a Slashdot post that doesn't overreact to patents.
Said post will contain an accurate analysis of a subject patent, correctly pointing out how the general public and media hype might misinterpret the key provisions of the patent claims.
Um, no, "closing the hatch and deprive it of oxygen" is never an option on a submarine... whether it's operational and underway or in the shipyard.
For one thing, the compartments are huge. An LA class is only divided into two compartments.
For another thing, there is plenty of things on board a submarine to make a self-sustaining fire for a long time - high capacity, high pressure ~3000 psi air banks... banks containing pure oxygen, high pressure hydraulic systems, diesel fuel, etc. I'm guessing the torpedoes were probably off-loaded prior to the overhaul which would be SOP, but there are still plenty of other things like flares, countermeasures, etc that are kind of "mini torpedoes" as well.
Personally, I don't see it as an "in your face" kind of thing and have never minded my taxes going to such programs. The ballooning entitlement programs bug me more.
I saw several launches while living in Orlando... truly awe-inspiring. I also saw several orbital passes, and a couple of approaches while living in Colorado (including the ill-fated Columbia).
Anyway, hope to get to see it... I'll be in Baltimore on a business trip.
Ummm... correct me if I'm wrong, but ("$521m lawsuit" + "current lawsuit" = "low profile") seems to be the logical equivilent of a divide by zero error.
How are software errors legally taken advantage of by casinos?
The machines are tested by the manufacturors, then by a 3rd party testing lab such as GLI, then often undergo further testing before being publicly available... depending on jurisdiction. Yeah, stuff gets through sometimes. Regulators continue to monitor and/or spot check machines while they are in the field. If something gets discovered in the field, action is usually taken fairly quickly. Depending on the nature of what was discovered, a software update may be ordered or the machine may be recalled (sometimes immediately).
The jurisdictional regulator exists to protect the players, not the casinos. The majority of regulations are designed to ensure the players get a "fair shake." That said, of course the casinos are in the business to make a profit... but at least in a manner that is predictable and "fair".
The specification teaches the invention, not prior art. If the invention was covered by prior art it wouldn't be novel and therefore wouldn't be patentable.
You're correct in saying that the claims actually define the invention.
If you're quoting a real Claim 1, it's not properly formed and will get thrown out anyway - it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Every time this subject comes up, I'm amazed at the number of clueless people that chime in. I seriously doubt that ALL 'software patents' will go away. That's far too broad of a stroke. There are many many 'software patents' that are perfectly legitimate. Yes, there are many that are questionable and need to be reined in... and that will happen. But all? Sorry, no. If something is invented that is truly novel, non-obvious and useful... it deserves to be protected with a patent no matter what it is made of. To automatically think it's somehow not deserving simply because it's 'software' instead of brick and mortar is, frankly, stone-age thinking. The same blood, sweat and tears in terms of creative work can certainly be poured into a software project that can be poured into a brick and mortar project; probably even more so.
The BIG problem is, a lot of things are getting patented that don't meet the statutory for patentability... which really has nothing to do with it being software.
that if you have a patent for something but you choose not to excersise it for several years and durring that time it becomes a standard, you would not later be able to suddenly "turn on" the patent.
It's not a clear cut matter with patents, but it is possible (it's called a defense of laches). Of course, someone would have to be willing/able/motivated to litigate such a case.
If they keep this up I may turn into a mac zelot.
Aren't things even more proprietary in the Mac world??
Are you a reporter? Nicely sensationalized piece here. You even got moderated up to 5; good job (but woefully overrated)!
The SL-1 accident occurred almost completely due to operator error and lack of knowledge/respect of the system being "operated" (and I use that term loosely).
When you climb up on top of a reactor, override operating mechanisms (however crude they were) and pull a rod out by hand, bad things tend to happen. What happened in that case was the rapid increase in reactivity caused a localized steam explosion that ejected the rod completely (giving the operator a ride to the roof in the process). Needless to say, it was a very stupid move made in an age where operating procedures were loose and effective safety mechanisms were rare.
