Ok, thanks for clarifying that. I thought you were saying that it would not be obvious or that it would be valid just because it had the new combination even though it might be a simple addition. I also understand that not every case is clear cut and sometimes when looked at closely it can be an actual innovation. Sometimes it just seems that the most basic and obvious stuff gets patented and it can seem that some people deny any type of obvious test.
There are two separate and independent requirements for a patent* - (i) that the patent claim be new; and (ii) that the patent claim not be obvious. Again, these are separate and independent: you must meet both in order to get a patent. Okay? It's a Boolean AND.
(i) Something is "new" if it hasn't been done before. If you claim A+B+C+D and only A+B+C has been done before, then A+B+C+D is new. Congratulations, you meet the first test.
(ii) Something is "obvious" if a combination of prior art references teach everything in the patent claim. You claim A+B+C+D and you admit that A+B+C is in the prior art. D is also in the prior art. Therefore, (A+B+C) plus (D) teaches everything in the patent claim. Therefore, it's obvious, and you fail the second test.
If the requirement for a patent is passing (i) AND (ii), and you passed (i) but failed (ii), do you get a patent?
No.
Does that help to clarify why you're wrong?
This just seems to indicate that Apple's patent is invalid. They have a slide lock, like on a gate. It's on a touch screen, not a new device. It unlocks, also been done. Where is this new part you talk about. If every part of the patent has been done before, but not together, then how is it new. My A+B+C+D has not been done together before so what's the difference?
I specifically mentioned getting a new patent for adding the (D)not an Apple iPhone. So if the Apple iPhone meets (A)+(B)+(C) but it does not meet my new condition (D), then my patent stands and the Apple iPhone does not count as prior art for my new patent. And since my condition (D) in necessary it would stand that I would not be infringing on Apple's patent either. That is what I mean about ridiculous.
That's the point - the legalese is engineering. Invaliding a patent claim is a function that requires a set of inputs, one input per claim element. The claim itself is Boolean logic, with a big ol' AND between every element. If you fail to put in an input, if you fail to find a piece of prior art showing that element, then you haven't invalidated the claim: A+B+C+__ is not the same as A+B+C+D.
I think the mental gymnastics that lawyers have to go through to defend their positions is a part of the problem with these bad patents. If you say A+B+C is not the same as A+B+C+D, then I could patent the (A)slide to unlock gesture on a (B)handheld (C)touchscreen device that is (D)not an Apple iPhone and I should be able to have a new and clearly non-obvious patent. All I have to say is this stuff is ridiculous.
Cameras can have better dynamic range than the human eye, and can compress that range to a more usable level. Especially when driving at night you can get a combination of limited night vision and anti-glare.
Check out some footage from "HDR" dashcams on YouTube. Some of them are pretty impressive.
But then having a screen shining at you during night driving will harm your night vision. So even looking out the front windshield will be hampered.
I pretty sure that you need to describe how you separate the cotton fibers. If someone can figure out a new way to do it, they can make their own machine without infringing you patents. They could even patent their own method.
That is the basic problem we have with how software patents work in the real world. They describe the idea, not the actual implementation. So anyone else who does rubber banding in the UI will infringe no matter how they implement it.
It is quite obvious from your ranting responses that you do not have the capacity for rational thought and you can only parrot the points made by others in your belief system or religious group.
Requiring someone else to pay for something that you want that they do not want to pay for is evil.
What happened when you were growing up that made you so sure that the world owes everyone free shit? Freedom has nothing to do with "How much shit I want I can get others to pay for.
From this thinking it would seem to me you would promote letting injured people that come into a hospital from a car accident die unless they can pay ahead of time for the services they need. That is pure evil. You sound just like the homosexual politicians that rail against gays, or the anti-gun politician that was running illegal guns. You call other evil because you know how evil you are inside. You just assume everybody must be as evil as you. And if you want to kill babies then that must mean everybody else must want to do the same thing.
I'm done with this pointless conversation. Don't bother responding because I won't read whatever you write.
