Not just in memories, but their deeds live on apart from memory. The dead live on in us, by how they have affected us, through their interactions with us, directly or indirectly, and by how we live our own lives having been so affected.
It doesn't have an objective lens, but it has internal lenses and optics, and the "retrofit" inserted an additional corrective lens to compensate for improperly preparing the main mirror.
IAF(patent)L, and if you think the "gains to society" will be based on software not being patentable, think again. The PTO is not arguing that software should be unpatentable, only that software, in order to be patentable, must be claimed a certain way. Therefore, this ruling will only impact existing software patents, not future software patenting.
Actually, the PTO is not making a rule, they are arguing to a court how the law should be applied. Therefore, any decision by the federal circuit would impact all pending patents. The only way for existing patents to be protected would be if Congress stepped in and made a law to that effect.
IAFPL. I will repeat what I stated ealier. Patents promote competition and therefore innovation, and that is why software patents are important. Talk to any venture capitalist and they will tell you how important it is for a startup to have their ideas patented. Without patents, a person with a great idea for a new feature can't enter an existing market because the existing market players will simply and rightfully rip off the idea. Sure, they may come up with the idea eventually on their own, but that would leave you with fewer market participants, and less competition, which is ultimately bad for the consumer. Also, there is little incentive for a dominant market player to introduce new features on their own. They are better off slowwwwly introducing new features and enhancements in accordance with a planned obsolescence program to ensure a steady income stream. New market participants, bolstered by patents, can disrupt this scenario, and compete knowing that if big competitors steal their idea, they can at least sue.
There is a grain of truth to the story, the over-the-top sensationalized slash-dot version of a headline notwithstanding.
IAFL, and I work in the software field. If the federal circut upholds the PTO's position, it is highly unlikely that the Google's patents would be grandfathered in. That is not how the court works. The court construes the laws as they are written, they don't make new laws. If they construe the laws in the PTO's favor, then the law will be construed such that it could seriously impact Google's portfolio. The only way for Google to be saved would be if Congress stepped in.
Not only that, but even if the PTO wins, all you software patent-bashers out there should understand that the PTO is not arguing that software should be made unpatentable. All the ruling would require is that every recitation in a patent claim of software must include either manipulate something physical (which could be electronic signals in a computer chip) or be tied to a computer or some tangible medium like a disk or flash drive. Since every software program operates on a computer or resides on a tangible medium, the ruling would not affect the overall patentability of software, just how the claims are drafted.
Finally let me just add my $.02 on why we should favor patents on software: Patents promote competition. If you have a good idea and get it patented, you can attract venture capital and enter an existing market without worrying (too much) about existing companies ripping off your idea. It would be extremely difficult to build a business and enter an existing market without patents on your side. Venture capitalists care very much if your idea is patented or at least you have a pending application. Without small companies entering the market, there would not be very much competition, and therefore there would not be very much innovation. Patents drive competition and promote innovation. This is as true in the world of software as in any other.
No, he's wrong. IP is "property" because you can sell it or otherwise transfer it, leave it to your children, license it (which is like a lease or easement), etc. A patent or copyright is a grant by the government of the right to sue others from making or using your creations. The "property" side of this grant distinguishes this grant from other grants by the government, such as the right to free speech, etc., which are "inalienable" -- meaning, you can't sell or transfer these rights.
Railroads would be profitable if they got the same government subsidies that air travel and highways got. For some reason, Amtrak is a "boondoggle" but the FAA and FHA are necessary. I don't get it.
Actually more along the lines of what David Brin described in his novel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_%28novel%29">Earth. In that book, which was written in 1990, Brin describes a hypertexted world-wide network of computers that...
Exactly. In the winter time, an incandescent bulb is 100% efficient in providing useful energy output (heat and light) from the energy input (electricity). People seem to forget this.
Microsoft had a well-established monopoly on the operating system way before they started filing patents in earnest. Furthermore, what's "fundamental tech" now, was a few years ago not even dreamed-about. It takes creativity, guts, and money to bring products to market. Even in cases where Microsoft didn't invent a technology, it likely purchased a company that did invent the technology, and the founders of that company probably were richly and justly rewarded for their efforts. Now, do you think Microsoft would pay billions to acquire a company that developed really cool -- I'm sorry -- "fundamental tech" if the founders of that company didn't patent it? Of course not. Patents drive innovation. Without them, the venture-capital would dry up and silicon valley would turn back into fruit orchards.
