That's only for the claims that were subject to reexamination. Of the 66 total claims from three patents so far for which stats were released, 16 claims were not subject to reexamination. Now, 46 out of the 50 that were reexamined were rejected which gives us about 92%. However, of the original 66, 20 still stand so it's more like 66%. Still, it's better than 10% or 0...
The album, which Danger Mouse released in limited quantities to a few internet outlets, created controversy when EMI, copyright holder of The Beatles, ordered Danger Mouse and retailers carrying the album to cease distribution. The amount of attention The Grey Album received caused EMI to act. Danger Mouse never asked permission to use The Beatles' material, and intended to produce a limited production run of 3,000 copies. Jay-Z's material, on the other hand, was commercially released in a cappella form. Although the work was copyrighted, it was released for the implicit purpose of encouraging mashups and remixes.
Basically, it was a mashup of Jay-Z's material (which he encouraged using) and the Beatles (which supposedly Paul McCartney was ok with after the fact) but EMI which held the Beatles copyright didn't like it one bit...
I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it couldn't be done easily. This one example presented so far is over 40 years old. I haven't heard of many others like it, and more often than not you hear stories more like DJ Danger Mouse.
Flamebait? Really? I consider this a valid criticism of the OP's absurd post.
Any building, utility, transportation or other critical infrastructure, even a computer network will have certain vulnerabilities for which steps must be taken to mitigate risks. Simply accusing one of treason simply because there are risks is a little over the top donchathink?
Not really, unless you are saying we need to register our computers with the state and acquire a license before we take them out on the information super highway...
Bill DeSmedt wrote about the possibility of sending message to the past in his book Singularity. An interesting take where the messages sent to the past directly lead to the future from where the messages could be sent. It kind of implies that neither the past nor future can be changed but cause and effect are not bound by time.
OT: What's really fun is taking all the extra fluff Crapital One sends you (fake credit card, terms of service, etc... that does not have your name/address of course) and stuffing it in the bulk prepaid envelop they include and send it back to them. The more you stuff in there the more it costs them in postage to have it sent back.
Any junk mail I get that includes a prepaid reply envelop gets this treatment. Just my way of saying thank you for wasting my time...
Are you saying that first-to-file only applies when two or more people invented something at the same time? Because some people may not file right away.
No, they do not have to have invented something at the same time, just independently come up with the same invention. Assuming it is patentable, first to file wins... Wikipedia has a good explanation of the differences between first-to-file and first-to-invent. It is true that they may not file right away and the first-to-file scheme does not care.
My understanding of first-to-file was that the first party to file for the patent was granted the patent (if it's patentable of course), period. IMHO, that would be a very bad idea, as it would give corporations a major advantage over the garage inventor, who might have to struggle to come up with enough money to properly do a patent search and file.
That is exactly right. The linked Wikipedia article in fact describes such a scenario. The garage inventor is at a disadvantage given limited resources. Not much different than the current system though.:-) Though with the current system, the garage inventor may be able to prove he invented first, but not before having to make the case in a potentially drawn out court battle. If he manages to keep it quiet and files first, he doesn't have to worry about it.
What won't change is how prior art can be used to invalidate patents. If the garage inventor decides not to patent but goes public with the invention no one could claim a patent on that no more than I could claim a patent on TCP/IP. I mean it would be obvious I didn't invent it even if I was first to file.
Of course there could be the hypothetical claim from some SCO-like company that they happened to be independently developing the technology and try to claim the patent. I don't know how that might play out under the new system if it were adopted but prior art would still be a powerful tool and the burden of proof would be on the company trying to make the claim.
Currently, if two or more parties are attempting to patent the same invention the burden of proof of who invented first lies with the inventors and is decided in the courts. This is the problem first to file is to eliminate.
Note that most of the time there is only one inventor trying to patent an invention so first to file or first to invent is moot.
Prior art still holds to invalidate patents and patent applications regardless if there is one party or more than one party filing.
First-to-file does not negate or eliminate prior art. First-to-file applies to parties independently coming up with the same invention (without existing public knowledge of such an invention) and granting the patent to the first to file.
Prior art can still be used to show that the first to file didn't actually do the inventing.
Interestingly enough, the Microsoft blog linked to in the article specifically mentions and endorses the use of prior art in countering patents.
Slashdot Mirror
That's only for the claims that were subject to reexamination. Of the 66 total claims from three patents so far for which stats were released, 16 claims were not subject to reexamination. Now, 46 out of the 50 that were reexamined were rejected which gives us about 92%. However, of the original 66, 20 still stand so it's more like 66%. Still, it's better than 10% or 0...
I was going to say just post your collection to a P2P service and let the RIAA tell you what's legitimate.
