BS. They lobby for enforcing existing firearm laws all the time. But hey, when you have high-profile anti-gun Democrats running guns, maybe they don't WANT to reduce gun crimes and enforce existing laws... There's money and power to be made by letting CRIMINALS (yes, committing fraud on a 4473 is a felony) stay on the street.
The NRA pushes to enforce existing laws; what good is accomplished by passing new laws if you choose to not enforce existing ones? You had 43,000 CONVICTED FELONS trying to ILLEGALLY PURCHASE firearms, and the Federal Government just ingored it. Slam-dunk convictions - signed statements of fraud, documented. You know where they live. And yet - don't enforce. Why not? What good will new laws do?
Enforce the existing laws first (or repeal them if you're not going to enforce them) and then we can talk...
Sorry, no. If you do not violate claim 1, then you do not violate the dependent claims. Dependent claims limit the scope of the dependent claim. They can be used to cover explicit corner cases, but they cannot expand the scope of the independent claim. That's the law.
"Claims written in dependent form that broaden the scope of the claim from which they depend are considered to be in improper dependent form, which should result in an objection."
Well, you come in all high-and-mighty with false statements about the patent, and when you're corrected, you go "what does it matter"? Sorry - when you're shown to be wrong - man up, and admit it. Otherwise expect to be ridiculed and slapped down...
Now, about the patent. The first claim in a patent sets the focus of all following claims. The first claim is a white bag made with 60% post consumer content. Claims 2 through 12 are for refinements of that idea. Claim 13 is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT concept, a handle for a bag. Claims 14-16 are refinements of that. Claim 17 is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT concept for a reinforced collar on a bag. The three independent claims do NOT relate to the same invention, but 3 separate inventions that can be implemented independently of each other.
In other words, the lead claim, and the two followng independent claims, are completely unrelated to each other. And are covering different scope of work, and thus cannot be bundled together in a single patent. it's all bogus.
Oh, and I've already posted prior art for the independent claims in this patent; there's nothing novel here at all. Why you want to defend this patent - on a paper bag! - is beyond me, other than it's quite clear you're a serious Apple fan...
Hate to burst your little bubble, but the NRA supports prosecution of fraudulently filling out a 4473. They strongly argue that such criminals should be locked up. They would rally behind President Obama if he pushed to enforce that law. But - that would lower gun crime and eliminate the foundation to push for further encroachment on the 2nd Amendment.
Which is why banning 3D printed guns is stupid. I mean, if you want to really be a bad guy, drop a few dollars at Amazon and buy a book that shows you how to make a 9mm submachine gun with common hand-held power tools. The book, $150 spent at Home Depot, and you have a nice little firearm!
You mean other than in California where the State can confiscate your firearms on an anonymous "tip" that you are a danger. And it can do it without warning, and does not have to return the firearms until you can prove that you are not a danger.
Oh and they have criminalized possession of magazines that were previously legal, meaning if you did not turn them in to the police on-time, then you run the risk of losing all your firearms - permanently (convicted of a gun violation = automatic, lifetime loss of firearm privileges in CA).
But other than that, yeah - no one's coming for your guns...
Apparently, when you're shown to be wrong, you care. And you cared enough to post in this thread in the first place. But the fact remains - Apple is attempting to patent a white paper bag with 60% or more post consumer content. Maybe instead of "macs4all" you should change your name to "paperbags4all"...
Patents are evaluated by their claims, not their descriptions. Independent claims are the parts that define the basis for the invention. Claim 1 is the independent claim for dependent claims 2-12. It is to stand on its own, and define the invention that is claimed. Which is - as explicitly written - a white paper bag with 60% or more post-consumer content.
Check the patent. Claims 2 through 12 are dependent on claim 1. If claim 1 is invalid - then claims 2 through 12 are invalid, too. Dependent claims are dependent on their parent. Claim 1 gets tossed - then all the dependent claims get tossed as well.
