So then they form something akin to the SEC for patents...say, the Patents Commission. Their only job would be to research who's who in the patent world, and cross reference with the SEC files to make sure that rules are really being followed. If they aren't, then jailtime and/or massive fines.
At the very least, right now Microsoft plays the game (albeit barely) by the rules. As big as they are, when it comes to patents (which are COMPLETELY at the will of the government to deny), if they don't play by the rules, they don't get patents. It's kinda like DRM for patents...yeah it's a pain, and it can be broken, but it should make corporations think twice before filing a patent on their latest obvious invention.
I must say, your post inspired me to write my congressman. Here's what I said:
Hello,
I'm writing you in response to H.R. 2795, which concerns proposed changes to patent laws. While the proposed changes are ok, I have a suggestion that might make a significant difference in the quality of patents applied for and issued.
We all know the Patent Office is becoming overloaded with patents, largely due to the increasing number of filings by large corporations. To help curb this, it may be useful to enact limits, such as a maximum number of patents per entity per year. If this number is exceeded, the filing fees rise quickly (exponentially).
In theory, if the patents are doing their job (granting a small, short-term monopoly to the filer), then the filer should be profiting enough to afford the increasing filing fees. This does no harm to the casual innovator, yet it restricts the flood of cheap, non-innovative patents from large corporations. All around, fewer and higher quality patents will be filed, reducing the workload for the patent examiners. Additionally, the increased filing fees for frequent filers result in more operating expenses for the patent office.
I don't know if or how you can influence this, but if there is some way, I hope you find my suggestion useful.
What they didn't mention was that over 100 people on the invite list for CNET's BAR camp happen to work at Google.
Apparently, all the RSVPs from Google had a common message scrawled on them: "Pwn3d j00 n00B"
It would be really cool if this thing adjusted the flow of time to match your heartbeat. That way, when you're relaxed, time goes by real slow and you can enjoy it. But when you're in a frenzy and your heart's going at 300 bpms, you move much faster relative to everyone else.
True, but if you do "online gambling" (no quotation marks) and click "I'm feeling lucky", you get a online casino site. Could that be considered advertising?
Nah, the Aussies wouldn't understand it. It would probably work better if it read "G'day mate. A few varmints crawled up into the pipes and chewed up the web. No email today. But look, we've got pictures of the dingo that did it, an' boy, she's a beauty! Look at that..."
You know, with a name like that, I wouldn't be surprised if/. accepted the article simply because it was Google related. "Google to provide WiFi in space, according to founder"
Taking a cue from their competition (Nintendo), Microsoft announced that we can help them overcome these hurdles by repeatedly pressing A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B as fast as possible.
The article failed to mention the two main setbacks. First, they based the OS off of Longhorn. Second, they want to ship every console with a copy of Duke Nukem Forever.
Yeah, but it clearly pointed out that it's 10 years down the road...and we all know that such things will always be 10 years down the road.
For all we know, there might be Microoogle, Goocrosoft, Amasoft, Microzon, Amoogle, or yes, even Googlezon. Too soon to tell. I just hope we don't see SCOogle, that might make my head asplode. "To be evil, or not to be evil..."
while (1)
switch ( int(random()%5) )
{
case 0:
printf("First Post!");
break;
case 1:
printf("Micro$oft is the 5uX0rs");
break;
case 2:
printf("Yes, but does it run Linux?");
break;
case 3:
printf("DUPE!");
break;
case 4:
printf("I know I'll get modded down for this, but " + char(random()));
break;
}
Sure...just make sure your printouts include a few very very small yellow dots at random locations. That way, you decrease the signal-to-noise ratio, and the manufacturer can't trace the printouts back to you (as it appears that only the manufacturers have the tracing ability).
You will want to make sure those random dots are printed in the same location consistently though, because otherwise they can compare two printouts of yours and see what's in common. Basically, you can get security making sure a single printed out sheet can't be traced back to you, or security that two or more printed sheets will not identify your computer unless another sheet is available that is known to come from your printer. So you can be certain of one or the other, but not both, kinda like the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle
Slashdot Mirror
Your post left me with only one question:
Huh?
"Noooooooooooooooo!" - Lord Vader
So then they form something akin to the SEC for patents...say, the Patents Commission. Their only job would be to research who's who in the patent world, and cross reference with the SEC files to make sure that rules are really being followed. If they aren't, then jailtime and/or massive fines.
At the very least, right now Microsoft plays the game (albeit barely) by the rules. As big as they are, when it comes to patents (which are COMPLETELY at the will of the government to deny), if they don't play by the rules, they don't get patents. It's kinda like DRM for patents...yeah it's a pain, and it can be broken, but it should make corporations think twice before filing a patent on their latest obvious invention.