Yeah, it was a bad accident. The only nuclear accident in U.S. history directly causing deaths. But it's silly to even begin to suggest that history can repeat itself, because there is virtually no similarity between the modern reactor being discussed and the SL-1 reactor.
The problem with prior art is that you do not reward a patent based on a objective judgement if it is a true invention or not, but based on luck: If the first one who happens to think of a new but trivial idea (probably a lot of people think of it in parallel, but one of them writes a bit faster than the others so to say) is a bastard then the rest is out of luck and has to live with a patent situation.
It actually isn't a race to get the application in as you say. The law accounts for this and could theoretically award the patent to the 'slower writer' who conceived the idea days or even hours before the 'faster writer' who got the app in sooner. He'd have to be able to prove it, of course, which means he has to have his act together in terms of proper documentation -- but the bottom line is the "faster writer" situation you speak of does not exist (at least by the letter of the law).
There are time constraints of course, such as the fact that the application must be submitted within a year of public disclosure; but they all strike me as being pretty reasonable.
Prior art (or the lack thereof) is an important and necessary test to ensure the invention is novel and unique.
1 describes a an abstract computer connection with persistant state and cookie setup and use - it is actually the most specific claim
Note: I have intellectual property lawyer relatives I speak with, yet I am not a lawyer myself.
Next time you see your IP lawyer relatives, ask them to explain the difference between independant and dependant claims and how they interrelate (assuming you're interested, of course). Claim #1, an independant claim, is not the most specific.
You are blurring the line between inventing and patenting, I believe. Yes, the invention process generally starts with a question along the lines of "How can I...", but the patent process covers the answer to that question, not question itself.
Although we may be speaking in sematics here, I respectfully disagree.
First, the line between inventing and patenting is already sufficiently blurry: A patent document is really nothing more than a legal description of an invention. An issued patent, of course, carries with it certain privileges, but I'm talking about the text and drawings of the document itself.
Secondly, while the patent application is generally focused on "the answer" as you say, it must also establish utility - which invariably means that the question(s) being answered must also be well defined in the document.
Many technology inventions (and resulting patents) come about because someone comes up with the question as well as the answer. Not necessarily in that order, of course - sometimes the question is reverse engineered from a cool answer that "must be good for something." You can invent the coolest device in the world - but until you can describe what it's useful for (the question), you will not [should not] be issued a patent.
I'm gone through hundreds of technology patents in agonizing detail, and it's been my observation that the original question is often less obvious than the answer (once the question is raised) - which was the main point I was trying to make.
I'm willing to bet that if you were to take an average programmer and ask them "how can I modify this IM program so that the person you are talking to knows that you are currently typing without actually sending each character as you type it?", they'd come up with the exact same solution as described by this patent.
Yeah, if you ask them that question... But part of the invention process involves coming up with the question in the first place (ie, realizing the utility of such a feature).
Having dealt with quite a few technology patents myself, I feel the novelty/utility on this one isn't unreasonable (considered in a prior art free vacuum). I haven't done (and don't plan to do) a thorough analysis of the patent vs. prior art -- but I suspect it may well fail that test.
Nothing that we really need to worry about though, let AOL's lawyers or Yahoo's take that one on. If there's really sufficient prior art, they'll use it to render the patent useless.
I, too, feel there is a place for software patents -- and I'm amazed at the uproar this kind of thing generates in here. Instead of whining, why don't y'all do something about it? Come up with a Free Technology Foundation that publicly discloses "inventions". Come up with the ideas first, describe them thoroughly, disclose them publicly, and no one will be able to patent them. End of problem. Assuming, of course, that you can come up with the ideas first rather than saying "I could of thought of that" AFTER the fact...
Slashdot Mirror
Big cities are talking about getting drones these days, and many of them have a feral cat problem...
Where do I submit my invoice for consulting?
a Slashdot post that doesn't overreact to patents.
Said post will contain an accurate analysis of a subject patent, correctly pointing out how the general public and media hype might misinterpret the key provisions of the patent claims.