... They're tools.
The people or the technology?
Perhaps I should have linked to The Grey Album.
Basically, it was a mashup of Jay-Z's material (which he encouraged using) and the Beatles (which supposedly Paul McCartney was ok with after the fact) but EMI which held the Beatles copyright didn't like it one bit...
Or had it been posted to YouTube, it would have received a DMCA takedown notice from Olympic Studios. :-)
I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it couldn't be done easily. This one example presented so far is over 40 years old. I haven't heard of many others like it, and more often than not you hear stories more like DJ Danger Mouse.
There is so much said in this one statement:
"She won a remix contest with a version that I liked so much, it changed the way I play the song"
Something that cant be done easily within the traditional music industry...
Flamebait? Really? I consider this a valid criticism of the OP's absurd post.
Any building, utility, transportation or other critical infrastructure, even a computer network will have certain vulnerabilities for which steps must be taken to mitigate risks. Simply accusing one of treason simply because there are risks is a little over the top donchathink?
Cute, but not the hottest...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Mainzer
No, but when they made that request they did so with a pinky to the corner of their mouth.
Not really, unless you are saying we need to register our computers with the state and acquire a license before we take them out on the information super highway...
Unless you "Start the reactor!!!"
I think the guy was probably nuts and just had a thing for certain random character sequences. Something like in A Beautiful Mind...
You mean this one posted 10 minutes before you? Hello McFly!!
Unless it was posted from the future... nevermind...
Actually, I just wrote a comment about it here.
Bill DeSmedt wrote about the possibility of sending message to the past in his book Singularity. An interesting take where the messages sent to the past directly lead to the future from where the messages could be sent. It kind of implies that neither the past nor future can be changed but cause and effect are not bound by time.
...how old and wrinkly they are now doesn't matter.
The images or the models in the images?
OT: What's really fun is taking all the extra fluff Crapital One sends you (fake credit card, terms of service, etc... that does not have your name/address of course) and stuffing it in the bulk prepaid envelop they include and send it back to them. The more you stuff in there the more it costs them in postage to have it sent back.
Any junk mail I get that includes a prepaid reply envelop gets this treatment. Just my way of saying thank you for wasting my time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRmxXp62O8g
I saw this movie. Opening that cube is a bad thing!
Are you saying that first-to-file only applies when two or more people invented something at the same time? Because some people may not file right away.
No, they do not have to have invented something at the same time, just independently come up with the same invention. Assuming it is patentable, first to file wins... Wikipedia has a good explanation of the differences between first-to-file and first-to-invent. It is true that they may not file right away and the first-to-file scheme does not care.
My understanding of first-to-file was that the first party to file for the patent was granted the patent (if it's patentable of course), period. IMHO, that would be a very bad idea, as it would give corporations a major advantage over the garage inventor, who might have to struggle to come up with enough money to properly do a patent search and file.
That is exactly right. The linked Wikipedia article in fact describes such a scenario. The garage inventor is at a disadvantage given limited resources. Not much different than the current system though. :-) Though with the current system, the garage inventor may be able to prove he invented first, but not before having to make the case in a potentially drawn out court battle. If he manages to keep it quiet and files first, he doesn't have to worry about it.
What won't change is how prior art can be used to invalidate patents. If the garage inventor decides not to patent but goes public with the invention no one could claim a patent on that no more than I could claim a patent on TCP/IP. I mean it would be obvious I didn't invent it even if I was first to file.
Of course there could be the hypothetical claim from some SCO-like company that they happened to be independently developing the technology and try to claim the patent. I don't know how that might play out under the new system if it were adopted but prior art would still be a powerful tool and the burden of proof would be on the company trying to make the claim.
Currently, if two or more parties are attempting to patent the same invention the burden of proof of who invented first lies with the inventors and is decided in the courts. This is the problem first to file is to eliminate.
Note that most of the time there is only one inventor trying to patent an invention so first to file or first to invent is moot.
Prior art still holds to invalidate patents and patent applications regardless if there is one party or more than one party filing.
First-to-file does not negate or eliminate prior art. First-to-file applies to parties independently coming up with the same invention (without existing public knowledge of such an invention) and granting the patent to the first to file.
Prior art can still be used to show that the first to file didn't actually do the inventing.
Interestingly enough, the Microsoft blog linked to in the article specifically mentions and endorses the use of prior art in countering patents.
NB: to /. mods - can we have the old interface back please? The new one is *horrible*
Damn, I wish I would have found this sooner before I spent most of my mod points. I don't think I have enough left to bring back the old interface. :-(
Nah, the text is scrollable. You just have to go back to 1995 and actually use the scroll bar...