It hasn't since business methods and software have been patented. Check out the Eastern District of Texas. This is a popular venue for patent litigation plaintiffs. They apparently aren't inclined to waste a lot of time reviewing the original appropriateness of patents in the cases they hear. What's with the two seperate courts?
#5. Code that is so negligently flawed as to suggest the desire to make the machines subject to abuse, subjecting Diebold to untold economic damages and possible criminal investigation.
I don't see why for certain kinds of software, that it would be unreasonable to permit the free use of older software. Microsoft's investment in any DOS version has been paid for many times over. I wouldn't be surprised that IBM would release OS/2 to open source if it could.
The new operating systems, such as Vista, are driving the sales of bigger faster better hardware, but a lot of utility can be realized from used hardware and the copyright laws should encourage that by releasing legacy software, in at least binary form, for free use.
The sad truth is that most users aren't ready for Linux. Granted Windows is a piece of crap, but it's a standard piece of crap that is familiar to other technicians. There is lots of great open source software for Windows, and I recommend it's use because it good. If a person needs to hire somebody else to straighten out their computer they probably aren't adventurous and just want a box that works. Why unnecessarily complicate their life.
It's statistically inconceivable that 40,000 original, unique, useful and non-obvious methods would be created in a year. Most of them are probably garbage. If the PO did it's job, there might be a couple of dozen methods that would qualify under the Constitutional definition of patentability.
What they want is the ability to target an individual for political reasons and then try to find anything they can to use against them. We are moving toward a society in which Fourth Amendment protections are as quaint as the outlawing of torture.
The idea of insurance isn't a bad one, but the expert customized analysis that would be required to create a fair premium might make for a very expensive policy. On the other hand, I agree with the idea of some kind of regulation. I find abuse offensive, whether it's somebody trying to score from an accident using a false injury, or abuse of the patent system where big money buys a box seat in the courtroom and blinders for the referees.
The main problems with strict loser pays is that many cases involve parties with huge financial asymmetries. Also cases often involve both merits and flaws in the arguments on both sides and are desided by a rule of preponderance of evidence. If the deep pocketed side is permitted any strategy that it can afford to grind the poorer adversary, and wins by exhaustion or default, the winner might be entitled to recover enormous fees beyond anything the loser could have afforded.
This might eventually lead to the perverse doctrine that one must prove they are potentially capable of paying the winning sides fees before they can even proceed with litigation. It could also bring about a system for regulating legal fees and limiting stategems that might be considered frivolous or abusive.
There is no easy anonymity if your ISP has a feed to the NSA, or somebody steals your credit information at some point of transmission or storage.
Participating in a very open online community is not something I would recommend to teenagers, because they might be prone to carelessness or naivety. Fun can get you in trouble
Buy crap online, well you pays your money and you takes your chances. I don't care if Amazon keeps a record of my purchases to suggest books I might like. I would prefer that a court order be needed to turn that information over to the authorities.
People who have a political passion of any stripe have to worry, because The Man can find out who you are, and now they apparently want to.
Many email clients display the target of the link in a status line. For example, you hover the mouse over the ostensibly legitimate Paypal link and and it is displayed to be a numerical IP address, or something in with a TLD in Romania or China. Big warning. This is what people should be trained to look for. And to know when and why banks or Paypal contact you by email about a problem with your account. Which is never for any reason.
For the PC, Thunderbird with HTML disabled, makes inconsistent URL's obvious.
Most ISP's severly throttle upload speeds for customers of cable and DSL connections. The important question is whether specific traffic is controlled and the principle of end-to-end neutrality is preserved.
Slashdot Mirror
It hasn't since business methods and software have been patented. Check out the Eastern District of Texas. This is a popular venue for patent litigation plaintiffs. They apparently aren't inclined to waste a lot of time reviewing the original appropriateness of patents in the cases they hear. What's with the two seperate courts?
#5. Code that is so negligently flawed as to suggest the desire to make the machines subject to abuse, subjecting Diebold to untold economic damages and possible criminal investigation.
I don't see why for certain kinds of software, that it would be unreasonable to permit the free use of older software. Microsoft's investment in any DOS version has been paid for many times over. I wouldn't be surprised that IBM would release OS/2 to open source if it could. The new operating systems, such as Vista, are driving the sales of bigger faster better hardware, but a lot of utility can be realized from used hardware and the copyright laws should encourage that by releasing legacy software, in at least binary form, for free use.
The sad truth is that most users aren't ready for Linux. Granted Windows is a piece of crap, but it's a standard piece of crap that is familiar to other technicians. There is lots of great open source software for Windows, and I recommend it's use because it good. If a person needs to hire somebody else to straighten out their computer they probably aren't adventurous and just want a box that works. Why unnecessarily complicate their life.
It's statistically inconceivable that 40,000 original, unique, useful and non-obvious methods would be created in a year. Most of them are probably garbage. If the PO did it's job, there might be a couple of dozen methods that would qualify under the Constitutional definition of patentability.
What they want is the ability to target an individual for political reasons and then try to find anything they can to use against them. We are moving toward a society in which Fourth Amendment protections are as quaint as the outlawing of torture.
The idea of insurance isn't a bad one, but the expert customized analysis that would be required to create a fair premium might make for a very expensive policy. On the other hand, I agree with the idea of some kind of regulation. I find abuse offensive, whether it's somebody trying to score from an accident using a false injury, or abuse of the patent system where big money buys a box seat in the courtroom and blinders for the referees.
The main problems with strict loser pays is that many cases involve parties with huge financial asymmetries. Also cases often involve both merits and flaws in the arguments on both sides and are desided by a rule of preponderance of evidence. If the deep pocketed side is permitted any strategy that it can afford to grind the poorer adversary, and wins by exhaustion or default, the winner might be entitled to recover enormous fees beyond anything the loser could have afforded. This might eventually lead to the perverse doctrine that one must prove they are potentially capable of paying the winning sides fees before they can even proceed with litigation. It could also bring about a system for regulating legal fees and limiting stategems that might be considered frivolous or abusive.
There is no easy anonymity if your ISP has a feed to the NSA, or somebody steals your credit information at some point of transmission or storage. Participating in a very open online community is not something I would recommend to teenagers, because they might be prone to carelessness or naivety. Fun can get you in trouble Buy crap online, well you pays your money and you takes your chances. I don't care if Amazon keeps a record of my purchases to suggest books I might like. I would prefer that a court order be needed to turn that information over to the authorities. People who have a political passion of any stripe have to worry, because The Man can find out who you are, and now they apparently want to.
Shoot me in the face if I don't understand, but why should a user interface of pedestrian device reflecting a mature technology be subject to patent?
Many email clients display the target of the link in a status line. For example, you hover the mouse over the ostensibly legitimate Paypal link and and it is displayed to be a numerical IP address, or something in with a TLD in Romania or China. Big warning. This is what people should be trained to look for. And to know when and why banks or Paypal contact you by email about a problem with your account. Which is never for any reason. For the PC, Thunderbird with HTML disabled, makes inconsistent URL's obvious.
Yes, I believe that HTML email is, in fact, a sin. It is stupid to render it, and a breach of etiquette to send it.
It's claimed that tracking content isn't the intention. "The idea is not to preserve content, just identifying information in order to track down people who are implicated in the online sexual abuse of children." (From the press release.) http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/co01_degette/ statementinternetexploit.html
The story originally appeared in The Providence Journal, where I saw it.
Most ISP's severly throttle upload speeds for customers of cable and DSL connections. The important question is whether specific traffic is controlled and the principle of end-to-end neutrality is preserved.
Thank you. Saves me the trouble.