They can sell an ebook for whatever price they want. I claim it should be roughly the same price, or cheaper than the cheapest format they have out. But if it is the same price as the MSRP, and I can get the physical book for 10% off of MSRP, then don't be surprised when I buy the physical book.
AND it is also ridicules when old (30-100 year old) books are $7.99 or more.
I think you meant to say "prices for most ebooks from amazon (or anywhere else) are priced incorrectly"
When a book first comes out an ebook is typically around $15 and the hardcover sells for 18-20.
The problem is, later when the massmarket comes out, the price of the massmarket is the same or less than the ebook.
I am of the opinion that the BSA's appeal should be declared frivolous, and that they should be spanked with a hefty fine for bringing this lawsuit in the first place
BSA can't do squat. Oracle can appeal, and if they feel they have a legal grounds for doing so, then they should. Appeals really aren't frivolous, if you feel the judge acted inappropriately.
BSA isn't involved in a lawsuit, are you suggesting Oracle should be fined?
But what this is is censorship. Removing posts because they're anonymous? Censorship.
Removing posts because the government tells you, is censorship, and is unconstitutional.
If the site owner wants to do it, that is his or her prerogative.
I wouldnt call this a "right", but a "privilege".
Mostly because, before the internet, there were less prevalent ways to voice your concerns anonymously.
Again, misleading. A dog barked (presumably because it smelled narcotics, but who knows, it was a dog barking), the cops said there was no reason a reasonable person would have lots of money, therefore it is drug related and confiscated it. Judge Lay said that was nonsense. Apparently Judge Lay's common sense is in the minority.
If the "on the X" portion of the patent is new and novel, then it should be allowed. But if it is done pretty much the same way as before, then no it shouldn't. In this case, one of the patents has to do with the 3D printing process itself. (As I understand it, it is basically patenting the ink process) But the rabid prototyping one seems to be "do X in the cloud" (There is even a picture of a cloud)
The name of the patent is "Automatic deletion of temporary files ".... I'm thinking that MAYBE just MAYBE c:\temp is a great place to store temporary files. Mind you, I'm weird like that.
But you aren't taking into consideration the amount of disk space the user has left. You are just unilaterally deleting everything after a certain date. No patent for you.
Sure it is. IT doesn't help if you have a TTL in the filename, if you don't do anything with it. It doesn't help if the user has a file quota, that you let fill up with old dead files.
BUT that doesn't mean this is patentable. Its basically "delete the largest oldest file, when the user starts to run out of disk space, on a DFS" I have no "hindsight bias" but I have to believe something like this has been done before. But shoot it is pretty much how I would implement it, if asked... And that is the point of the "novelness" of the question.
This really has nothing to do with DFS. The ONLY difference between this and a regular FS, is in a regular FS you look at one file and get the timestamp. in the DFS you look at all them, select the latest.
It isn't about it being done before (although I'd be shocked if it hasn't) Its about how novel it is. This patent is basically saying, look there is 5% of the diskspace left... This file is too old, delete it. Ohh and on a DFS. If it is brown, on a thursday, and frogs are raining.
The problem is, everyone else is doing it. So you pretty much have to. You can't really blame a company for playing, in fact you can blame them for not playing, as they aren't doing everything they can to protect their assests. AND they have to leverage in the patent wars.
You can blame USPTO and Congress for this mess.
The 'plurality' of chunks is irrelevant to the matter of expiring old data. What matters is that you have some sort of metadata telling the system when a blob of data that might resemble a file is to be deleted.
I believe that is what the summary claims, and why the summary believes it is similar to the older patent. But really its more about modifying the "metadata" based on the amount of space left. Again no big stretch, and nothing patent worthy about it.
Patents are not supposed to control what you do; instead they control how you do it. Since the way that Google is claiming to do this is by going around comparing the timestamps on a bunch of different distributed chunks of a file, this is something that no mainframe of the 70s is likely to have had to to so it may even be a new way to automatically delete temporary files. I wish people would begin to understand this and commenters would point it out every time. I wonder if this isn't a bunch of patent lawyers trying to make us look silly.
So what you are saying is one could add the words "distributed file system" to an old patent, and get a new patent? And this patent really isn't about DFS, as it just talks about finding the most recent modified time stamp of the distributed file. No the main portion seems to be creating a ratio between the time to live and the amount of disk space left.
I don't think that adding "on the internet", "on a tablet", "on a DFS", "in the cloud" is enough to create a new patent. Now if the system to allow you to use the new technology is novel, then sure. But getting the latest timestamp of a collection of timestamps? No that shouldn't be patentable in any way shape or form.
Surely this is novel. I mean who would have thunk of automatically deleting temp files (well based on the junk in my temp directory, not many people) AND figure out a way to solve it? It must have taken several Phds and a plethora of light bulbs to figure this one out.
There is a lot of talk about a tech company not knowing about Python. I'll give the guy a benefit of a doubt, he is the CEO and probably more of a salesman, he lets his engineers managed the details... BUT if he is a tech company, trying to brand a tech product, surely he would consult some technical staff?
Slashdot Mirror
(People who download also tend to be those who buy more music and attend more theater movies).
Citation Needed
Unless you are trying to say EVERYONE downloads stuff illegally.
Don't forget the hard work the author puts in to write the book. So no, ebooks shouldn't necessarily be free.
I hope you're joking. $15 for any fiction ebook is not a sound business model.
And this is exactly why publishers hate ebooks. They make their lion share on the expensive hardcover books.
They can sell an ebook for whatever price they want. I claim it should be roughly the same price, or cheaper than the cheapest format they have out. But if it is the same price as the MSRP, and I can get the physical book for 10% off of MSRP, then don't be surprised when I buy the physical book.
