would get rid of a lot of problems, including patent troll companies that exist solely to sue instead of actually create.
You were making some sense until your comment about the minorities..
Gambling all the way around. This is just one of many reasons why the U.S. is just out and out foolish to continue banning on-line gaming, when instead, it could bring it to shore, charge gazillions for licenses, tax the proceeds (for both the house and the gamers), and as an added bonus, enact various certification and oversight requirements that would provide some measure of protection while allowing government to do what it does best - grow even larger.
I think I'm missing something in your logic...
If the US is going to charge gazillions for licenses and tax the proceeds, where's the incentive to move their operations to the US instrad of leaving them offshore?
Stories like this are really starting to annoy me. So may times we hear that a company that is just doing good businees gets sued into obivion for no real good reason.
As I'm going through patent hell myself right now, I've come to the conclusion that patents solely exist to stifle and restrict innovation. They no longer protect the inventor in any way. The only people getting rich off of patents are the lawyers.
Patents have outlived their usefullness and the entire system should be scrapped.
there should be a paper trail which is key to our voting process. You fill the circle in with a marker, slide the ballot in the dealy, it counts, and you can do a manual recount if needed. That's what is truly required.
That's exactly how it worked the last time I voted. I marked the paper, the paper was scanned by the counting computer, the counting computer gave me a receipt to tell me what candidate it had counted. No no manual counting (which is rife for abuse) unless needed, and I get a verification that the machine counted correctly. Can't get much better than that.
I think, in principal religious discrimination is wrong, but, there is such a long history of emnity between Islam and the rest of the world that the religion bears some special treatment even in the United States.
You're confusing Islam which is a peaceful religion, with Islamic fundamentalists which have warped and twisted the religion into an excuse to kill. Fundamentalism is basically evil in all religions, Islam and Christianity included.
Islam did when it kicked all the original christians out of the middle east, marched through Spain and invaded France. Then, they spent the next few centuries pillaging the Balkans all the way through Greece and into Austria. Do read about the siege of Vienna.
You think they started it in the 1500s? What about the crusades where Church sponsored Christians attacked the middle east to drive out the muslims over a period of close to 500 years starting around 1000AD? And it wasn't just muslims that were the target. In the first crusades, mobs would roam the streets in Europe killing anyone non-Christian - mainly Jews.
Lets take something more recent. Hitler was a protestant christian that warped the religion to portray Jesus as a fighter against Jews. And I'm guessing you know what happened next there.
Then there's the Dark Ages, where Christian rule stifled science for fear of death. Even more recent, how about the fight between the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland? That went on for decades and killed thousands.
And the current messes in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are all directly related to US foreign policy over the last 50 years. I could go on but I think you get my point.
So don't be thinking the Christians are innocent in all this - there's plenty of blame to spread all around.
Your constitutional rights? Your Canadian constitutional rights? Is the US legally obliged to preserve your Canadian constitutional rights?
Yes, they are legally obligated to preserve my rights through treaties. And what legal right does the US have while I'm on Canadian soil to come in and pass a US law that removes my protected rights? None.
Well I'm sorry if I'm a little annoyed that a foreign country that I'm not visiting wants to know who I am, where I'm going, when I'm coming back, my date of birth, gender and a unique government ID number. This is a complete violation of my constitutional rights. How would you like it if North Korea insisted that the US airlines hand over this information for every US flight?
Bush, Cheney and their entire bag of warmongering cronies can take a collective good long hard suck of my ass.
Your trust in a government that lied to the public to start a war for no reason,then lied to remove rights from it citizens, then told congress that the government doesn't have to be accountable for its actions is astounding. And incredibly naiive.
Handing over flight manifests has nothing to do with wire-tapping and signals intercept, which is what this article is about.
No, but it relates to gathering of intelligence on friendly countries which you said the US doesn't do.
And wire tapping and IP interception is already occurring in the US on domestic and foreign citizens, or have you not read what the Patriot act is all about?
I find it hilarious that they can speak about "true democracy" out of a country where they forcibly disband and criminalise membership of a major political party
You mean just like the US criminalized and forcibly disbanded the Communist party, and how that party is illegal to this day?
'True democracy' includes the right to vote for any party - even if that party removes those rights.
What about the American Revolution? That was kinda violent.
That was a fight for independance of an already established government from another government. It was not a bunch of yokels in a pickup truck with shotguns rallying against their own government.
While we depend on the help of other countries, we apply the same rules banning the collection of intelligence on US citizens regardless if we are operating in the UK, or if the UK is acting on our behalf from Germany.
Believe it or not, the second amendment was intended precisely for that purpose. It's not a question of *if* a government will get out of control, it's *WHEN* a government will get out of control. Owning firearms is one of the last points of defense for a democratic government.