The true power of Microsoft stems from its Office Suite, which is not and never will be standards compliant. Most companies absolutely must have MS Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Outlook. There are no substitutes regardless of how feature-rich the competitors are. I've tried all of them. None work with MS Exchange, or MS-formatted documents as well, as reliably, and as stably as these programs do. Once you decide you must have MS Office you're pretty much locked into a Windows environment. Sure, you COULD get an apple, but that never really made sense from a cost/benefit perspective. As long as the world speaks ".xls" ".doc" ".eml" ".ppt" etc., we'll be using Windows.
You nitwit. Just about everything you stated is completely wrong. Whether the electricity came from coal, nuclear, solar or wind doesn't matter for this discussion. What we are talking about is two ways to store energy. Batteries on the one hand, which store electrical energy in chemical bonds as you know. Hydrogen on the other, which store electrical energy by first converting the electrical energy into hydrogen (an "anti-bond" if you will) and then storing the hydrogen. Hydrogen can be converted back into electricity using a fuel cell or fed to a thermal engine for combustion. Either way, you are converting electrical energy into another form that stores and releases the energy as needed. The FA talks about one step in the process of storing energy using hydrogen, and that is the step of converting electricity to hydrogen with "80%" efficiency, which is damn good.
A battery is not a gas tank. Gas tanks take negligible energy to fill and empty whereas it takes considerable energy to store and release electricity from a battery. This energy loss is converted to heat which is dissipated. In electrical engineering, it is often referred to as the battery's "internal resistance" and is often represented by a resistor in series with the battery. That is why, for example, honda civic hybrids (and every hybrid, so far as I know) have a special ventilation system for their battery pack.
On how long it takes to refuel a hydrogen tank, it depends on the material being used to store the hydrogen. Some materials, such as molecular sieves, such as zeolite, can store hydrogen at impressive densities without much compression (which takes a lot of energy, btw) but it takes time to fill and empty, and may require heating the material to release the hydrogen. On the other hand, charging an electric car battery can take as little as 10 minutes (although that draws a lot of current).
Its a little more complicated than that because with smaller features, your are susceptible to smaller defects. That is, a defect that is likely not to affect AMD's chip at 65 nm can obliterate Intel's 45 nm chip. So the likelihood of a defect isn't a linear relationship to area as you suggest.
Lets keep it in perspective. NASA's FY 2007 budge was about $17.310 Billion out of a $2.8 trillion total budget. That means that NASA represents about 0.6% of the federal budge. Compare this to the $699 billion defense budge or even the $27 billion expended for agriculture, and you can see where our priorities lie. There were about 133 million individual tax returns filed last year. Therefore On a per individual tax payer basis, NASA's budget represents a cost average of about $130 per individual taxpayer (not including corporations) per year. Compare this to the defense budget to works out to about $5,250/year.
It depends on the speakers. If you use crappy speakers, the audiophile would have a hard time. If you used decent speakers, even the teenybopper would go "WHOA!!!" when listening to a flac or direct-from CD (or better yet, a vinyl record).
Yup it doesn't matter. Look up "heat pipe" in Wikipedia. Basically, it has a wick attached to the inside walls of the heat pipe, the liquid at the hot side of the pipe evaporates and condenses on the cold side, where it is wicked back to the hot side. Gravity is not a significant part of the equation.
The peer review system appears to do nothing more than provide a forum for discussion on published patent applications. Anyone who wants to can currently submit prior art to the Office that they think is relevant to a pending application that has been published.
Slashdot Mirror
we should be focusing on a space elevator. This is technology that is feasible, and would really open up the solar system for human habitation.
Not just in memories, but their deeds live on apart from memory. The dead live on in us, by how they have affected us, through their interactions with us, directly or indirectly, and by how we live our own lives having been so affected.
It doesn't have an objective lens, but it has internal lenses and optics, and the "retrofit" inserted an additional corrective lens to compensate for improperly preparing the main mirror.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Opera_9.5.png
Once again, Opera leads the way.
would have been cheaper to use oil.