BS. Utter BS. Here is prior art. For a patent to be valid, each and every independent claim must stand on its own, with no support. See claim 1 of the patent application. It's 100% covered by my link, from a 2009 product. You cannot assume anything beyond which that is described in the claim section itself; that is what is patented - the claims. And this fails hugely as a patent on a white paper bag with recycled content.
Go read the patent. This isn't a design patent. It's a patent on how to reinforce or fold the edges of a paper bag to make it strong enough to have 60% or more of recycled material.
Yes, go read the patent. It says NO SUCH THING. The three independent claims - 1, 13 and 17 - have NOTHING to do with each other. They are not related at all. The first is about a white bag with recycled material. The 13th is about sliding handles. The 17th is about a reinforced collar. They are all independent of each other and can be implemented in their entirety without the others (that's the definition of an independent claim).
Not to mention having a single patent cover multiple "inventions" is not allowed, there must be some sort of continuity between the claims, independent or not, such that the subject of the patent is unique, novel, and well defined.
It's says NOTHING about making a bag strong enough to have recycle material. Nothing.
Look at this claim: [0058] It will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art
That's not a claim you dolt. That's a description and does not relate to the actual claims in any way other than to serve as potentially limiting their scope. The claims say NOTHING of what you claim.
A beverage receptacle comprising: an inner wall of cylindrical construction and having a fixed radius and having an outer surface and an inner surface, a spacer in connection with said outer surface, said spacer disposed upon said outer surface in a spiral configuration with radius corresponding to that of said inner wall, an outer wall of cylindrical construction and of larger diameter than said inner wall, said outerwall in connection with said spacer so as to form an air space between said inner and outer walls.
The first - the Apple claim - has nothing novel, nothing about construction, nothing about process. Just "a white paper bag with at least 60% post consumer content". I guess I can patent a pumpkin pie with at least 80% organic pumpkin content.
The second - the paper cup claim - talks about what it is, how it's built, what the important features are, why it's being done, and important ratios in-between. In other words, there's something there other than just "a cup that is insulated".
This is 100% a trash patent. Resume padding only. And Apple should be ashamed of filing it. Talk about intellectually void....
A retail paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of white paper with at least 60% post-consumer content.
That is the foundation for claims 2 through 12 (dependent claims). Where they talk about small changes - but still must include this portion. It brings nothing to the table in terms of "how it's made" - just what it is. On its face, this is a bogus claim. Prior art and ZERO novelty here. Which means claim 1 though 12 are all tossed. Instantly. It's like me claiming "a pumpkin pie with at least 80% organic pumpkin". Worthless, no invention.
Claim 13, in its entirety, is:
A paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of paper, the bag container having a top edge including a notch, and a bag handle formed of paper, wherein an end of the bag handle extends through the notch and is fixed to the bag container, wherein, in the absence of an applied force on the bag handle, when the bag is in an upright orientation the bag handle droops below the top edge of the bag container so that at least 90% of the bag handle is disposed below the top edge of the bag container.
A completely different bag, nothing about post-consumer use or white (and thus should not be included in this patent - there is no tie between claims 1 and 13 other than they are for bags). Just a bag where the handles can slide back down into the bag - again, nothing new or novel here. Been done to death over the years.
The last independent claim, claim 17, is:
A paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of paper, the bag container having a collar about an opening thereof, wherein the collar is formed by portions of the bag container folded over about the opening, wherein the collar comprises a collar reinforcement insert disposed between the folded-over portions of the bag container, wherein the collar reinforcement insert is corrugated cardboard.
This does not relate to claim 1 (white and post-consumer content being the key elements) nor claim 13 (sliding handles being the key element). So it should be tossed out - it is a different subject matter altogether. And it's a bag with a reinforced opening that is supported by corrugated cardboard. Again, nothing new, it's been done to death.
This is a bogus patent through and through. Done simply to pad some resume somewhere. The "inventors" should be ashamed of themselves and this patent application should be tossed immediately.
