There is no such thing as a provisional patent. Normally, you file a nonprovisional patent application. The Patent Office examines the patent and then decides whether to grant a patent or not. It's also possible to file a provisional patent application. For this type, the patent office never examines the application. It gives the applicant a year to decide whether to follow through or not (i.e., commercialize, raise money or whatever). Before the year is up, the applicant has to file a nonprovisional application, which is then examined.
The above description is for "utility patents." Those are the normal type of patents on inventions. There is a second type of patent called a "design patent." However, for these, there is no "provisional application."
I'm guessing this kid has a provisional patent application on file. He probably doesn't have a patent and it is for a utility not design patent. (Design patents are just for an ornamental design.)
Perhaps Tennessee should get a copy of the Constitution and read the First Amendment. This sounds unconstitutional to me.
Tennessee is starting to be embarrassing. Weren't they trying to ban mosques or something a while ago? I guess they aren't a big fan of the First Amendment.
It often takes 3, 4, 5, or more years just to get the patent granted from the Patent Office.
I'm split on this issue. I've seen a few software patents where I've thought--"these inventors really did deserve a patent." But, then I've seen dozens of others where I've thought--"this is ridiculous." Perhaps, the answer isn't patentability of software but just giving the Patent Office better resources to examine correctly and grant patents that aren't super broad and that are actually novel.
Lots of talk about changing the rules here, with patent reform, etc. Seems like the biggest problem is just patent quality--and to fix that you need more resources at the patent office, better and more examiners.
The America Invents Act which has been passed by the Senate and being considered by the House of Representatives actually introduces a new post-grant opposition procedure to invalidate patents.
Definitely beware of the summary; it's wholly inaccurate. Unfortunately, that's usually the case when reporters report on legal statutes, bills, treaties, etc. Although, there are some good ones out there.
Sorry for the slightly rude subject, but hopefully that got your attention.
How this agreement is worded, it would not be self-executing. If I'm correct, that would mean this would not be binding federal law even after passed. For that to happen, Congress would have to then enact implementing legislation. This is merely an agreement between nations on what they are going to or should do.
Further, I don't understand all the FUD about the patent provisions. This wouldn't change anything. As far as I can tell, the U.S. already does all of this.
Also, take a look at the America Invents Act which just passed the Senate. That would put U.S. patent law more in line (but not completely) with the rest of the world. It will open up more prior art to invalidate patents. It also has a procedure to re-review crappy business method patents. Lots of stuff that you guys should like. Sure, I'd like to see it go further to stop the patent trolls and make litigation cheaper, but at least it's something.
So Calm Down. You guys don't like patents. We get it; that doesn't mean you have to misrepresent the facts. I also note that for all the companies out there trying to get crappy software patents, there are a whole bunch trying to invalidate them. (Disclosure - part of my job is trying to invalidate crappy software patents. I'm no big fan of them, but that doesn't mean I need to lose grasp of reality.)
Whether laptops should be in class completely depends on the subject matter. For example, I never used a laptop in undergraduate class. In law school, I always used a laptop for taking notes as did every student save maybe one out of a hundred.
But I can't even imagine using a laptop for math or science courses. Then again, I didn't really take notes in most of my undegrad classes. I definitely found it useful in law school and probably even essential. I can also see using one is undergrad liberal arts courses (e.g., English, History, etc), although I didn't.
Some people have brought up that lectures shouldn't be mandatory. I definitely agree with that. Throughout most of my education, they weren't and I loved that. For Calculus, before class, I'd review the syllabus to see what was going to be lectured on that day. I'd then review those pages and do a few problems. If I understood it, I'd skip class. If I didn't, then I'd go to class. I'd usually attend lecture 1/4 times. Then again, in certain undegrad courses (e.g., history, some computer science courses) and most law school classes, I almost never missed a lecture.
So basically my point is, you really can't generalize. There is no correct answer to whether a laptop should be allowed. It all depends on the major and the individual course. More so, it really depends on the student (and maybe even the lecturer).
So, it might not be standard or common for U.S. executive to be taking kick-backs like this. But from what I understand, this is extremely common in China. When you outsource and use a Chinese company to help you find the best / cheapest company, you probably aren't getting that. The factory you use will likely have paid a kick-back / bribe to someone working for the Chinese company helping you. From what I've been told (sorry to be vague), the lower level employees do this, and not necessarily the outsourcing company (though that wouldn't surprise me).