IAF(patent)L, and if you think the "gains to society" will be based on software not being patentable, think again. The PTO is not arguing that software should be unpatentable, only that software, in order to be patentable, must be claimed a certain way. Therefore, this ruling will only impact existing software patents, not future software patenting.
Actually, the PTO is not making a rule, they are arguing to a court how the law should be applied. Therefore, any decision by the federal circuit would impact all pending patents. The only way for existing patents to be protected would be if Congress stepped in and made a law to that effect.
IAFPL. I will repeat what I stated ealier. Patents promote competition and therefore innovation, and that is why software patents are important. Talk to any venture capitalist and they will tell you how important it is for a startup to have their ideas patented. Without patents, a person with a great idea for a new feature can't enter an existing market because the existing market players will simply and rightfully rip off the idea. Sure, they may come up with the idea eventually on their own, but that would leave you with fewer market participants, and less competition, which is ultimately bad for the consumer. Also, there is little incentive for a dominant market player to introduce new features on their own. They are better off slowwwwly introducing new features and enhancements in accordance with a planned obsolescence program to ensure a steady income stream. New market participants, bolstered by patents, can disrupt this scenario, and compete knowing that if big competitors steal their idea, they can at least sue.
There is a grain of truth to the story, the over-the-top sensationalized slash-dot version of a headline notwithstanding.
IAFL, and I work in the software field. If the federal circut upholds the PTO's position, it is highly unlikely that the Google's patents would be grandfathered in. That is not how the court works. The court construes the laws as they are written, they don't make new laws. If they construe the laws in the PTO's favor, then the law will be construed such that it could seriously impact Google's portfolio. The only way for Google to be saved would be if Congress stepped in.
Not only that, but even if the PTO wins, all you software patent-bashers out there should understand that the PTO is not arguing that software should be made unpatentable. All the ruling would require is that every recitation in a patent claim of software must include either manipulate something physical (which could be electronic signals in a computer chip) or be tied to a computer or some tangible medium like a disk or flash drive. Since every software program operates on a computer or resides on a tangible medium, the ruling would not affect the overall patentability of software, just how the claims are drafted.
Finally let me just add my $.02 on why we should favor patents on software: Patents promote competition. If you have a good idea and get it patented, you can attract venture capital and enter an existing market without worrying (too much) about existing companies ripping off your idea. It would be extremely difficult to build a business and enter an existing market without patents on your side. Venture capitalists care very much if your idea is patented or at least you have a pending application. Without small companies entering the market, there would not be very much competition, and therefore there would not be very much innovation. Patents drive competition and promote innovation. This is as true in the world of software as in any other.
No, he's wrong. IP is "property" because you can sell it or otherwise transfer it, leave it to your children, license it (which is like a lease or easement), etc. A patent or copyright is a grant by the government of the right to sue others from making or using your creations. The "property" side of this grant distinguishes this grant from other grants by the government, such as the right to free speech, etc., which are "inalienable" -- meaning, you can't sell or transfer these rights.
Railroads would be profitable if they got the same government subsidies that air travel and highways got. For some reason, Amtrak is a "boondoggle" but the FAA and FHA are necessary. I don't get it.
Actually more along the lines of what David Brin described in his novel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_%28novel%29">Earth. In that book, which was written in 1990, Brin describes a hypertexted world-wide network of computers that ...
(spoiler alert)
becomes sentient.
I have one too. Its called an "archos". :D and no, I can't believe nobody else mentioned these awesome devices.
He's talking about the distance from the surface of the disk to the recordable medium. See this: http://www.cdfreaks.com/reviews/Blu-ray-vs_-HD-DVD/Differences.html Should help explain things.... ;)
Heat is not always a bad thing
Exactly. In the winter time, an incandescent bulb is 100% efficient in providing useful energy output (heat and light) from the energy input (electricity). People seem to forget this.
