Absolutely this. In fact, when Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote from the Birmingham Jail, he said:
"I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
People seem to be commenting without having actually read the '520 patent. The claim is not to make support struts thinner, though that is a natural following benefit of the claimed technique.
What is actually claimed is a method of getting higher resolution layers out of a stereolithographic material than would normally be attained using the materials native cure depth. The method by which the higher resolution cross-sectioning could be achieved is what this patent claims.
You may not have read the patent carefully enough (or gotten past the 80-ish pages of drawings). What the patent is actual claiming is a way of getting higher resolution out of stereolithographic materials by blending cross-sectional layers that have a resolution greater than that of the material. By using the claimed method of blending those layers and varying the cure exposure times in just the right way, you can get thinner (higher-resolution) cross-sectional layers than the material, if cured using normal layer-by-layer techniques, would get alone.
It was a novel and non-obvious advance in stereolithographic techniques.
"The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics."
All these arguments are great, except that they mean nothing if the mark gets published in the Official Gazette and no one files a notice of opposition within 30 days. Then the mark will be presumed valid and harder to overturn. After a certain point, the mark can no longer be challenged, so it's best to get in opposition as early as possible.
If it gets past the first examiner, it will be published in the Official Gazette in the coming weeks (it's a weekly publication). That's when the notice of opposition should be filed. It costs $300, and requires proof of service to the applicant.
Because only Google could figure out that SSNs are sequential, follow a known formula, and can generally be figured out with the last 4 digits and the location and date of birth. Sooo Scary!
To think that SSNs are in any way a secure identifier is to be naive.
I had this exact thing happen to a photograph I had posted on Flickr. A magazine from the UK took my image without license, and published it in print, online, and in a DVD. Their distribution included many stores here in the US. Before posting the image, I had taken the time to register my copyright with the USCO, so that unlocks statutory damages, which are very important in copyright infringement cases. Without registering *before the infringement*, you don't get attorneys fees or court costs, and you only get actual damages. That makes pursuing an infringement case a loser if you don't have the copyright registered.
Having distributed physical copies into the US, I could have pretty easily used the US as the venue for a lawsuit, or even done so through a solicitor in the UK. However, lawyers are messy, and enforcing judgments across international borders is costly. The first thing I did was prepare an invoice stating the usage of the image, that there was no implicit license, that the images are copyrighted (which they are, whether you registered them or not), and how much I expected in licensing fees for the usage. I also added a multiplier for needing to issue the license retroactively and having discovered the infringement myself. After a bit of negotiation as to the licensing fee, the publication was very apologetic and wired me the agreed upon rate. Now they have a license, I got paid for the commercial use, and we parted amicably.
WHOIS 173.236.52.170:
OrgName: SingleHop, Inc.
OrgID: SINGL-8
Address: 621 W. Randolph St.
Address: 3rd Floor
City: Chicago
StateProv: IL
PostalCode: 60661
Country: US
I think that this raises a question regarding non-consenting inventors. If an inventor who holds a patent is not a consenting party to the formation of the industry standard, should they lose their patent rights solely because someone decided to make a standard based around the patent?
E.g. if a group of cotton makers created a "standard seed removal system for cotton" as an industry standard, should that have caused Eli Whitney to lose his patent on the cotton gin for it becoming a de facto standard when he never made it a de jure standard?
Not so. Mitochondrial DNA is not contained in the nucleus, but is rather contained in the hosting cell. In a normal fertilization, this is always the mother's mitochondiral DNA, but in this case, it is the egg donor's DNA. Any mitochondrial problems the donor might have had could be expressed by the child even if the two nuclear DNA parents don't have any such issues.
I'm glad that at the least, clause 43 got taken out before the bill got shoved through Westminster. Registration needs to be better for copyrighted works (more like automobile registrations); "orphan works" laws aren't the way to go.
http://www.stop43.org.uk/
Am I the only one who, after reading the headline, wondered why a space shuttle was bringing "plug-and-play" to a web server?
It's the International Space Station, a.k.a. ISS. Not the Internet Information Services, a.k.a. IIS.
Yes, I am that pedantic. Eats, Shoots & Leaves.
I must say, without census records, I would have had a damned awful time trying to research my own ancestors. The records were instrumental to creating a point from which I could jump and get much more information. Individual records for genealogical purposes aren't released until 80 years after the census, but from 1930 back, I get a great start.