Poppycocks, I say! (btw, I don't know if that is a word, but it is fun to say).
Back in the day, most cities had multiple newspapers that competed against each other. However, in the past 25 years or many newspapers have gone under leaving many cities with only one.
Newspapers were hurt by television news and then later even more by 24 hour cable news. Now they are being killed off by the internet.
Hopefully, they find a working business models. Television news is terrible. Most of my news comes from the internet, but from websites such as nytimes.com, etc. Charging isn't going to work.
If this is what Murdoch thinks than it might not be goodbye to free internet news, but goodbye to News Corporation.
That sucks. But can't non-Americans just route through a proxy or something?
I'd probably also blame this on your networks, since they syndicate many of these shows. It would probably violate the contracts to allow non-Americans to view the shows before your local neetwork has shown the program. The question is why is there often such a delay before the foreign network airs the show? If there isn't a delay than this is really stupid.
But really I often just don't understand Hollywood. They bitch that China is pirating all their movies. Yet you can't legally buy them in China. So how can it possibly be costing them money? Plus half the time, the movies wouldn't be allowed in China because of censorship.
Wow, www.useit.com is a terrible looking website and difficult to use. Why in God's name would anyone hire this man? A useability review from him is something like $38,000. That would be the biggest waste of money ever. Definitely wouldn't trust his services after seeing this website.
Also, why after making a comment and hitting the preview button does it take 40 seconds before I can submit the comment. Slashdot has become the most annoying site to submit comments at (yet that is one of the main points of the site).
Not really right. I think what you mean is that many states have use taxes for out-of-state purchases which equals what they would have paid in sales taxes had they made the purchase in-state. However, nobody actually pays the use tax (since, hell, nobody actually knows how much they purchased out-of-state, so enforcing use tax laws would be a nightmare and politically dangerous).
This law would allow the states to collect this tax money. But, not all states have use tax. For example, I believe in Missouri your first $2,000 in out-of-state purchases are exempt (and I don't think I know anyone who has paid the tax for an amount greater than that, though most people probably spend under $2,000, which is probably why that is the rule).
So this law will encourage states to tax what they otherwise aren't taxing, so politicians can get their greedy little paws on more of our money.
This isn't an internet loophole. It's always been this way with mail-order. Congress and States are trying to raise our taxes.
Yeah, that's why states can't force out-of-state sellers to collect the sales tax now. It is prohibited by the dormant commerce clause.
However, Congress can pass a law which allows the states to collect such sales tax. So basically, collecting sales tax on internet purchases affects interstate commerce too much. So it is the domain of the federal government and not states, but the Federal Government can give authority to the states if it wants.
The U.S. has the First Amendment.
Also, we're all for the most part unrelated to the case, so the Court doesn't have jurisdiction over slashdot readers.
Was this a bad attorney? I imagine the pot shouldn't have been admitted into evidence (meaning he would almost have to be acquitted) since it was found in an unconstitutional search and seizure (violation of the 4th Amendment). You could have testified to this. Of course, it would have been your word and your friend's against that of the police officer.
Can't you just use a proxy server to watch Hulu if you're not in the U.S.? Or are they too slow? I no someone who does something similar to watch baseball games on MLB.TV when the games are blacked out.
In the United States, it's unconstitutional to pass an "ex post-facto" law - how is it that the terms of copyright are being retroactively renegotiated?
Probably because the Constitutional ex post facto provision only applies to criminal laws and not civil ones. See Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798).
Before some of you go about getting very angry and saying the Constitution doesn't say it only applies to criminal laws, note the date of this case (1798 - decided by people who were around during the time when the Constitution was created).
I wouldn't bother with a bill in the first place--I don't see stimulating the economy listed as a federal government responsibility in the Constitution--but if you're going to do this at least be honest about it.
What's up with you people on Slashdot? See below for some language that is actually in the Constitution.
Yes, the Federal Government is a government of limited power. It is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution does not specify what the motivations for using those powers must be though. Is President Herbert Hoover your favorite president?
The Federal Government can regulate commerce, establish post roads, etc. Nothing in the Constitution says it can only do so for certain reasons, and not to stimulate the economy. The Federal Government has enormous spending authority. It can't force states to do certain things, but it can entice them with the money strings
Constitution, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Also, I think we should stop giving the Founders so much credit. They couldn't even spell "defense" correctly. (Just joking, no offense to the rest of the English speaking world is meant).