Don't get so angry. If I don't want to use contraceptives, that is my right. It is not my right to tell other people they can't use it. If the medical insurance covers contraceptives, then that is the choice of the medical insurance company to include that. And if the government has determined that contraceptives need to be included in medical insurance, then they should be included. For the company to say they don't want their employees to have access to the same medical insurance that other people have is denying them something. Not everybody that works for Hobby Lobby has the same beliefs as the owner of the company. He can prevent his wife and his underage daughters from using contraceptives, but he should not be able to tell other people that their insurance is not as good as the law dictates it should be. How is that different from not wanting to cover blood transfusions? Or not covering vaccines? What if your religious beliefs say not to use any doctor/medical services, does that mean they don't even need to provide medical insurance? Or perhaps it's your religious beliefs that only Mexicans don't deserve medical insurance coverage. Where do we draw the line with this? I say we draw the line at your own body. Don't use the drugs/medical procedure/contraceptive if you don't want to, but don't tell others they can't have the same options or coverage as everyone else in the country.
But Hobby Lobby isn't paying for the contraceptives. They are offering medical coverage to their employees. That coverage covers certain things that the government has determined should be covered. Nowhere is Hobby Lobby paying for any particular medical procedure or drug that anyone uses.
I see a different number of keys on the bottom row. I see that the little ridges on each key is more rounded on the Typo version than the Blackberry version. I also see that the bottom row on the Blackberry keyboard has significant curves at the right and left sides where the other one does not. Then there is the fact that the Typo version is removable and can be added to a smartphone that did not come with a keyboard to start with. What is left that is similar is fairly insignificant, the colors and little silver horizontal bars between the keys. Why does Blackberry stay alive if that is all they have to offer.
Lets also not forget that even with realism, many things can give the sunset or sunrise in a nice red hue (storm on the horizon anyone?). The pollution in the atmosphere is just one of countless things that could cause the sky to have a red hue. I really hope that people are not calling this "science".
Plus, the artist would probably be expected to choose a scene they felt warranted the time and effort to paint it. Boring dull horizon. . . yeah, I'll paint that one! Bright colorful horizon. . . naw, why waste my time! If there was same reason to expect that every type of sky was equally represented in the paintings then this theory could hold some water, but I don't see how you could expect that to be. If they were constantly running weather cams or something, then it would work.
Their memory of human faces is pretty amazing also. If a scientist or other person takes baby crows from a nest, the other crows nearby will squawk like crazy at them. If those same crows see that person again they will scream like crazy again and any new crows around will learn this humans face also and squawk any time they see them. It can get so bad that no matter where you go a crow will recognize you and start harassing you.
Yeah, sorry. I see from your link that the kinetic energy is much higher due to the velocity squared. That would make a big difference. The pointy butted rifle would be stabbing you at a much slower and thus less energetic rate. I think I must have been looking at the force the bullet imparts on the target compared to the force imparted on the rifle through recoil and it seems it should be equal. (Bullet does not gain speed through the air, so velocity at target is equal or less than velocity at rifle. Shooting the bullet gives equal and opposite forces and catching in armor at target is again equal and opposite force.) But the force the rifle imparts on the shooter is another matter because it's mass helps determine what it's velocity will be.
Actually, after posting I had another thought that sounds even more likely to be an important factor. The force of the firing of the bullet in distributed over the handle of a pistol or the butt of the gun, while the force of impact is over the point of the bullet. I bet if you were to taper the butt of the rifle down to the same size as the bullet, it would be pretty damaging to the shooter as well.
But the soldier and his body armor have even more mass than the gun. So I don't really see that your description makes sense. Does the fact that the bullet is accelerated over the length of the barrel make a difference. Upon firing, the bullet is accelerated over 6 inches or so (even longer for a rifle), while on hitting the armor it is stopped in a very short distance.
They also count two sober people driving the cars that get into an accident as alcohol related if there are any drunk passengers in either car. Even if they were sleeping.
And you should see what the stats are for accidents where the people involved have inhaled oxygen into their lungs right before getting into the accident. I think it's pretty close to 100%. So perhaps we should ban the use of oxygen while driving!