AND it is also ridicules when old (30-100 year old) books are $7.99 or more.
you do realize the publisher ALSO does a lot of work. They format the book, edit it, fact check it, advertise it.
I think you meant to say "prices for most ebooks from amazon (or anywhere else) are priced incorrectly"
When a book first comes out an ebook is typically around $15 and the hardcover sells for 18-20.
The problem is, later when the massmarket comes out, the price of the massmarket is the same or less than the ebook.
I am of the opinion that the BSA's appeal should be declared frivolous, and that they should be spanked with a hefty fine for bringing this lawsuit in the first place
BSA can't do squat. Oracle can appeal, and if they feel they have a legal grounds for doing so, then they should. Appeals really aren't frivolous, if you feel the judge acted inappropriately.
BSA isn't involved in a lawsuit, are you suggesting Oracle should be fined?
>
But what this is is censorship. Removing posts because they're anonymous? Censorship.
Removing posts because the government tells you, is censorship, and is unconstitutional.
If the site owner wants to do it, that is his or her prerogative.
I wouldnt call this a "right", but a "privilege". Mostly because, before the internet, there were less prevalent ways to voice your concerns anonymously.
Thomas Paine disagrees with you
Again, misleading. A dog barked (presumably because it smelled narcotics, but who knows, it was a dog barking), the cops said there was no reason a reasonable person would have lots of money, therefore it is drug related and confiscated it. Judge Lay said that was nonsense. Apparently Judge Lay's common sense is in the minority.
And yet the Patriot Act was passed... more than once
The government isn't (really) looking to curb anonymous speech, just this one asshat in Illinois;
This "asshat" in Illinois IS part of the government.
If the "on the X" portion of the patent is new and novel, then it should be allowed. But if it is done pretty much the same way as before, then no it shouldn't. In this case, one of the patents has to do with the 3D printing process itself. (As I understand it, it is basically patenting the ink process) But the rabid prototyping one seems to be "do X in the cloud" (There is even a picture of a cloud)
Yeah, but just like the existence of prior art, the patent office doesn't seem to reject things based on that.
The name of the patent is "Automatic deletion of temporary files ".... I'm thinking that MAYBE just MAYBE c:\temp is a great place to store temporary files. Mind you, I'm weird like that.
But you aren't taking into consideration the amount of disk space the user has left. You are just unilaterally deleting everything after a certain date. No patent for you.
THIS invention more than the sum of its parts?
No?!
Sure it is. IT doesn't help if you have a TTL in the filename, if you don't do anything with it. It doesn't help if the user has a file quota, that you let fill up with old dead files.
BUT that doesn't mean this is patentable. Its basically "delete the largest oldest file, when the user starts to run out of disk space, on a DFS" I have no "hindsight bias" but I have to believe something like this has been done before. But shoot it is pretty much how I would implement it, if asked... And that is the point of the "novelness" of the question.
The summary is wrong. Folks, please stop reading the abstract, and read claim 1 instead.
Why? You do realize pretty much everything in claim 1 is in the abstract, and worded better:
The abstract:
While the first item is similar to the IBM patent, the rest of the items are... well just not very novel.
It's a patent on storing files.
Well, actually it is a patent on deleting files.
This really has nothing to do with DFS. The ONLY difference between this and a regular FS, is in a regular FS you look at one file and get the timestamp. in the DFS you look at all them, select the latest.
It isn't about it being done before (although I'd be shocked if it hasn't) Its about how novel it is. This patent is basically saying, look there is 5% of the diskspace left... This file is too old, delete it. Ohh and on a DFS. If it is brown, on a thursday, and frogs are raining.
The problem is, everyone else is doing it. So you pretty much have to. You can't really blame a company for playing, in fact you can blame them for not playing, as they aren't doing everything they can to protect their assests. AND they have to leverage in the patent wars.
You can blame USPTO and Congress for this mess.
The 'plurality' of chunks is irrelevant to the matter of expiring old data. What matters is that you have some sort of metadata telling the system when a blob of data that might resemble a file is to be deleted.
I believe that is what the summary claims, and why the summary believes it is similar to the older patent. But really its more about modifying the "metadata" based on the amount of space left. Again no big stretch, and nothing patent worthy about it.
Patents are not supposed to control what you do; instead they control how you do it. Since the way that Google is claiming to do this is by going around comparing the timestamps on a bunch of different distributed chunks of a file, this is something that no mainframe of the 70s is likely to have had to to so it may even be a new way to automatically delete temporary files. I wish people would begin to understand this and commenters would point it out every time. I wonder if this isn't a bunch of patent lawyers trying to make us look silly.
So what you are saying is one could add the words "distributed file system" to an old patent, and get a new patent? And this patent really isn't about DFS, as it just talks about finding the most recent modified time stamp of the distributed file. No the main portion seems to be creating a ratio between the time to live and the amount of disk space left.
I don't think that adding "on the internet", "on a tablet", "on a DFS", "in the cloud" is enough to create a new patent. Now if the system to allow you to use the new technology is novel, then sure. But getting the latest timestamp of a collection of timestamps? No that shouldn't be patentable in any way shape or form.
Surely this is novel. I mean who would have thunk of automatically deleting temp files (well based on the junk in my temp directory, not many people) AND figure out a way to solve it? It must have taken several Phds and a plethora of light bulbs to figure this one out.
There is a lot of talk about a tech company not knowing about Python. I'll give the guy a benefit of a doubt, he is the CEO and probably more of a salesman, he lets his engineers managed the details... BUT if he is a tech company, trying to brand a tech product, surely he would consult some technical staff?