For the record, I have a dozen utility patents, with 18 more in the pipeline, and actually get royalties and licensing fees for the ones I personally hold, with those royalties coming from many companies including big ones like Flextronics and Microsoft. They're not fluff where it's patenting a paper bag.
Hendrik Lorentz cries because you forgot the force he derived. All coils experience the Lorentz force between windings, and it's why you epoxy impregnate them. Do it poorly - and you get a few loose turns and they buzz. Every single time. Seen it happen thousands of times over the millions and millions of voice coils I've used in loudspeakers, and that is REALLY audible (as that buzzing is coupled to a nice, big diaphragm).
Oh, those caps on standoffs? Were they bottom vented? If so - you have to raise them up to allow the vents to release in case of failure.
Amazon spent 15 years at it before it broke $70 billion (in 2011). And its revenue was 70% of its market cap. AND it was turning a profit.
Uber has a revenue around $2 billion - about 3% of its market cap. And it is losing more money than its revenue (yes, expenses are 120% of revenue). BIG difference between the two...
Hah! And you probably believe the darkswitch - next to the door - turns ON the light. Everyone knows it turns on the dark vacuum that sucks up the dark from the room!
It's because Preident Obama was joking about ISIS that very same day. Can't have the President "quipping that the Islamic State was no big deal" then have a few bombs go off in NYC, can we? Gotta try to bury something there...
Repeat after me: Uber is NOT run by the government... that's both what makes it good... AND what leads to scenarios like this. You can't have the good (low fares, clean cars, drivers that give a shit) without allowing them to work with the free market (supply / demand).
That's such horseshit. Imagine there was a simple injection that costs $5 and cures cancer. However, if you have cancer, the drug costs $100,000.
Cool! Market opportunity! I can buy those injections for $5 a pop (I don't have cancer) and sell them for $25 a pop. That's not really immoral - it's still very affordable. And I get to quintuple my initial materials cost, which should cover overhead (like rent, salaries for licensed RNs, liability insurance, etc). And of course, I still have enough margin to pay any off-the-street Joe $10 to go buy a $5 injection for me, once the maker clamps down on me, personally, buying any more injections. Just a cost of doing business!
Uber could cut into its 'billions of profit' and take a small hit by increasing pay to drivers while not passing the costs to customers
They did. Uber doesn't make a profit, they have massive losses (it's losing about $200 million per month). Thus cutting into that profit means taking a negative chunk away - which means INCREASING their revenue and trying to reduce their negative losses. Exactly what would happen when they surge price.
And yes, the insanity of a company that has never turned a profit, and is losing nearly $5000 per MINUTE (60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year) is still worth $70 billion and climbing, is not lost on me...
Hey, having a screen that works great with standard gloves is really a nice thing. No need to have special gloves on at all. But then, I don't worship at the altar of the Shiny Fruit, so...
Or, the 3rd option: the VCs traded their normal due diligence for trust in previous VCs. Peer pressure and an assumption of action by others.
I've seen it happen before - series B/C/D VCs will invest on the "strength" of a known VC investing in series A. And sometimes that first VC invested simply on the strength of a seed angel investing. Reputation of the early investor, assumption that they "did proper diligence" often is used to justify subsequent investment. And I've been involved in seed-through-series C fundraising at startups (including a few in SF right now); it's a lot more common than you think.
I've also been hired to perform due diligence and had my conclusions ignored because "VC ABC invested, even though you say the technology is faked; they must have better data/investigators than you", only to find out a few years later that I was, in fact, correct - the other VC messed up.
Do not discount this very, very powerful force. Getting through your first VC round is the hardest; after that, due diligence is 95% about market opportunity, not about technical viability. Get one fairly-well-known name to sign off the first round, and you're pretty much home-free from a tech standpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
BS. They lobby for enforcing existing firearm laws all the time. But hey, when you have high-profile anti-gun Democrats running guns, maybe they don't WANT to reduce gun crimes and enforce existing laws... There's money and power to be made by letting CRIMINALS (yes, committing fraud on a 4473 is a felony) stay on the street.