But under Supreme Court case law, Congress has pretty broad discretion in using its spending power.
As to your question:
Why would it bother to list in Article 1, Section 8 anything? Could they not all be found in "general welfare?"
No, they can't do anything under the general welfare clause. The Federal Government is bound by the enumerated powers in the Constitution. So while say forcing the states to do something might be beyond its power, it can entice the states to fall in line using the power of the purse strings. Of course there are some restrictions. See South Dakota v. Dole.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership. Per 100 people, the United States has 90 guns. Canada has 31.5. All I can say to that is, "weak." France and Finland are beating you (which I wouldn't have expected). Switzerland up there doesn't surprise me though.
Not sure why the U.S. is so ridiculously high. I guess a better statistic would be the percentage of people who own guns. I'm pretty sure a lot of people who buys guns buy a lot of them.
Since the band put the album on bittorent, sounds to me like they implicitly gave everyone a copyright license to download it. No reason to buy it now; it's free. If they didn't grant a license, I'm going to record myself screaming into a microphone, burn cds of it, then hand it out a Walmart and then sue people for copyright infringement for taking it. Sounds like almost as good of an idea as the Underpants Gnomes scheme.
Your point about insurance is idiotic. Insurance for cars is expensive because cars are dangerous and can cause a lot of damage to other things. Bikes well not nearly as much. I'm just saying, if insurance is needed for bikes the rate would be set by private companies acting in a competitive society. Not by someone who wants to punish bikers.
Also, fees for bike paths isn't a bad idea. Except for one thing, bikes aren't as hard on the roads, so they won't need to be repaired as often. Therefore, there doesn't need to be as much money collected as for cars.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such thing as a provisional patent. Normally, you file a nonprovisional patent application. The Patent Office examines the patent and then decides whether to grant a patent or not. It's also possible to file a provisional patent application. For this type, the patent office never examines the application. It gives the applicant a year to decide whether to follow through or not (i.e., commercialize, raise money or whatever). Before the year is up, the applicant has to file a nonprovisional application, which is then examined.
The above description is for "utility patents." Those are the normal type of patents on inventions. There is a second type of patent called a "design patent." However, for these, there is no "provisional application."
I'm guessing this kid has a provisional patent application on file. He probably doesn't have a patent and it is for a utility not design patent. (Design patents are just for an ornamental design.)
I thought it was a joke and the poster was going to say that the dials were for volume --- and half said it sounded best completely off.
Perhaps Tennessee should get a copy of the Constitution and read the First Amendment. This sounds unconstitutional to me.
Tennessee is starting to be embarrassing. Weren't they trying to ban mosques or something a while ago? I guess they aren't a big fan of the First Amendment.
It often takes 3, 4, 5, or more years just to get the patent granted from the Patent Office.
I'm split on this issue. I've seen a few software patents where I've thought--"these inventors really did deserve a patent." But, then I've seen dozens of others where I've thought--"this is ridiculous." Perhaps, the answer isn't patentability of software but just giving the Patent Office better resources to examine correctly and grant patents that aren't super broad and that are actually novel.
Lots of talk about changing the rules here, with patent reform, etc. Seems like the biggest problem is just patent quality--and to fix that you need more resources at the patent office, better and more examiners.
The America Invents Act which has been passed by the Senate and being considered by the House of Representatives actually introduces a new post-grant opposition procedure to invalidate patents.
Definitely beware of the summary; it's wholly inaccurate. Unfortunately, that's usually the case when reporters report on legal statutes, bills, treaties, etc. Although, there are some good ones out there.
Sorry for the slightly rude subject, but hopefully that got your attention.
How this agreement is worded, it would not be self-executing. If I'm correct, that would mean this would not be binding federal law even after passed. For that to happen, Congress would have to then enact implementing legislation. This is merely an agreement between nations on what they are going to or should do.
Further, I don't understand all the FUD about the patent provisions. This wouldn't change anything. As far as I can tell, the U.S. already does all of this.
Also, take a look at the America Invents Act which just passed the Senate. That would put U.S. patent law more in line (but not completely) with the rest of the world. It will open up more prior art to invalidate patents. It also has a procedure to re-review crappy business method patents. Lots of stuff that you guys should like. Sure, I'd like to see it go further to stop the patent trolls and make litigation cheaper, but at least it's something.