While you're at it, try not to mention anything that you have an enermax...I know the first time I heard of them, I thought "enema what?"
I must say, your post inspired me to write my congressman. Here's what I said:
Hello,
I'm writing you in response to H.R. 2795, which concerns proposed changes to patent laws. While the proposed changes are ok, I have a suggestion that might make a significant difference in the quality of patents applied for and issued.
We all know the Patent Office is becoming overloaded with patents, largely due to the increasing number of filings by large corporations. To help curb this, it may be useful to enact limits, such as a maximum number of patents per entity per year. If this number is exceeded, the filing fees rise quickly (exponentially).
In theory, if the patents are doing their job (granting a small, short-term monopoly to the filer), then the filer should be profiting enough to afford the increasing filing fees. This does no harm to the casual innovator, yet it restricts the flood of cheap, non-innovative patents from large corporations. All around, fewer and higher quality patents will be filed, reducing the workload for the patent examiners. Additionally, the increased filing fees for frequent filers result in more operating expenses for the patent office.
I don't know if or how you can influence this, but if there is some way, I hope you find my suggestion useful.
What they didn't mention was that over 100 people on the invite list for CNET's BAR camp happen to work at Google. Apparently, all the RSVPs from Google had a common message scrawled on them: "Pwn3d j00 n00B"
Didn't get an invite to the latest camp? I pity the Foo...
I feel an impending merger coming...but I imagine the result will be fubar
Maybe a catchier headline would've been:
Foo 2 Bar Bozo
It would be really cool if this thing adjusted the flow of time to match your heartbeat. That way, when you're relaxed, time goes by real slow and you can enjoy it. But when you're in a frenzy and your heart's going at 300 bpms, you move much faster relative to everyone else.
Welcome to the Matrix.
Wha...? I thought people WANTED these things to be large so people could see it. Geeks are always proud of their latest bling.
Plus, the added weight gives some extra exercise to those with heart problems.
True, but if you do "online gambling" (no quotation marks) and click "I'm feeling lucky", you get a online casino site. Could that be considered advertising?
Nah, the Aussies wouldn't understand it. It would probably work better if it read "G'day mate. A few varmints crawled up into the pipes and chewed up the web. No email today. But look, we've got pictures of the dingo that did it, an' boy, she's a beauty! Look at that..."
You know, with a name like that, I wouldn't be surprised if /. accepted the article simply because it was Google related. "Google to provide WiFi in space, according to founder"
Taking a cue from their competition (Nintendo), Microsoft announced that we can help them overcome these hurdles by repeatedly pressing A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B as fast as possible.
The article failed to mention the two main setbacks. First, they based the OS off of Longhorn. Second, they want to ship every console with a copy of Duke Nukem Forever.
Yeah, but it clearly pointed out that it's 10 years down the road...and we all know that such things will always be 10 years down the road.
For all we know, there might be Microoogle, Goocrosoft, Amasoft, Microzon, Amoogle, or yes, even Googlezon. Too soon to tell. I just hope we don't see SCOogle, that might make my head asplode. "To be evil, or not to be evil..."
Don't worry, those technologies are on they way, they'll be here in a bit.
And of course, my AI for winning at Slashdot:
while (1)
switch ( int(random()%5) )
{
case 0:
printf("First Post!");
break;
case 1:
printf("Micro$oft is the 5uX0rs");
break;
case 2:
printf("Yes, but does it run Linux?");
break;
case 3:
printf("DUPE!");
break;
case 4:
printf("I know I'll get modded down for this, but " + char(random()));
break;
}
When he renders a McDonalds drive-through next to the road.
Ooh! A MIPS R3000 based sex-machine! She can run on my firmware any day of the week, if you know what I'm saying... woo-hey!
Also, when will her multi-user support be tested?
Actually, I'd be more interested when she can do the dishes, laundry, and bake me an apple pie.
Sure...just make sure your printouts include a few very very small yellow dots at random locations. That way, you decrease the signal-to-noise ratio, and the manufacturer can't trace the printouts back to you (as it appears that only the manufacturers have the tracing ability).
You will want to make sure those random dots are printed in the same location consistently though, because otherwise they can compare two printouts of yours and see what's in common. Basically, you can get security making sure a single printed out sheet can't be traced back to you, or security that two or more printed sheets will not identify your computer unless another sheet is available that is known to come from your printer. So you can be certain of one or the other, but not both, kinda like the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle
I'm sorry, we're all out of big macs today. Would you like to try one of our new mac minis instead?