Yes. And some patents do expire as planned. Yet perhaps you are unaware of the term "evergreening" which is a way that patents about to expire are extended by making minor changes and then getting a new patent to cover the changes. It's used a lot in the pharmaceutical industry, but not just limited to them.
And your point is? The new patent does not cover the material disclosed in the old patent.
The reason that evergreening is pretty much limited to the pharmaceutical industry is that there is not only the patent barrier, but the (new) drug approval barrier, where one must either run a complete set of trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy or prove that your prospective competing version is therapeutically equivalent to the original drug in an "Abbreviated New Drug Application" or ANDA. Meanwhile, the existing drug manufacturer can deny you the samples that you need to prove equivalence (either by control or by changing the product via 'evergreening'), lock out the drug from the market via pharmacopia agreements with benefit managers, and if need be drop the price below one that recoup the new capital investment while still providing them a profit over their sunk and well-amortized costs.
Nothing to do with patents. You link to wikipedia after saying that the practice is "not just limited to them," but wikipedia has no non-pharmaceutical examples.
They took the title out of context and did so on purpose. I'm pretty sure that's slander in the UK.
He literally said it as one of two sentences on slide 17, and they linked to his entire slide presentation in the article. Pretty sure that that's not slander.
Feel free to describe how it is "out of context," however. I'm sure that this will be good...
The fact that you consider 5.2% of the market to be "a big chunk" when this thread is about Apple watch applications (and Apple has 18% of the market).
If you distribute or otherwise publish your copyrighted material without a copyright mark or statement of copyright, you just granted full license to the public domain to do anything they want with it.
And yet, you failed to compare it to radiation on earth. Boulder has a significant higher incidence rate of many cancers for missing only a mile of air,
Umm, the mass of a 1 mile high column of air (1.2 kg/m3 at sea level) is substanitally less than the mass of a 1 meter column of rock (2600 kg/m3), and the rock has the additional advantage of not having an exponential decrease in density versus height.
Habitat radiation sheilding is already a well-considered problem. You should read about rather than taking ignorant pot-shots.
Probably not an outright lie, but Gizmodo is clearly trying to twist the facts. Why else would they omit a link to the video?
Perhaps if you read the article for comprehension instead of word occurence -- "Gizmodo has opted to not publish the video itself in order to maintain source anonymity" -- you would have your answer. Not everyone is eager to be the next Reality Winner thanks to video watermarking.
Amazon admits that the video exists.
Then where is it?
Nope. Not required. When the video's original source admits that it exists, ShanghaiBill's ability to view that video is not required to confirm that it exists.
They want to cherry pick, and they don't want you to see the cherries that weren't picked.
Penalty - moving the goalposts. 15 yards from the spot of the foul.
Not the point of the emphasis -- Amazon's admission that the video exists, which was subsequently questioned by ShanghaiBill because he simply word-counted the term "video" instead attempting to comprehend what had been stated.
the article makes it very clear that the video exists
No it doesn't. There is no link in TFA to the actually video.
So, to be clear, you allege that Gizmodo also lied about Amazon's statement?
"We're perplexed as to why Gizmodo takes issue with a company wanting to better engage its employees, train hundreds of managers to maintain an open and direct dialogue with associates, and create channels to drive innovation on behalf of the customer in a caring and inclusive environment. The reporter clearly cherry-picked soundbites from the video to meet his editorial objective and do not align with our view on how to create career opportunities for employees.
In the U.S., the average hourly wage for a full-time associate in our fulfillment centers, including cash, stock, and incentive bonuses, is over $15/hour before overtime. That's in addition to our full benefits package that includes health, vision and dental insurance, retirement, generous parental leave, and skills training for in-demand jobs through our Career Choice program, which has over 16,000 participants. We encourage anyone to come see for themselves by taking a tour at one of our fulfillment centers -- learn more at http://amazonfctours.com./"
Amazon admits that the video exists. Who are you to say that it does not?
To quote some guy: "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." Seems appropriate here.
Your first mistake is believing that software engineers strive to build idiot-proof programs.
They will occasionally glance up from their oh-so-important device in a vague fashion, but that's about it.
Your second mistake is thinking that software engineerd aren't primarily building those oh-so-important devices (and in-car entertainment systems).
It's not about Shakespeare winning. It's about the incorrect one losing....
Pointing to past usage isn't an argument. They had idiots in the past, too.
It's an idiom - there is no "incorrect one."
Idiom: "a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g., rain cats and dogs, see the light )."
Please, provide your argument for why "all of a sudden" is correct but "all of the sudden" is not. I'm looking forward to reasoning as to how centuries old usage of one is correct and the other is not, and how present usage of one is correct and the other is not, when the sina qua non is by definition usage, not grammarian approval.
CO2: 65-80% dissolves into the ocean in 20-200 years, with the balance removed in processes taking >200 years. Net half life is thousands of years (hint: what goes into the ocean also comes back out if/when CO2 drops)
NO2: Destroyed in stratosphere in ~100 years.
CO2 is removed by multiple parallel mechanisms, so that you cannot simply pick the few fastest.