The NRA pushes to enforce existing laws; what good is accomplished by passing new laws if you choose to not enforce existing ones? You had 43,000 CONVICTED FELONS trying to ILLEGALLY PURCHASE firearms, and the Federal Government just ingored it. Slam-dunk convictions - signed statements of fraud, documented. You know where they live. And yet - don't enforce. Why not? What good will new laws do?
Enforce the existing laws first (or repeal them if you're not going to enforce them) and then we can talk...
Sorry, no. If you do not violate claim 1, then you do not violate the dependent claims. Dependent claims limit the scope of the dependent claim. They can be used to cover explicit corner cases, but they cannot expand the scope of the independent claim. That's the law.
"Claims written in dependent form that broaden the scope of the claim from which they depend are considered to be in improper dependent form, which should result in an objection."
Well, you come in all high-and-mighty with false statements about the patent, and when you're corrected, you go "what does it matter"? Sorry - when you're shown to be wrong - man up, and admit it. Otherwise expect to be ridiculed and slapped down...
Now, about the patent. The first claim in a patent sets the focus of all following claims. The first claim is a white bag made with 60% post consumer content. Claims 2 through 12 are for refinements of that idea. Claim 13 is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT concept, a handle for a bag. Claims 14-16 are refinements of that. Claim 17 is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT concept for a reinforced collar on a bag. The three independent claims do NOT relate to the same invention, but 3 separate inventions that can be implemented independently of each other.
In other words, the lead claim, and the two followng independent claims, are completely unrelated to each other. And are covering different scope of work, and thus cannot be bundled together in a single patent. it's all bogus.
Oh, and I've already posted prior art for the independent claims in this patent; there's nothing novel here at all. Why you want to defend this patent - on a paper bag! - is beyond me, other than it's quite clear you're a serious Apple fan...
Hate to burst your little bubble, but the NRA supports prosecution of fraudulently filling out a 4473. They strongly argue that such criminals should be locked up. They would rally behind President Obama if he pushed to enforce that law. But - that would lower gun crime and eliminate the foundation to push for further encroachment on the 2nd Amendment.
Which is why banning 3D printed guns is stupid. I mean, if you want to really be a bad guy, drop a few dollars at Amazon and buy a book that shows you how to make a 9mm submachine gun with common hand-held power tools. The book, $150 spent at Home Depot, and you have a nice little firearm!
You mean other than in California where the State can confiscate your firearms on an anonymous "tip" that you are a danger. And it can do it without warning, and does not have to return the firearms until you can prove that you are not a danger.
Oh and they have criminalized possession of magazines that were previously legal, meaning if you did not turn them in to the police on-time, then you run the risk of losing all your firearms - permanently (convicted of a gun violation = automatic, lifetime loss of firearm privileges in CA).
But other than that, yeah - no one's coming for your guns...
Apparently, when you're shown to be wrong, you care. And you cared enough to post in this thread in the first place. But the fact remains - Apple is attempting to patent a white paper bag with 60% or more post consumer content. Maybe instead of "macs4all" you should change your name to "paperbags4all"...
Patents are evaluated by their claims, not their descriptions. Independent claims are the parts that define the basis for the invention. Claim 1 is the independent claim for dependent claims 2-12. It is to stand on its own, and define the invention that is claimed. Which is - as explicitly written - a white paper bag with 60% or more post-consumer content.
Check the patent. Claims 2 through 12 are dependent on claim 1. If claim 1 is invalid - then claims 2 through 12 are invalid, too. Dependent claims are dependent on their parent. Claim 1 gets tossed - then all the dependent claims get tossed as well.
BS. Utter BS. Here is prior art. For a patent to be valid, each and every independent claim must stand on its own, with no support. See claim 1 of the patent application. It's 100% covered by my link, from a 2009 product. You cannot assume anything beyond which that is described in the claim section itself; that is what is patented - the claims. And this fails hugely as a patent on a white paper bag with recycled content.