So Calm Down. You guys don't like patents. We get it; that doesn't mean you have to misrepresent the facts. I also note that for all the companies out there trying to get crappy software patents, there are a whole bunch trying to invalidate them. (Disclosure - part of my job is trying to invalidate crappy software patents. I'm no big fan of them, but that doesn't mean I need to lose grasp of reality.)
Whether laptops should be in class completely depends on the subject matter. For example, I never used a laptop in undergraduate class. In law school, I always used a laptop for taking notes as did every student save maybe one out of a hundred.
But I can't even imagine using a laptop for math or science courses. Then again, I didn't really take notes in most of my undegrad classes. I definitely found it useful in law school and probably even essential. I can also see using one is undergrad liberal arts courses (e.g., English, History, etc), although I didn't.
Some people have brought up that lectures shouldn't be mandatory. I definitely agree with that. Throughout most of my education, they weren't and I loved that. For Calculus, before class, I'd review the syllabus to see what was going to be lectured on that day. I'd then review those pages and do a few problems. If I understood it, I'd skip class. If I didn't, then I'd go to class. I'd usually attend lecture 1/4 times. Then again, in certain undegrad courses (e.g., history, some computer science courses) and most law school classes, I almost never missed a lecture.
So basically my point is, you really can't generalize. There is no correct answer to whether a laptop should be allowed. It all depends on the major and the individual course. More so, it really depends on the student (and maybe even the lecturer).
So, it might not be standard or common for U.S. executive to be taking kick-backs like this. But from what I understand, this is extremely common in China. When you outsource and use a Chinese company to help you find the best / cheapest company, you probably aren't getting that. The factory you use will likely have paid a kick-back / bribe to someone working for the Chinese company helping you. From what I've been told (sorry to be vague), the lower level employees do this, and not necessarily the outsourcing company (though that wouldn't surprise me).
Poppycocks, I say! (btw, I don't know if that is a word, but it is fun to say).
Back in the day, most cities had multiple newspapers that competed against each other. However, in the past 25 years or many newspapers have gone under leaving many cities with only one.
Newspapers were hurt by television news and then later even more by 24 hour cable news. Now they are being killed off by the internet.
Hopefully, they find a working business models. Television news is terrible. Most of my news comes from the internet, but from websites such as nytimes.com, etc. Charging isn't going to work.
If this is what Murdoch thinks than it might not be goodbye to free internet news, but goodbye to News Corporation.
Wow!
Well, it's cheaper to bring multiple services into your home per service obviously than just one.
Also, have you ever heard of volume or bundle discounts? Of course it's cheaper for people who get both services.
You aren't a rocket scientist are you?
That sucks. But can't non-Americans just route through a proxy or something?
I'd probably also blame this on your networks, since they syndicate many of these shows. It would probably violate the contracts to allow non-Americans to view the shows before your local neetwork has shown the program. The question is why is there often such a delay before the foreign network airs the show? If there isn't a delay than this is really stupid.
But really I often just don't understand Hollywood. They bitch that China is pirating all their movies. Yet you can't legally buy them in China. So how can it possibly be costing them money? Plus half the time, the movies wouldn't be allowed in China because of censorship.
Wow, www.useit.com is a terrible looking website and difficult to use. Why in God's name would anyone hire this man? A useability review from him is something like $38,000. That would be the biggest waste of money ever. Definitely wouldn't trust his services after seeing this website. Also, why after making a comment and hitting the preview button does it take 40 seconds before I can submit the comment. Slashdot has become the most annoying site to submit comments at (yet that is one of the main points of the site).
Also, much of China's and India's pollution is created from factories. Factories making stuff for us at exceptionally cheap prices.
Not really right. I think what you mean is that many states have use taxes for out-of-state purchases which equals what they would have paid in sales taxes had they made the purchase in-state. However, nobody actually pays the use tax (since, hell, nobody actually knows how much they purchased out-of-state, so enforcing use tax laws would be a nightmare and politically dangerous). This law would allow the states to collect this tax money. But, not all states have use tax. For example, I believe in Missouri your first $2,000 in out-of-state purchases are exempt (and I don't think I know anyone who has paid the tax for an amount greater than that, though most people probably spend under $2,000, which is probably why that is the rule). So this law will encourage states to tax what they otherwise aren't taxing, so politicians can get their greedy little paws on more of our money. This isn't an internet loophole. It's always been this way with mail-order. Congress and States are trying to raise our taxes.