This one is a slam dunk, there is no prior art.
Um, no, "closing the hatch and deprive it of oxygen" is never an option on a submarine... whether it's operational and underway or in the shipyard.
For one thing, the compartments are huge. An LA class is only divided into two compartments.
For another thing, there is plenty of things on board a submarine to make a self-sustaining fire for a long time - high capacity, high pressure ~3000 psi air banks... banks containing pure oxygen, high pressure hydraulic systems, diesel fuel, etc. I'm guessing the torpedoes were probably off-loaded prior to the overhaul which would be SOP, but there are still plenty of other things like flares, countermeasures, etc that are kind of "mini torpedoes" as well.
I'm an ex-submariner.
Personally, I don't see it as an "in your face" kind of thing and have never minded my taxes going to such programs. The ballooning entitlement programs bug me more.
I saw several launches while living in Orlando... truly awe-inspiring. I also saw several orbital passes, and a couple of approaches while living in Colorado (including the ill-fated Columbia).
Anyway, hope to get to see it... I'll be in Baltimore on a business trip.
Ummm... correct me if I'm wrong, but ("$521m lawsuit" + "current lawsuit" = "low profile") seems to be the logical equivilent of a divide by zero error.
I thought free health care solved all of this?
It's not always about us... he's clearly trying to Blame Canada.
I bought a Macbook Pro just. last. week.
sigh.
How are software errors legally taken advantage of by casinos?
The machines are tested by the manufacturors, then by a 3rd party testing lab such as GLI, then often undergo further testing before being publicly available... depending on jurisdiction. Yeah, stuff gets through sometimes. Regulators continue to monitor and/or spot check machines while they are in the field. If something gets discovered in the field, action is usually taken fairly quickly. Depending on the nature of what was discovered, a software update may be ordered or the machine may be recalled (sometimes immediately).
The jurisdictional regulator exists to protect the players, not the casinos. The majority of regulations are designed to ensure the players get a "fair shake." That said, of course the casinos are in the business to make a profit... but at least in a manner that is predictable and "fair".
So a warning that covers a timeframe *today* somehow explains a missile launched *yesterday*? Ummm... try again.
The US Navy test range for sud-launched ICBMs is off the coast of San Diego, well south of the point of this launch. Been there, have the t-shirt.
On the "bright" side, they might qualify for alternative energy tax credits...
...and secure our physical borders?
*yawn* I did that back in the 70's and got away with it.
Wait a minute... what's the statute of limitations on that???
The specification teaches the invention, not prior art. If the invention was covered by prior art it wouldn't be novel and therefore wouldn't be patentable.
You're correct in saying that the claims actually define the invention.
If you're quoting a real Claim 1, it's not properly formed and will get thrown out anyway - it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Every time this subject comes up, I'm amazed at the number of clueless people that chime in. I seriously doubt that ALL 'software patents' will go away. That's far too broad of a stroke. There are many many 'software patents' that are perfectly legitimate. Yes, there are many that are questionable and need to be reined in... and that will happen. But all? Sorry, no. If something is invented that is truly novel, non-obvious and useful... it deserves to be protected with a patent no matter what it is made of. To automatically think it's somehow not deserving simply because it's 'software' instead of brick and mortar is, frankly, stone-age thinking. The same blood, sweat and tears in terms of creative work can certainly be poured into a software project that can be poured into a brick and mortar project; probably even more so.
The BIG problem is, a lot of things are getting patented that don't meet the statutory for patentability... which really has nothing to do with it being software.
Naw, you checked the wrong list... ICSA has them on the "Certified Idiots" list.
I Tivo'd the game, and I have no problem with them anonomously keeping track of the number of times I rewound and slomo'd through the scene.
This conspiracy stuff can go a little overboard too, ya know.
I, for one, am glad they got a little press from this. Tivo rocks -- 'nuff said.
-- CP
But did they consider TCO????