Although all of the sudden has been used in centuries past, all of a sudden is the phrasing that eventually stuck. Perhaps it is because Shakespeare used of a sudden in The Taming of the Shrew in 1594, and centuries of grammarians couldnâ(TM)t help but side with The Bard:
Tranio: I pray, sir, tell me, is it possible That love should of a sudden take such hold?
Some say that on a sudden is an archaic Scottish variant, but consider that London-born Daniel Defoe used it in Robinson Crusoe in 1719.
My crop promised very well, when on a sudden I found I was in danger of losing it all again.
Used historically, used by famous authors, but since self-appointed grammarians have a hard-on for Shakespeare we have to put up with you and their ilk losing your minds if we don't follow your arbitrary decision of "cromulence."
While I hate mosquitoes, I would suggest caution. Mosquitoes are important in the food chain. If one species of mosquitoes are wiped out, would other insects fill the void? We need to think carefully about the ramifications of this. Of course, reducing the damage and death caused by malaria would be highly beneficial.
This is what I love about slashdot. Someone comes up with a question in less than 15 minutes. They are so sure that the question has not been tought of or asked, even by people who have been working on a problem for years, sometimes decades, that they do not even bother to search to see whether the question has been asked and answered.
Which is exercising state power, which is an authoritarian interference with free speech. Try again.
No, I'm merely suggesting implementing what is already law: you enjoy those legal protections if you don't exercise editorial control.
I love how you have the temerity to judge whether or not I am a lawyer, based upon your own, incorrect understanding of the law.
47 U.S.C. 230(c) gives them legal protection from civil liability even if they exorcise editorial control.
Google, Facebook, and Twitter should lose those legal protections because they have started exercising editorial control.
That's not the law.
Nothing changes for anybody else.
Because? Oh, right. Because you want to punish entities that you disfavor regardless of whether it violates what you claim to be your principled stance in favor of free speech and against European-style regulation of speech via those same platforms.
A nicely illogical, self-inconsistent mess that you've created. Idiot.
Given your comments, it's clear that your claims of being a lawyer are either a lie or that you are a incompetent. I think there is nothing more to say.
Good enough that you're stumped to justify adovating for "free speech" in the case of Europe yet authoritarianism oppression of networks distributing speech in the U.S.
Sorry to threadjack your beautiful ASCII art, but I found a more important issue to raise.
"Before stealing 100 battery-powered GPS-tracking devices, one of the thieves also grabbed a beer out of the office refrigerator -- and cut themselves -- leaving behind both fingerprints [and an actual blood sample.]"
BOTH fingerprints?
Yes, cutting "and an actual blood sample" off from "leaving behind both fingerprints and an actual blood sample" creates a potentially hilarious grammar error that was not present in TFS.
Yes they will, and they do it now. They're called algorithms.
No, they don't. They're called immense staffs of human reviewers. If you're lucky, an algorithm automatically flags a subset of material without so many false positive that you overwhelm your Phillipino workforce.
I did: I think you are reprehensible authoritarians and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your beliefs.
See, the "accusation of bigotry" language would refer to an earlier instance where you'd called someone a bigot. You did, but not me:
"Jourova throws around accusations of hate crimes and right wing extremism freely; she may be more sophisticated than the people who send her nasty messages, but she herself is an intolerant bigot as well."
Slashdot Mirror
And your point is? The new patent does not cover the material disclosed in the old patent.
The reason that evergreening is pretty much limited to the pharmaceutical industry is that there is not only the patent barrier, but the (new) drug approval barrier, where one must either run a complete set of trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy or prove that your prospective competing version is therapeutically equivalent to the original drug in an "Abbreviated New Drug Application" or ANDA. Meanwhile, the existing drug manufacturer can deny you the samples that you need to prove equivalence (either by control or by changing the product via 'evergreening'), lock out the drug from the market via pharmacopia agreements with benefit managers, and if need be drop the price below one that recoup the new capital investment while still providing them a profit over their sunk and well-amortized costs.
Nothing to do with patents. You link to wikipedia after saying that the practice is "not just limited to them," but wikipedia has no non-pharmaceutical examples.
So where are they?
He literally said it as one of two sentences on slide 17, and they linked to his entire slide presentation in the article. Pretty sure that that's not slander.
Feel free to describe how it is "out of context," however. I'm sure that this will be good...
A life so sad that you're forced to reply to yourself, over, and over, and over...
The fact that you consider 5.2% of the market to be "a big chunk" when this thread is about Apple watch applications (and Apple has 18% of the market).
Aduh.
Wow... you do this bullshit even with other people, but accuse me of being "obsessed."
*smirk*
Maintaining only one code base, rather than two, is better for both.
Wrong. 64 bit + 32 bit is larger than 64 bit.
Because you've dropped 32-bit binaries. If you'd kept them, you'd have to have both libraries, at a minimum.
No, you've got that market cornered.
And if that was the only thing that the watch had to do, that observation would be relevant.
But it is not.
Hasn't been true for almost 30 years, so good luck with that.
IP lawyer.