There should be better control on what information is released, but remember, what the Census provided (1940/2000's referenced above) was statistical data, i.e. data in the aggregate rather than lists of individuals, which is what it is designed to provide. Perhaps we should have a discussion about what type of data is recorded, maybe race isn't important, but today's census obtains much less data than censuses in the early 1900's. Back then, census takers recorded birth state/nation, parents' birth state/nation, occupation, even records of how many children women had borne and how many were still living. I even found out about deceased baby 3rd-great uncles this way.
From a warehousing point-of-view, data needs to be better secured, but from a posterity point-of-view, I want my great-great-grandchildren to have the opportunity to find out a little more about me the same way I was able to find out a little more about my ancestors in the 1870's.
There are many users of Twitter, Facebook, and LiveJournal that use Tor and other anonymizing proxies to get around constricting and censoring firewalls. If Twitter thinks they can do it better, by all means, but have they even reached out to some of the existing communities working on this problem before diving headlong into it themselves?
I know for a fact that LiveJournal has a cordial relationship with the Tor project, and, when abuse from Tor spikes, has always worked with the project to ensure access from Tor users is quickly restored. I would be surprised if Twitter didn't have similar issues and that they wouldn't know about Tor, what with the Iran dissidents and Chinese users.
From the post -- "He is to be hanged inside 30 days from now. Saddam Hussein has been given 10 days to appeal against the decision." This is not true. The sentence is automatically appealed to an appeals panel with unlimited time to debate the appeal. If they uphold the appeal, then Saddam's death sentence will be carried out within 30 days of that ruling. Source: MSNBC AP News
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely this. In fact, when Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote from the Birmingham Jail, he said:
"I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
(Source: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)
People seem to be commenting without having actually read the '520 patent. The claim is not to make support struts thinner, though that is a natural following benefit of the claimed technique.
What is actually claimed is a method of getting higher resolution layers out of a stereolithographic material than would normally be attained using the materials native cure depth. The method by which the higher resolution cross-sectioning could be achieved is what this patent claims.
You may not have read the patent carefully enough (or gotten past the 80-ish pages of drawings). What the patent is actual claiming is a way of getting higher resolution out of stereolithographic materials by blending cross-sectional layers that have a resolution greater than that of the material. By using the claimed method of blending those layers and varying the cure exposure times in just the right way, you can get thinner (higher-resolution) cross-sectional layers than the material, if cured using normal layer-by-layer techniques, would get alone.
It was a novel and non-obvious advance in stereolithographic techniques.
This is exactly why SLAPP laws exist:
"The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP
"The won was devalued by 100 percent, which meant 1,000 won suddenly had the purchasing power of 10 won."
This was the first thing in the article that I saw or read.
All these arguments are great, except that they mean nothing if the mark gets published in the Official Gazette and no one files a notice of opposition within 30 days. Then the mark will be presumed valid and harder to overturn. After a certain point, the mark can no longer be challenged, so it's best to get in opposition as early as possible.
If it gets past the first examiner, it will be published in the Official Gazette in the coming weeks (it's a weekly publication). That's when the notice of opposition should be filed. It costs $300, and requires proof of service to the applicant.
Because only Google could figure out that SSNs are sequential, follow a known formula, and can generally be figured out with the last 4 digits and the location and date of birth. Sooo Scary! To think that SSNs are in any way a secure identifier is to be naive.
I had this exact thing happen to a photograph I had posted on Flickr. A magazine from the UK took my image without license, and published it in print, online, and in a DVD. Their distribution included many stores here in the US. Before posting the image, I had taken the time to register my copyright with the USCO, so that unlocks statutory damages, which are very important in copyright infringement cases. Without registering *before the infringement*, you don't get attorneys fees or court costs, and you only get actual damages. That makes pursuing an infringement case a loser if you don't have the copyright registered.
Having distributed physical copies into the US, I could have pretty easily used the US as the venue for a lawsuit, or even done so through a solicitor in the UK. However, lawyers are messy, and enforcing judgments across international borders is costly. The first thing I did was prepare an invoice stating the usage of the image, that there was no implicit license, that the images are copyrighted (which they are, whether you registered them or not), and how much I expected in licensing fees for the usage. I also added a multiplier for needing to issue the license retroactively and having discovered the infringement myself. After a bit of negotiation as to the licensing fee, the publication was very apologetic and wired me the agreed upon rate. Now they have a license, I got paid for the commercial use, and we parted amicably.