From the patent application, claim 1, in its entirety:
1. A retail paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of white paper with at least 60% post-consumer content.
Apple has, in fact, claimed it patented a white paper bag with 60%+ post consumer content. That is for "a paper bag".
I give you The only 100% Recycled White Kraft - minimum 95% post consumer content bag, prior art from 2009. This patent is not novel, it is not unique, it is not non-obvious. It is bogus, 100%.
Go read the patent. This isn't a design patent. It's a patent on how to reinforce or fold the edges of a paper bag to make it strong enough to have 60% or more of recycled material.
Yes, go read the patent. It says NO SUCH THING. The three independent claims - 1, 13 and 17 - have NOTHING to do with each other. They are not related at all. The first is about a white bag with recycled material. The 13th is about sliding handles. The 17th is about a reinforced collar. They are all independent of each other and can be implemented in their entirety without the others (that's the definition of an independent claim).
Not to mention having a single patent cover multiple "inventions" is not allowed, there must be some sort of continuity between the claims, independent or not, such that the subject of the patent is unique, novel, and well defined.
It's says NOTHING about making a bag strong enough to have recycle material. Nothing.
Look at this claim: [0058] It will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art
That's not a claim you dolt. That's a description and does not relate to the actual claims in any way other than to serve as potentially limiting their scope. The claims say NOTHING of what you claim.
A retail paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of white paper with at least 60% post-consumer content.
Now, take a look at the first claim for a paper cup:
A beverage receptacle comprising: an inner wall of cylindrical construction and having a fixed radius and having an outer surface and an inner surface, a spacer in connection with said outer surface, said spacer disposed upon said outer surface in a spiral configuration with radius corresponding to that of said inner wall, an outer wall of cylindrical construction and of larger diameter than said inner wall, said outerwall in connection with said spacer so as to form an air space between said inner and outer walls.
The first - the Apple claim - has nothing novel, nothing about construction, nothing about process. Just "a white paper bag with at least 60% post consumer content". I guess I can patent a pumpkin pie with at least 80% organic pumpkin content.
The second - the paper cup claim - talks about what it is, how it's built, what the important features are, why it's being done, and important ratios in-between. In other words, there's something there other than just "a cup that is insulated".
This is 100% a trash patent. Resume padding only. And Apple should be ashamed of filing it. Talk about intellectually void....
A retail paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of white paper with at least 60% post-consumer content.
That is the foundation for claims 2 through 12 (dependent claims). Where they talk about small changes - but still must include this portion. It brings nothing to the table in terms of "how it's made" - just what it is. On its face, this is a bogus claim. Prior art and ZERO novelty here. Which means claim 1 though 12 are all tossed. Instantly. It's like me claiming "a pumpkin pie with at least 80% organic pumpkin". Worthless, no invention.
Claim 13, in its entirety, is:
A paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of paper, the bag container having a top edge including a notch, and a bag handle formed of paper, wherein an end of the bag handle extends through the notch and is fixed to the bag container, wherein, in the absence of an applied force on the bag handle, when the bag is in an upright orientation the bag handle droops below the top edge of the bag container so that at least 90% of the bag handle is disposed below the top edge of the bag container.
A completely different bag, nothing about post-consumer use or white (and thus should not be included in this patent - there is no tie between claims 1 and 13 other than they are for bags). Just a bag where the handles can slide back down into the bag - again, nothing new or novel here. Been done to death over the years.
The last independent claim, claim 17, is:
A paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of paper, the bag container having a collar about an opening thereof, wherein the collar is formed by portions of the bag container folded over about the opening, wherein the collar comprises a collar reinforcement insert disposed between the folded-over portions of the bag container, wherein the collar reinforcement insert is corrugated cardboard.
This does not relate to claim 1 (white and post-consumer content being the key elements) nor claim 13 (sliding handles being the key element). So it should be tossed out - it is a different subject matter altogether. And it's a bag with a reinforced opening that is supported by corrugated cardboard. Again, nothing new, it's been done to death.