Worrying about what is going to happen in 15-20 years can simply be a waste of time as the business might not even be around then. Plenty of businesses fail, but even just selling it to some larger company puts the problem out of your worry just as well. I have noticed that it sometimes seems that things that should be upgraded or improved aren't, but when you look at it in this light it might be a good policy. Never do anything that isn't necessary right now as it might not even be needed or be your problem later.
Just because you paid money for the rocks does not mean you could get money for them in the future. It is quite possible that in getting rocks you are actually paying for the services performed moreso than the rocks themselves. These rocks have been sorted by type, color, and size, they have been cleaned as they are not mixed in with a large amount of dirt, and they have been delivered. If rocks have any inherant worth on their own then there would be people who would find it worthwhile to steal them from gravel roads so they can resell them the same way people do with copper wire and pipes.
Yes, having good and trustworthy exchanges has been a problem lately. The transfer seems less of a problem to me. In your example, of sending money to a friend, you could just email the wallet itself to them with the $150 in it. That is one less transaction. But going from cash to BTC and back would still be two transactions to deal with. Currently that is covered by the miners getting their new BTC out of the deal. In the future there is imagined to be an extra bit added to the transaction that goes to the miners. You could try to do it without the transaction fee and perhaps after a while your transaction will get included. At this point it is hard to say how well this part will work since it is still a far way off. I don't really see that the existing banking system will be cheaper though. It may be, but they also have large systems of computers and networks and have to inter-operate with each other for transfers. Bitcoin has decentralized this to a peer network. The peer networks work very cheaply for getting movies, tv shows, music, and software for completely free. Banks will always have a cost that another bank wants to charge to handle a transfer, they are in it for profit. But again, it's hard to say for sure since it is quite a way off into the future.
The bus is the same. If everybody decided (at once) to start riding the bus, it would be faster than everybody driving cars because there would be so little congestion on the streets, and so many bus routes. But since only a few people take the bus, the busses slog thorough the congestion, AND (being busses) have to stop all the time. So the situation persists.
But if everybody started taking the bus, the stops would be more frequent and longer. The congestion might be better, but your overall trip length might still be long due to all of the stopping that the bus has to do.
I can pick up a plain boring old rock in my hand. I don't see many people that will buy that rock from me as they can just pick up one of their own. So wouldn't it be worth nothing then? Or are you considering that I could use it to build a rock fence, or I could shoot it from a slingshot or something to give it worth? What about the dead fish that has been sitting on the shores of the river for a few weeks, is that worth something also? What about all the leaves that fall in autumn, or the rest of the trash I haul out to the curb? I have to pay people to come pick them up. What worth are those to me? These are all examples of things I can hold in my hand.
For those who wish to use BTC as a token of exchange for goods and services, it can be difficult/expensive to acquire in any quantity.
I like the critical thought you have put into your post. I just have one issue or question about your statement above. If you want to use a currency as a token of exchange then it doesn't matter how expensive they are to acquire. You buy the BTC you need, trade them for what you want and your are done. It is no different from going to mexico and getting a bucket of beer by changing 3 USD into whatever number of Pesos you can get and giving those Pesos over for the beer. Whether that is 10 Pesos or 100 does not matter. The exchange rate does not matter as long as you can actually get some Pesos and you find the price of what you want to buy to be worth what it costs.
The only time the value of the BTC matters is when you are speculating on them as a direct money making process. In that case you don't actually want to spend the BTC on anything. You just want to buy them cheap, hold on to them, and sell them at a profit. Eventually, if BTC becomes a truly successful currency, the speculators will go away or at least reduce to the same amount that we have in currency exchange speculation, and it will be used primarily as the currency it was meant to be.
I would imagine that having the speculators involved now will only help BTC to become a more real currency in the future. It leads to more people buying and trading them, and all these people have an interest in the value of their BTC not disappearing.
I thought the point of the article was that people need more than one streaming service. And based on your 3 people, all of which have multiple streaming services, I would say it is accurate.
"Working for Microsoft is like sneaking up on that gnome that stole your booze while air guitaring on a velociraptor that is precariously balanced on sharks with a laser cannons underneath each foot."