Microsoft had a well-established monopoly on the operating system way before they started filing patents in earnest. Furthermore, what's "fundamental tech" now, was a few years ago not even dreamed-about. It takes creativity, guts, and money to bring products to market. Even in cases where Microsoft didn't invent a technology, it likely purchased a company that did invent the technology, and the founders of that company probably were richly and justly rewarded for their efforts. Now, do you think Microsoft would pay billions to acquire a company that developed really cool -- I'm sorry -- "fundamental tech" if the founders of that company didn't patent it? Of course not. Patents drive innovation. Without them, the venture-capital would dry up and silicon valley would turn back into fruit orchards.
The true power of Microsoft stems from its Office Suite, which is not and never will be standards compliant. Most companies absolutely must have MS Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Outlook. There are no substitutes regardless of how feature-rich the competitors are. I've tried all of them. None work with MS Exchange, or MS-formatted documents as well, as reliably, and as stably as these programs do. Once you decide you must have MS Office you're pretty much locked into a Windows environment. Sure, you COULD get an apple, but that never really made sense from a cost/benefit perspective. As long as the world speaks ".xls" ".doc" ".eml" ".ppt" etc., we'll be using Windows.
You nitwit. Just about everything you stated is completely wrong. Whether the electricity came from coal, nuclear, solar or wind doesn't matter for this discussion. What we are talking about is two ways to store energy. Batteries on the one hand, which store electrical energy in chemical bonds as you know. Hydrogen on the other, which store electrical energy by first converting the electrical energy into hydrogen (an "anti-bond" if you will) and then storing the hydrogen. Hydrogen can be converted back into electricity using a fuel cell or fed to a thermal engine for combustion. Either way, you are converting electrical energy into another form that stores and releases the energy as needed. The FA talks about one step in the process of storing energy using hydrogen, and that is the step of converting electricity to hydrogen with "80%" efficiency, which is damn good.
A battery is not a gas tank. Gas tanks take negligible energy to fill and empty whereas it takes considerable energy to store and release electricity from a battery. This energy loss is converted to heat which is dissipated. In electrical engineering, it is often referred to as the battery's "internal resistance" and is often represented by a resistor in series with the battery. That is why, for example, honda civic hybrids (and every hybrid, so far as I know) have a special ventilation system for their battery pack.
On how long it takes to refuel a hydrogen tank, it depends on the material being used to store the hydrogen. Some materials, such as molecular sieves, such as zeolite, can store hydrogen at impressive densities without much compression (which takes a lot of energy, btw) but it takes time to fill and empty, and may require heating the material to release the hydrogen. On the other hand, charging an electric car battery can take as little as 10 minutes (although that draws a lot of current).
And don't spam us with your equinox vaporware.
Its a little more complicated than that because with smaller features, your are susceptible to smaller defects. That is, a defect that is likely not to affect AMD's chip at 65 nm can obliterate Intel's 45 nm chip. So the likelihood of a defect isn't a linear relationship to area as you suggest.
Lets keep it in perspective. NASA's FY 2007 budge was about $17.310 Billion out of a $2.8 trillion total budget. That means that NASA represents about 0.6% of the federal budge. Compare this to the $699 billion defense budge or even the $27 billion expended for agriculture, and you can see where our priorities lie. There were about 133 million individual tax returns filed last year. Therefore On a per individual tax payer basis, NASA's budget represents a cost average of about $130 per individual taxpayer (not including corporations) per year. Compare this to the defense budget to works out to about $5,250/year.
It depends on the speakers. If you use crappy speakers, the audiophile would have a hard time. If you used decent speakers, even the teenybopper would go "WHOA!!!" when listening to a flac or direct-from CD (or better yet, a vinyl record).
Yup it doesn't matter. Look up "heat pipe" in Wikipedia. Basically, it has a wick attached to the inside walls of the heat pipe, the liquid at the hot side of the pipe evaporates and condenses on the cold side, where it is wicked back to the hot side. Gravity is not a significant part of the equation.
Not me. I find the brown very soothing. Nothing like a neutral color to put one's mind at ease and make things comfy.
The peer review system appears to do nothing more than provide a forum for discussion on published patent applications. Anyone who wants to can currently submit prior art to the Office that they think is relevant to a pending application that has been published.
MS certainly doesn't want to get DoJ investigations restarted again
Do you think Alberto Gonzales wants to open up that can of worms? I have not heard of any such threats since Microsoft has been lagging in its obligations under the 2002 consent decree