Yeah, that's why states can't force out-of-state sellers to collect the sales tax now. It is prohibited by the dormant commerce clause. However, Congress can pass a law which allows the states to collect such sales tax. So basically, collecting sales tax on internet purchases affects interstate commerce too much. So it is the domain of the federal government and not states, but the Federal Government can give authority to the states if it wants.
The U.S. has the First Amendment. Also, we're all for the most part unrelated to the case, so the Court doesn't have jurisdiction over slashdot readers.
Relevant to this topic is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Was this a bad attorney? I imagine the pot shouldn't have been admitted into evidence (meaning he would almost have to be acquitted) since it was found in an unconstitutional search and seizure (violation of the 4th Amendment). You could have testified to this. Of course, it would have been your word and your friend's against that of the police officer.
Can't you just use a proxy server to watch Hulu if you're not in the U.S.? Or are they too slow? I no someone who does something similar to watch baseball games on MLB.TV when the games are blacked out.
In the United States, it's unconstitutional to pass an "ex post-facto" law - how is it that the terms of copyright are being retroactively renegotiated?
Probably because the Constitutional ex post facto provision only applies to criminal laws and not civil ones. See Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798).
Before some of you go about getting very angry and saying the Constitution doesn't say it only applies to criminal laws, note the date of this case (1798 - decided by people who were around during the time when the Constitution was created).
I wouldn't bother with a bill in the first place--I don't see stimulating the economy listed as a federal government responsibility in the Constitution--but if you're going to do this at least be honest about it.
What's up with you people on Slashdot? See below for some language that is actually in the Constitution.
Yes, the Federal Government is a government of limited power. It is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution does not specify what the motivations for using those powers must be though. Is President Herbert Hoover your favorite president?
The Federal Government can regulate commerce, establish post roads, etc. Nothing in the Constitution says it can only do so for certain reasons, and not to stimulate the economy. The Federal Government has enormous spending authority. It can't force states to do certain things, but it can entice them with the money strings
Constitution, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Also, I think we should stop giving the Founders so much credit. They couldn't even spell "defense" correctly. (Just joking, no offense to the rest of the English speaking world is meant).
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause for some interesting information on this in layman's terms. Looks like there wasn't an agreement on the reach of this clause by the founding fathers.
But under Supreme Court case law, Congress has pretty broad discretion in using its spending power.
As to your question:
Why would it bother to list in Article 1, Section 8 anything? Could they not all be found in "general welfare?"
No, they can't do anything under the general welfare clause. The Federal Government is bound by the enumerated powers in the Constitution. So while say forcing the states to do something might be beyond its power, it can entice the states to fall in line using the power of the purse strings. Of course there are some restrictions. See South Dakota v. Dole.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership. Per 100 people, the United States has 90 guns. Canada has 31.5. All I can say to that is, "weak." France and Finland are beating you (which I wouldn't have expected). Switzerland up there doesn't surprise me though.
Not sure why the U.S. is so ridiculously high. I guess a better statistic would be the percentage of people who own guns. I'm pretty sure a lot of people who buys guns buy a lot of them.
Now check out fire-arm related deaths at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate. Man, the U.S. is awesome. I've never felt more proud to be an American.
Since the band put the album on bittorent, sounds to me like they implicitly gave everyone a copyright license to download it. No reason to buy it now; it's free. If they didn't grant a license, I'm going to record myself screaming into a microphone, burn cds of it, then hand it out a Walmart and then sue people for copyright infringement for taking it. Sounds like almost as good of an idea as the Underpants Gnomes scheme.
Your point about insurance is idiotic. Insurance for cars is expensive because cars are dangerous and can cause a lot of damage to other things. Bikes well not nearly as much. I'm just saying, if insurance is needed for bikes the rate would be set by private companies acting in a competitive society. Not by someone who wants to punish bikers.
Also, fees for bike paths isn't a bad idea. Except for one thing, bikes aren't as hard on the roads, so they won't need to be repaired as often. Therefore, there doesn't need to be as much money collected as for cars.