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, thanks for clarifying that. I thought you were saying that it would not be obvious or that it would be valid just because it had the new combination even though it might be a simple addition. I also understand that not every case is clear cut and sometimes when looked at closely it can be an actual innovation. Sometimes it just seems that the most basic and obvious stuff gets patented and it can seem that some people deny any type of obvious test.
Thanks for the helpful conversation!
There are two separate and independent requirements for a patent* - (i) that the patent claim be new; and (ii) that the patent claim not be obvious. Again, these are separate and independent: you must meet both in order to get a patent. Okay? It's a Boolean AND.
(i) Something is "new" if it hasn't been done before. If you claim A+B+C+D and only A+B+C has been done before, then A+B+C+D is new. Congratulations, you meet the first test.
(ii) Something is "obvious" if a combination of prior art references teach everything in the patent claim. You claim A+B+C+D and you admit that A+B+C is in the prior art. D is also in the prior art. Therefore, (A+B+C) plus (D) teaches everything in the patent claim. Therefore, it's obvious, and you fail the second test.
If the requirement for a patent is passing (i) AND (ii), and you passed (i) but failed (ii), do you get a patent? No.
Does that help to clarify why you're wrong?
This just seems to indicate that Apple's patent is invalid. They have a slide lock, like on a gate. It's on a touch screen, not a new device. It unlocks, also been done. Where is this new part you talk about. If every part of the patent has been done before, but not together, then how is it new. My A+B+C+D has not been done together before so what's the difference?
I specifically mentioned getting a new patent for adding the (D)not an Apple iPhone. So if the Apple iPhone meets (A)+(B)+(C) but it does not meet my new condition (D), then my patent stands and the Apple iPhone does not count as prior art for my new patent. And since my condition (D) in necessary it would stand that I would not be infringing on Apple's patent either. That is what I mean about ridiculous.
That's the point - the legalese is engineering. Invaliding a patent claim is a function that requires a set of inputs, one input per claim element. The claim itself is Boolean logic, with a big ol' AND between every element. If you fail to put in an input, if you fail to find a piece of prior art showing that element, then you haven't invalidated the claim: A+B+C+__ is not the same as A+B+C+D.
I think the mental gymnastics that lawyers have to go through to defend their positions is a part of the problem with these bad patents. If you say A+B+C is not the same as A+B+C+D, then I could patent the (A)slide to unlock gesture on a (B)handheld (C)touchscreen device that is (D)not an Apple iPhone and I should be able to have a new and clearly non-obvious patent. All I have to say is this stuff is ridiculous.
Cameras can have better dynamic range than the human eye, and can compress that range to a more usable level. Especially when driving at night you can get a combination of limited night vision and anti-glare.
Check out some footage from "HDR" dashcams on YouTube. Some of them are pretty impressive.
But then having a screen shining at you during night driving will harm your night vision. So even looking out the front windshield will be hampered.
I pretty sure that you need to describe how you separate the cotton fibers. If someone can figure out a new way to do it, they can make their own machine without infringing you patents. They could even patent their own method.
That is the basic problem we have with how software patents work in the real world. They describe the idea, not the actual implementation. So anyone else who does rubber banding in the UI will infringe no matter how they implement it.
It is quite obvious from your ranting responses that you do not have the capacity for rational thought and you can only parrot the points made by others in your belief system or religious group.
Requiring someone else to pay for something that you want that they do not want to pay for is evil. What happened when you were growing up that made you so sure that the world owes everyone free shit? Freedom has nothing to do with "How much shit I want I can get others to pay for.
From this thinking it would seem to me you would promote letting injured people that come into a hospital from a car accident die unless they can pay ahead of time for the services they need. That is pure evil. You sound just like the homosexual politicians that rail against gays, or the anti-gun politician that was running illegal guns. You call other evil because you know how evil you are inside. You just assume everybody must be as evil as you. And if you want to kill babies then that must mean everybody else must want to do the same thing.
I'm done with this pointless conversation. Don't bother responding because I won't read whatever you write.