Umm, the mass of a 1 mile high column of air (1.2 kg/m3 at sea level) is substanitally less than the mass of a 1 meter column of rock (2600 kg/m3), and the rock has the additional advantage of not having an exponential decrease in density versus height.
Habitat radiation sheilding is already a well-considered problem. You should read about rather than taking ignorant pot-shots.
Perhaps if you read the article for comprehension instead of word occurence -- "Gizmodo has opted to not publish the video itself in order to maintain source anonymity" -- you would have your answer. Not everyone is eager to be the next Reality Winner thanks to video watermarking.
Nope. Not required. When the video's original source admits that it exists, ShanghaiBill's ability to view that video is not required to confirm that it exists.
Penalty - moving the goalposts. 15 yards from the spot of the foul.
Not the point of the emphasis -- Amazon's admission that the video exists, which was subsequently questioned by ShanghaiBill because he simply word-counted the term "video" instead attempting to comprehend what had been stated.
So, to be clear, you allege that Gizmodo also lied about Amazon's statement?
"We're perplexed as to why Gizmodo takes issue with a company wanting to better engage its employees, train hundreds of managers to maintain an open and direct dialogue with associates, and create channels to drive innovation on behalf of the customer in a caring and inclusive environment. The reporter clearly cherry-picked soundbites from the video to meet his editorial objective and do not align with our view on how to create career opportunities for employees.
In the U.S., the average hourly wage for a full-time associate in our fulfillment centers, including cash, stock, and incentive bonuses, is over $15/hour before overtime. That's in addition to our full benefits package that includes health, vision and dental insurance, retirement, generous parental leave, and skills training for in-demand jobs through our Career Choice program, which has over 16,000 participants. We encourage anyone to come see for themselves by taking a tour at one of our fulfillment centers -- learn more at http://amazonfctours.com./"
Amazon admits that the video exists. Who are you to say that it does not?
Your first mistake is believing that software engineers strive to build idiot-proof programs.
Your second mistake is thinking that software engineerd aren't primarily building those oh-so-important devices (and in-car entertainment systems).
Report Status: WONTFIX; working as intended.
Of course it does. I know because when others do the same thing they look good to me.
Then you shouldn't be using neologisms such as "cromulent," because grammarians have not accepted it, and look upon you with derision.
It's an idiom - there is no "incorrect one."
Idiom: "a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g., rain cats and dogs, see the light )."
Please, provide your argument for why "all of a sudden" is correct but "all of the sudden" is not. I'm looking forward to reasoning as to how centuries old usage of one is correct and the other is not, and how present usage of one is correct and the other is not, when the sina qua non is by definition usage, not grammarian approval.
Wrong.
CO2: 65-80% dissolves into the ocean in 20-200 years, with the balance removed in processes taking >200 years. Net half life is thousands of years (hint: what goes into the ocean also comes back out if/when CO2 drops)
NO2: Destroyed in stratosphere in ~100 years.
CO2 is removed by multiple parallel mechanisms, so that you cannot simply pick the few fastest.
Grandparent is modded insightful, while any reply to the contrary is modded offtopic or troll. Way to moderate, Slashdot.
Arbitrary idiom may be arbitrarily used
Used historically, used by famous authors, but since self-appointed grammarians have a hard-on for Shakespeare we have to put up with you and their ilk losing your minds if we don't follow your arbitrary decision of "cromulence."
This is what I love about slashdot. Someone comes up with a question in less than 15 minutes. They are so sure that the question has not been tought of or asked, even by people who have been working on a problem for years, sometimes decades, that they do not even bother to search to see whether the question has been asked and answered.
In less than the time that it to you to type your "caution" you could have found an answer in the first page of Google search results, amongst many.
Which is exercising state power, which is an authoritarian interference with free speech. Try again.
I love how you have the temerity to judge whether or not I am a lawyer, based upon your own, incorrect understanding of the law.
47 U.S.C. 230(c) gives them legal protection from civil liability even if they exorcise editorial control.
That's not the law.
Because? Oh, right. Because you want to punish entities that you disfavor regardless of whether it violates what you claim to be your principled stance in favor of free speech and against European-style regulation of speech via those same platforms.
A nicely illogical, self-inconsistent mess that you've created. Idiot.
Good enough that you're stumped to justify adovating for "free speech" in the case of Europe yet authoritarianism oppression of networks distributing speech in the U.S.
Explain yourself.
Oh, really? Why was there no need then?
That's some bullshit handwaving right there.
You first. Making an illusory distinction between examples is simply sad. Justify it.
Yes, cutting "and an actual blood sample" off from "leaving behind both fingerprints and an actual blood sample" creates a potentially hilarious grammar error that was not present in TFS.
Lobster don't have fingerprints. Ha! Hilarious...
No, they don't. They're called immense staffs of human reviewers. If you're lucky, an algorithm automatically flags a subset of material without so many false positive that you overwhelm your Phillipino workforce.
See, the "accusation of bigotry" language would refer to an earlier instance where you'd called someone a bigot. You did, but not me:
"Jourova throws around accusations of hate crimes and right wing extremism freely; she may be more sophisticated than the people who send her nasty messages, but she herself is an intolerant bigot as well."
Try again.