- CP
It's not a clear cut matter with patents, but it is possible (it's called a defense of laches). Of course, someone would have to be willing/able/motivated to litigate such a case.
If they keep this up I may turn into a mac zelot.
Aren't things even more proprietary in the Mac world??
--CP
Are you a reporter? Nicely sensationalized piece here. You even got moderated up to 5; good job (but woefully overrated)!
The SL-1 accident occurred almost completely due to operator error and lack of knowledge/respect of the system being "operated" (and I use that term loosely).
When you climb up on top of a reactor, override operating mechanisms (however crude they were) and pull a rod out by hand, bad things tend to happen. What happened in that case was the rapid increase in reactivity caused a localized steam explosion that ejected the rod completely (giving the operator a ride to the roof in the process). Needless to say, it was a very stupid move made in an age where operating procedures were loose and effective safety mechanisms were rare.
Yeah, it was a bad accident. The only nuclear accident in U.S. history directly causing deaths. But it's silly to even begin to suggest that history can repeat itself, because there is virtually no similarity between the modern reactor being discussed and the SL-1 reactor.
--CP
It actually isn't a race to get the application in as you say. The law accounts for this and could theoretically award the patent to the 'slower writer' who conceived the idea days or even hours before the 'faster writer' who got the app in sooner. He'd have to be able to prove it, of course, which means he has to have his act together in terms of proper documentation -- but the bottom line is the "faster writer" situation you speak of does not exist (at least by the letter of the law).
There are time constraints of course, such as the fact that the application must be submitted within a year of public disclosure; but they all strike me as being pretty reasonable.
Prior art (or the lack thereof) is an important and necessary test to ensure the invention is novel and unique.
-CP
1 describes a an abstract computer connection with persistant state and cookie setup and use - it is actually the most specific claim
Note: I have intellectual property lawyer relatives I speak with, yet I am not a lawyer myself.
Next time you see your IP lawyer relatives, ask them to explain the difference between independant and dependant claims and how they interrelate (assuming you're interested, of course). Claim #1, an independant claim, is not the most specific.
- CP
Although we may be speaking in sematics here, I respectfully disagree.
First, the line between inventing and patenting is already sufficiently blurry: A patent document is really nothing more than a legal description of an invention. An issued patent, of course, carries with it certain privileges, but I'm talking about the text and drawings of the document itself.
Secondly, while the patent application is generally focused on "the answer" as you say, it must also establish utility - which invariably means that the question(s) being answered must also be well defined in the document.
Many technology inventions (and resulting patents) come about because someone comes up with the question as well as the answer. Not necessarily in that order, of course - sometimes the question is reverse engineered from a cool answer that "must be good for something." You can invent the coolest device in the world - but until you can describe what it's useful for (the question), you will not [should not] be issued a patent.
I'm gone through hundreds of technology patents in agonizing detail, and it's been my observation that the original question is often less obvious than the answer (once the question is raised) - which was the main point I was trying to make.
--CP
Yeah, if you ask them that question... But part of the invention process involves coming up with the question in the first place (ie, realizing the utility of such a feature).
Having dealt with quite a few technology patents myself, I feel the novelty/utility on this one isn't unreasonable (considered in a prior art free vacuum). I haven't done (and don't plan to do) a thorough analysis of the patent vs. prior art -- but I suspect it may well fail that test.
Nothing that we really need to worry about though, let AOL's lawyers or Yahoo's take that one on. If there's really sufficient prior art, they'll use it to render the patent useless.
I, too, feel there is a place for software patents -- and I'm amazed at the uproar this kind of thing generates in here. Instead of whining, why don't y'all do something about it? Come up with a Free Technology Foundation that publicly discloses "inventions". Come up with the ideas first, describe them thoroughly, disclose them publicly, and no one will be able to patent them. End of problem. Assuming, of course, that you can come up with the ideas first rather than saying "I could of thought of that" AFTER the fact...
--CP
The link seems to have issues at the moment. Slashdot effect, or is there a cloud over their datacenter?
- CP