Don't get so angry. If I don't want to use contraceptives, that is my right. It is not my right to tell other people they can't use it. If the medical insurance covers contraceptives, then that is the choice of the medical insurance company to include that. And if the government has determined that contraceptives need to be included in medical insurance, then they should be included. For the company to say they don't want their employees to have access to the same medical insurance that other people have is denying them something. Not everybody that works for Hobby Lobby has the same beliefs as the owner of the company. He can prevent his wife and his underage daughters from using contraceptives, but he should not be able to tell other people that their insurance is not as good as the law dictates it should be. How is that different from not wanting to cover blood transfusions? Or not covering vaccines? What if your religious beliefs say not to use any doctor/medical services, does that mean they don't even need to provide medical insurance? Or perhaps it's your religious beliefs that only Mexicans don't deserve medical insurance coverage. Where do we draw the line with this? I say we draw the line at your own body. Don't use the drugs/medical procedure/contraceptive if you don't want to, but don't tell others they can't have the same options or coverage as everyone else in the country.
But Hobby Lobby isn't paying for the contraceptives. They are offering medical coverage to their employees. That coverage covers certain things that the government has determined should be covered. Nowhere is Hobby Lobby paying for any particular medical procedure or drug that anyone uses.
I see a different number of keys on the bottom row. I see that the little ridges on each key is more rounded on the Typo version than the Blackberry version. I also see that the bottom row on the Blackberry keyboard has significant curves at the right and left sides where the other one does not. Then there is the fact that the Typo version is removable and can be added to a smartphone that did not come with a keyboard to start with. What is left that is similar is fairly insignificant, the colors and little silver horizontal bars between the keys. Why does Blackberry stay alive if that is all they have to offer.
>
Lets also not forget that even with realism, many things can give the sunset or sunrise in a nice red hue (storm on the horizon anyone?). The pollution in the atmosphere is just one of countless things that could cause the sky to have a red hue. I really hope that people are not calling this "science".
Plus, the artist would probably be expected to choose a scene they felt warranted the time and effort to paint it. Boring dull horizon. . . yeah, I'll paint that one! Bright colorful horizon. . . naw, why waste my time! If there was same reason to expect that every type of sky was equally represented in the paintings then this theory could hold some water, but I don't see how you could expect that to be. If they were constantly running weather cams or something, then it would work.
Their memory of human faces is pretty amazing also. If a scientist or other person takes baby crows from a nest, the other crows nearby will squawk like crazy at them. If those same crows see that person again they will scream like crazy again and any new crows around will learn this humans face also and squawk any time they see them. It can get so bad that no matter where you go a crow will recognize you and start harassing you.
Yeah, sorry. I see from your link that the kinetic energy is much higher due to the velocity squared. That would make a big difference. The pointy butted rifle would be stabbing you at a much slower and thus less energetic rate. I think I must have been looking at the force the bullet imparts on the target compared to the force imparted on the rifle through recoil and it seems it should be equal. (Bullet does not gain speed through the air, so velocity at target is equal or less than velocity at rifle. Shooting the bullet gives equal and opposite forces and catching in armor at target is again equal and opposite force.) But the force the rifle imparts on the shooter is another matter because it's mass helps determine what it's velocity will be.
Actually, after posting I had another thought that sounds even more likely to be an important factor. The force of the firing of the bullet in distributed over the handle of a pistol or the butt of the gun, while the force of impact is over the point of the bullet. I bet if you were to taper the butt of the rifle down to the same size as the bullet, it would be pretty damaging to the shooter as well.
But the soldier and his body armor have even more mass than the gun. So I don't really see that your description makes sense. Does the fact that the bullet is accelerated over the length of the barrel make a difference. Upon firing, the bullet is accelerated over 6 inches or so (even longer for a rifle), while on hitting the armor it is stopped in a very short distance.
They also count two sober people driving the cars that get into an accident as alcohol related if there are any drunk passengers in either car. Even if they were sleeping.
And you should see what the stats are for accidents where the people involved have inhaled oxygen into their lungs right before getting into the accident. I think it's pretty close to 100%. So perhaps we should ban the use of oxygen while driving!