For more information, I highly recommend the ASMP website on copyright: http://asmp.org/tutorials/enforcing-your-rights.html
Bingo. It worked for me when I had to deal with the same issue for a magazine in the UK which printed a photo of mine without permission.
Waiting for the first photograph of an exoplanet from an underwater observatory. And you though atmospheric refraction was a pain on land!
WHOIS 173.236.52.170:
OrgName: SingleHop, Inc.
OrgID: SINGL-8
Address: 621 W. Randolph St.
Address: 3rd Floor
City: Chicago
StateProv: IL
PostalCode: 60661
Country: US
ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.singlehop.net:4321
NetRange: 173.236.0.0 - 173.236.127.255
CIDR: 173.236.0.0/17
OriginAS: AS32475
NetName: SINGLEHOP
NetHandle: NET-173-236-0-0-1
Parent: NET-173-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.SINGLEHOP.COM
NameServer: NS2.SINGLEHOP.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 2010-03-23
Updated: 2010-03-23
Allocated to an ISP in the United States.
I think that this raises a question regarding non-consenting inventors. If an inventor who holds a patent is not a consenting party to the formation of the industry standard, should they lose their patent rights solely because someone decided to make a standard based around the patent? E.g. if a group of cotton makers created a "standard seed removal system for cotton" as an industry standard, should that have caused Eli Whitney to lose his patent on the cotton gin for it becoming a de facto standard when he never made it a de jure standard?
Not so. Mitochondrial DNA is not contained in the nucleus, but is rather contained in the hosting cell. In a normal fertilization, this is always the mother's mitochondiral DNA, but in this case, it is the egg donor's DNA. Any mitochondrial problems the donor might have had could be expressed by the child even if the two nuclear DNA parents don't have any such issues.
I'm glad that at the least, clause 43 got taken out before the bill got shoved through Westminster. Registration needs to be better for copyrighted works (more like automobile registrations); "orphan works" laws aren't the way to go. http://www.stop43.org.uk/
Am I the only one who, after reading the headline, wondered why a space shuttle was bringing "plug-and-play" to a web server? It's the International Space Station, a.k.a. ISS. Not the Internet Information Services, a.k.a. IIS. Yes, I am that pedantic. Eats, Shoots & Leaves.
I must say, without census records, I would have had a damned awful time trying to research my own ancestors. The records were instrumental to creating a point from which I could jump and get much more information. Individual records for genealogical purposes aren't released until 80 years after the census, but from 1930 back, I get a great start. There should be better control on what information is released, but remember, what the Census provided (1940/2000's referenced above) was statistical data, i.e. data in the aggregate rather than lists of individuals, which is what it is designed to provide. Perhaps we should have a discussion about what type of data is recorded, maybe race isn't important, but today's census obtains much less data than censuses in the early 1900's. Back then, census takers recorded birth state/nation, parents' birth state/nation, occupation, even records of how many children women had borne and how many were still living. I even found out about deceased baby 3rd-great uncles this way. From a warehousing point-of-view, data needs to be better secured, but from a posterity point-of-view, I want my great-great-grandchildren to have the opportunity to find out a little more about me the same way I was able to find out a little more about my ancestors in the 1870's.
There are many users of Twitter, Facebook, and LiveJournal that use Tor and other anonymizing proxies to get around constricting and censoring firewalls. If Twitter thinks they can do it better, by all means, but have they even reached out to some of the existing communities working on this problem before diving headlong into it themselves?
I know for a fact that LiveJournal has a cordial relationship with the Tor project, and, when abuse from Tor spikes, has always worked with the project to ensure access from Tor users is quickly restored. I would be surprised if Twitter didn't have similar issues and that they wouldn't know about Tor, what with the Iran dissidents and Chinese users.
Not the first time; see this press release from 2006: http://www.kumc.edu/news/publish/article_00818.sht ml
From the post -- "He is to be hanged inside 30 days from now. Saddam Hussein has been given 10 days to appeal against the decision." This is not true. The sentence is automatically appealed to an appeals panel with unlimited time to debate the appeal. If they uphold the appeal, then Saddam's death sentence will be carried out within 30 days of that ruling. Source: MSNBC AP News