This is a bogus patent through and through. Done simply to pad some resume somewhere. The "inventors" should be ashamed of themselves and this patent application should be tossed immediately.
For the record, I have a dozen utility patents, with 18 more in the pipeline, and actually get royalties and licensing fees for the ones I personally hold, with those royalties coming from many companies including big ones like Flextronics and Microsoft. They're not fluff where it's patenting a paper bag.
WHAT? It makes everyone a redhead?
Hendrik Lorentz cries because you forgot the force he derived. All coils experience the Lorentz force between windings, and it's why you epoxy impregnate them. Do it poorly - and you get a few loose turns and they buzz. Every single time. Seen it happen thousands of times over the millions and millions of voice coils I've used in loudspeakers, and that is REALLY audible (as that buzzing is coupled to a nice, big diaphragm).
Oh, those caps on standoffs? Were they bottom vented? If so - you have to raise them up to allow the vents to release in case of failure.
Amazon spent 15 years at it before it broke $70 billion (in 2011). And its revenue was 70% of its market cap. AND it was turning a profit.
Uber has a revenue around $2 billion - about 3% of its market cap. And it is losing more money than its revenue (yes, expenses are 120% of revenue). BIG difference between the two...
Hah! And you probably believe the darkswitch - next to the door - turns ON the light. Everyone knows it turns on the dark vacuum that sucks up the dark from the room!
Get the requisite materials. Then find a rocket. Launch into space. Open up the pod bay doors. Let the vacuum in. Then assemble. Done!
It's because Preident Obama was joking about ISIS that very same day. Can't have the President "quipping that the Islamic State was no big deal" then have a few bombs go off in NYC, can we? Gotta try to bury something there...
That's such horseshit. Imagine there was a simple injection that costs $5 and cures cancer. However, if you have cancer, the drug costs $100,000.
Cool! Market opportunity! I can buy those injections for $5 a pop (I don't have cancer) and sell them for $25 a pop. That's not really immoral - it's still very affordable. And I get to quintuple my initial materials cost, which should cover overhead (like rent, salaries for licensed RNs, liability insurance, etc). And of course, I still have enough margin to pay any off-the-street Joe $10 to go buy a $5 injection for me, once the maker clamps down on me, personally, buying any more injections. Just a cost of doing business!
Uber could cut into its 'billions of profit' and take a small hit by increasing pay to drivers while not passing the costs to customers
They did. Uber doesn't make a profit, they have massive losses (it's losing about $200 million per month). Thus cutting into that profit means taking a negative chunk away - which means INCREASING their revenue and trying to reduce their negative losses. Exactly what would happen when they surge price.
And yes, the insanity of a company that has never turned a profit, and is losing nearly $5000 per MINUTE (60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year) is still worth $70 billion and climbing, is not lost on me...
Hey, having a screen that works great with standard gloves is really a nice thing. No need to have special gloves on at all. But then, I don't worship at the altar of the Shiny Fruit, so...
Or, the 3rd option: the VCs traded their normal due diligence for trust in previous VCs. Peer pressure and an assumption of action by others.
I've seen it happen before - series B/C/D VCs will invest on the "strength" of a known VC investing in series A. And sometimes that first VC invested simply on the strength of a seed angel investing. Reputation of the early investor, assumption that they "did proper diligence" often is used to justify subsequent investment. And I've been involved in seed-through-series C fundraising at startups (including a few in SF right now); it's a lot more common than you think.
I've also been hired to perform due diligence and had my conclusions ignored because "VC ABC invested, even though you say the technology is faked; they must have better data/investigators than you", only to find out a few years later that I was, in fact, correct - the other VC messed up.
Do not discount this very, very powerful force. Getting through your first VC round is the hardest; after that, due diligence is 95% about market opportunity, not about technical viability. Get one fairly-well-known name to sign off the first round, and you're pretty much home-free from a tech standpoint.