I really don't understand that logic. What are you going to do - start murdering your elected polititians because you don't like their policies? Then what - you and a bunch of vigilante neighbours try and take over the government? Not likely.
Hasn't anyone learned that throughout history, positive changes to govenments to bring more power to the people have never been by force?
He's a muslim. Let me know when Bush locks up a christian like that.
Oh - so beause he's a muslim it's ok to trample his rights. What's next, lock up all the redheads, or atheists, or people who don't vote republican? Sure it's ok because they are not racist white 'christian' Republicans.
Republicans are corrupt and morally bankrupt, the Democrats are no real alternative, and the political system is fixed to disallow any other alternative.
The American government - just one party away from Communism
Both the OnStar operator and the computer they're controlling have no idea what the situation is on the ground. And a rogue cop who's just split up with someone whose car had OnStar fitted (similar example was used earlier) would easily have access to all the information needed to get the car shut down.
There's a possibility of abuse with every system. However the possibility of saving lives with this type of system greatly outweighs the possibility of abuse. Whats more common - a rogue cop trying to kill a girlfriend, or criminals strealing cars and killing innocent people on the highway? I think the latter is far far more common.
You mean "the minimum wage drone at OnStar does", right ?. And he or she can probably be talked into doing anything the "cop" wants, if the latter appears convincing enough.
That's why there are procedures, checklists, training and supervisors. And best of all a computer system that won't let it happen unless all the provided information is presented and correct.
Sometimes, it's truly amazing what you can get people to do if you're speaking from a position of authority... or at least appear to be.
I would say that it is incredible how stupid and gullible some people can be. The manager who strip searched the employee for example. Can't decide who has the lower IQ - the manager or the employee. Geez. Makes you wish there was some sort of minimum intelligence and social aptitude requirements to breed.
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"
on
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Oh, yeah. Right. Just like vice managers of fast food joints wouldn't strip-search one of their own employees when told to do so over the phone by a con artist posing as a cop. Right. It won't happen. Ever.
No it wouldn't because there is a check and balance in the system. The cops don't shutdown the vehicle - OnStar does. If the information provided doesn't match or they don't provide all the information required then the shutdown doesn't happen. With a properly setup check and balance the possibility of abuse drops to near zero.
And I'm not sure of the situation that you're describing, but it's not the same.
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"
on
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Or the thiefs steal only your registration marks, place them on another car and what happened if police chases them? It's YOUR car that stops moving, not the stolen car.
I doubt that would happen. Since OnStar also knows the make of your vehicle and where it is, if that information didn't match the information provided by the police then obviously they wouldn't shutdown the vehicle.
There's no reason for a remote kill that can be used by anyone that can convince a judge. I'll just wait for the first time a cop uses it on his ex girlfriend.
Yup, and they also say that knives are only meant for butter and cutting food. But I know better. Once someone uses their knife to kill someone, that'll bring some sense back into the world and we can get rid of these liberty threatening knives once and for all.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope not at all. I refuse to give those evil bastards Bell Canada another cent for as long as I live.
The problem with your logic is that you are assuming that companies should be allowed to create patents that are not useful to them. If a patent wasn't useful then they wouln't implement them, and therefore the patent in that case should be invalidated.
If there was a short time period (say 2-3 years) where they were given the chance to put the patent in active use before invalidation, then if they had no plans to market a device with the patent, then they could sell the patent to someone who would. If you further imposed the requirement that you actually need a functioning prototype that demonstrates the patent, then by selling it the purchasing company would have a functioning unit and still time to bring it to market and validate the patent for the full 20 years before it expires.
Or remove all patents and get rid of a large number of useless laywers and government personnel.
In Canada you cannot patent software on its own, simply because it does not pass the crieteria of being useful. Software on it's own does nothing and therefore is not useful.
Software can only be patented as part of an overall device that does something useful. So if you patented say a GPS unit that contained software that's fine as you can patent the entire device, but you couldn't patent just the software that was in the GPS unit. You could copyright it however.
Actually no. I've got no grudge against AT&T - I actually worked for them at one point in my career. I'm advocating the immediate cancellation of all patents (except design patents that actually take some creativity).
How about going back to the idea that you have to have a functioning prototype to get a patent? That would get rid of a lot of problems, including patent troll companies that exist solely to sue instead of actually create.
You were making some sense until your comment about the minorities..
I think I'm missing something in your logic...
If the US is going to charge gazillions for licenses and tax the proceeds, where's the incentive to move their operations to the US instrad of leaving them offshore?
Stories like this are really starting to annoy me. So may times we hear that a company that is just doing good businees gets sued into obivion for no real good reason.
As I'm going through patent hell myself right now, I've come to the conclusion that patents solely exist to stifle and restrict innovation. They no longer protect the inventor in any way. The only people getting rich off of patents are the lawyers.
Patents have outlived their usefullness and the entire system should be scrapped.