Worrying about what is going to happen in 15-20 years can simply be a waste of time as the business might not even be around then. Plenty of businesses fail, but even just selling it to some larger company puts the problem out of your worry just as well. I have noticed that it sometimes seems that things that should be upgraded or improved aren't, but when you look at it in this light it might be a good policy. Never do anything that isn't necessary right now as it might not even be needed or be your problem later.
Just because you paid money for the rocks does not mean you could get money for them in the future. It is quite possible that in getting rocks you are actually paying for the services performed moreso than the rocks themselves. These rocks have been sorted by type, color, and size, they have been cleaned as they are not mixed in with a large amount of dirt, and they have been delivered. If rocks have any inherant worth on their own then there would be people who would find it worthwhile to steal them from gravel roads so they can resell them the same way people do with copper wire and pipes.
Yes, having good and trustworthy exchanges has been a problem lately. The transfer seems less of a problem to me. In your example, of sending money to a friend, you could just email the wallet itself to them with the $150 in it. That is one less transaction. But going from cash to BTC and back would still be two transactions to deal with. Currently that is covered by the miners getting their new BTC out of the deal. In the future there is imagined to be an extra bit added to the transaction that goes to the miners. You could try to do it without the transaction fee and perhaps after a while your transaction will get included. At this point it is hard to say how well this part will work since it is still a far way off. I don't really see that the existing banking system will be cheaper though. It may be, but they also have large systems of computers and networks and have to inter-operate with each other for transfers. Bitcoin has decentralized this to a peer network. The peer networks work very cheaply for getting movies, tv shows, music, and software for completely free. Banks will always have a cost that another bank wants to charge to handle a transfer, they are in it for profit. But again, it's hard to say for sure since it is quite a way off into the future.
The bus is the same. If everybody decided (at once) to start riding the bus, it would be faster than everybody driving cars because there would be so little congestion on the streets, and so many bus routes. But since only a few people take the bus, the busses slog thorough the congestion, AND (being busses) have to stop all the time. So the situation persists.
But if everybody started taking the bus, the stops would be more frequent and longer. The congestion might be better, but your overall trip length might still be long due to all of the stopping that the bus has to do.
I can pick up a plain boring old rock in my hand. I don't see many people that will buy that rock from me as they can just pick up one of their own. So wouldn't it be worth nothing then? Or are you considering that I could use it to build a rock fence, or I could shoot it from a slingshot or something to give it worth? What about the dead fish that has been sitting on the shores of the river for a few weeks, is that worth something also? What about all the leaves that fall in autumn, or the rest of the trash I haul out to the curb? I have to pay people to come pick them up. What worth are those to me? These are all examples of things I can hold in my hand.
For those who wish to use BTC as a token of exchange for goods and services, it can be difficult/expensive to acquire in any quantity.
I like the critical thought you have put into your post. I just have one issue or question about your statement above. If you want to use a currency as a token of exchange then it doesn't matter how expensive they are to acquire. You buy the BTC you need, trade them for what you want and your are done. It is no different from going to mexico and getting a bucket of beer by changing 3 USD into whatever number of Pesos you can get and giving those Pesos over for the beer. Whether that is 10 Pesos or 100 does not matter. The exchange rate does not matter as long as you can actually get some Pesos and you find the price of what you want to buy to be worth what it costs.
The only time the value of the BTC matters is when you are speculating on them as a direct money making process. In that case you don't actually want to spend the BTC on anything. You just want to buy them cheap, hold on to them, and sell them at a profit. Eventually, if BTC becomes a truly successful currency, the speculators will go away or at least reduce to the same amount that we have in currency exchange speculation, and it will be used primarily as the currency it was meant to be.
I would imagine that having the speculators involved now will only help BTC to become a more real currency in the future. It leads to more people buying and trading them, and all these people have an interest in the value of their BTC not disappearing.
I thought the point of the article was that people need more than one streaming service. And based on your 3 people, all of which have multiple streaming services, I would say it is accurate.
My turn:
"Working for Microsoft is like sneaking up on that gnome that stole your booze while air guitaring on a velociraptor that is precariously balanced on sharks with a laser cannons underneath each foot."
I'd like to see these sharks with feet!