That's exactly how it worked the last time I voted. I marked the paper, the paper was scanned by the counting computer, the counting computer gave me a receipt to tell me what candidate it had counted. No no manual counting (which is rife for abuse) unless needed, and I get a verification that the machine counted correctly. Can't get much better than that.
You're confusing Islam which is a peaceful religion, with Islamic fundamentalists which have warped and twisted the religion into an excuse to kill. Fundamentalism is basically evil in all religions, Islam and Christianity included.
You think they started it in the 1500s? What about the crusades where Church sponsored Christians attacked the middle east to drive out the muslims over a period of close to 500 years starting around 1000AD? And it wasn't just muslims that were the target. In the first crusades, mobs would roam the streets in Europe killing anyone non-Christian - mainly Jews.
Lets take something more recent. Hitler was a protestant christian that warped the religion to portray Jesus as a fighter against Jews. And I'm guessing you know what happened next there.
Then there's the Dark Ages, where Christian rule stifled science for fear of death. Even more recent, how about the fight between the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland? That went on for decades and killed thousands.
And the current messes in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are all directly related to US foreign policy over the last 50 years. I could go on but I think you get my point.
So don't be thinking the Christians are innocent in all this - there's plenty of blame to spread all around.
Yes, they are legally obligated to preserve my rights through treaties. And what legal right does the US have while I'm on Canadian soil to come in and pass a US law that removes my protected rights? None.
No, I'm pretty sure that would be murder..
Well I'm sorry if I'm a little annoyed that a foreign country that I'm not visiting wants to know who I am, where I'm going, when I'm coming back, my date of birth, gender and a unique government ID number. This is a complete violation of my constitutional rights. How would you like it if North Korea insisted that the US airlines hand over this information for every US flight?
Bush, Cheney and their entire bag of warmongering cronies can take a collective good long hard suck of my ass.
Your trust in a government that lied to the public to start a war for no reason,then lied to remove rights from it citizens, then told congress that the government doesn't have to be accountable for its actions is astounding. And incredibly naiive.
No, but it relates to gathering of intelligence on friendly countries which you said the US doesn't do.
And wire tapping and IP interception is already occurring in the US on domestic and foreign citizens, or have you not read what the Patriot act is all about?
You mean just like the US criminalized and forcibly disbanded the Communist party, and how that party is illegal to this day?
'True democracy' includes the right to vote for any party - even if that party removes those rights.
That was a fight for independance of an already established government from another government. It was not a bunch of yokels in a pickup truck with shotguns rallying against their own government.
Really? What about the recent demand that Canadian airlines hand over all passenger data to the US, even if that flight is not stopping in the US? http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/10/11/uscanada-flights.html Last I checked the US and Canada were allies, although that might change if the US tries to violate our constitutional rights. They tried somehting similar in the EU http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/05/30/eu-us-passenger-data.html that was shot down by the courts.
If you haven't noticed, the current US government thinks it is above the law and can do whatever it feels like.
I really don't understand that logic. What are you going to do - start murdering your elected polititians because you don't like their policies? Then what - you and a bunch of vigilante neighbours try and take over the government? Not likely.
Hasn't anyone learned that throughout history, positive changes to govenments to bring more power to the people have never been by force?
Oh - so beause he's a muslim it's ok to trample his rights. What's next, lock up all the redheads, or atheists, or people who don't vote republican? Sure it's ok because they are not racist white 'christian' Republicans.
Give your head a shake.
The American government - just one party away from Communism
There's a possibility of abuse with every system. However the possibility of saving lives with this type of system greatly outweighs the possibility of abuse. Whats more common - a rogue cop trying to kill a girlfriend, or criminals strealing cars and killing innocent people on the highway? I think the latter is far far more common.
Just pronounce it YUR-uh-nus
That's why there are procedures, checklists, training and supervisors. And best of all a computer system that won't let it happen unless all the provided information is presented and correct.
I would say that it is incredible how stupid and gullible some people can be. The manager who strip searched the employee for example. Can't decide who has the lower IQ - the manager or the employee. Geez. Makes you wish there was some sort of minimum intelligence and social aptitude requirements to breed.
No it wouldn't because there is a check and balance in the system. The cops don't shutdown the vehicle - OnStar does. If the information provided doesn't match or they don't provide all the information required then the shutdown doesn't happen. With a properly setup check and balance the possibility of abuse drops to near zero.
And I'm not sure of the situation that you're describing, but it's not the same.
I doubt that would happen. Since OnStar also knows the make of your vehicle and where it is, if that information didn't match the information provided by the police then obviously they wouldn't shutdown the vehicle.
Yup, and they also say that knives are only meant for butter and cutting food. But I know better. Once someone uses their knife to kill someone, that'll bring some sense back into the world and we can get rid of these liberty threatening knives once and for all.