Meanwhile, if between the time it is filed and granted, anyone else either files for or implements the patent, it is presumed insufficiently non-obvious.
Keep in mind that patent applications are made public relatively shortly after they are filed, and usually long before they are granted. I think the standard is 12 or 18 months after filing.
Everyone has a name, which people pronounce out loud. English uses characters and combinations of characters to represent sounds. Thus, everyone has a Name which can be translated into English.
If this last statement has an accuracy requirement, then it is demonstrably false. Many (most? all?) languages do not have characters representing every sound that a human can make. For example, there is no letter or combination of letters in English that represent the sound of the guttural (I don't know the accurate linguistic term) letters Het and Haf. Conversely, Hebrew has no letter for the sound of the English combinations ch and th, though there is a letter for sh. You can get close enough for most purposes, such as using h or ch for those Hebrew letters, but if you pronounce them as if they were English, you'll be pronouncing the name incorrectly.
There are two reasons for using phrases such as "may cause".
First, diseases are usually probabilistic. You can be in the same room as someone with a cold and not get sick, but that doesn't mean that the virus can't spread through the air. Maybe you got lucky and didn't inhale any contaminated air, or maybe your immune system fought off that particular strain of the virus. Cancer is even more complicated than cold viruses.
Second, the only information doctors and researchers can use is from the people that walk through their doors. Controlled experiments on humans are generally not approved of, especially when the experiment would involve causing cancer in the subjects. Without controlled experiments, it's difficult to determine precise amounts of risk.
While we as technical users might enjoy a plugin-free experience with no extra clicking involved, the average Joe User is going to be pissed off.
I know this can be a dangerous idea, but I think you may be underestimating the average user. I suspect the conversation will go something like this:
Average User: Hey, why doesn't the video play automatically anymore?
Other Person: You have to click the big Play button first.
Average User: Oh, okay.
The average user probably won't ever understand why they have to do it, nor will they care, but they'll be able to repeat the necessary step(s).
Evolution is a very slight edge case. You can conduct experiments on organisms such as bacteria to show evolutionary effects, but conducting the same experiments on humans would generally be frowned upon. Also, because evolution is to a certain extent probabilistic (an organism with a beneficial mutation isn't guaranteed to survive over other organisms, but is only more likely to survive), even if you start with a bacteria from 3 billion years ago, you probably won't end up with Homo sapiens.
I'm sure some idiot will interpret this as my belief that evolution isn't real, which of course is not the case. Evolution is certainly real, but it's difficult or nearly impossible to "prove" all of the details of human evolution through repeatable experimentation.
they were down here for the NFL playoffs with other agencies to bust people for fraudulent NFL gear, I kid you not.
That isn't quite as insane as it sounds. My guess is that most of the unlicensed merchandise is imported, and customs falls under DHS. Of course, you're free to feel that they shouldn't be spending the resources on unlicensed merchandise, but if anyone is going to enforce it, it would be DHS.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that all of the oil fields in Alaska are owned by the state, and that the reason taxes are so low is that the state government makes more than enough money from the oil. That was always one of the amusing ironies of Sarah Palin, that for all her neo-conservative talking points, she was governor of what was a pretty communist state.
None of them give you a discount equal to the subsidy if you bought it through a contract.
If it hasn't changed lately, the discount that T-Mobile gives you is pretty close to the amount of the subsidy for high-end phones, and probably quite a bit more for mid-range phones. I believe my discount is $20 per month.
Take another look at your Boolean algebra textbook. A -> B (lead poisoning leads to an increase in violence) does not mean that B -> A (an increase in violence means there must be lead poisoning).
I don't know about the laws regarding this particular DRM scheme, but in general, a patent only gives you the right to exclude others from implementing the invention in your patent, and to sue for damages if someone does so without your permission. If implementing your invention is illegal for some other reason, then it remains illegal even if you have a patent for it.
The claims are not for any stylus containing circuitry, but for a much more specific invention.
Not that much more specific:
1. An active stylus, comprising: an electrode at a tip of the stylus; and powered circuitry coupled to the electrode and configured for capacitively coupling the electrode with a capacitive touch sensor panel.
Of course, this is just the initial application, so Claim 1 could be changed or dropped, leaving only some of the more specific dependent claims.
As far as infringement goes, you have a good point. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with it, but it is a reasonable argument. Invalidity, though, is in theory completely independent of what's being accused of infringement. An ITC finding of invalidity is conceptually no different than if the defendant submitted a request for reexamination with the Patent Office, which can and does often happen.
1) What branch do you think the Patent Office is part of?
Do you have trouble understanding the difference between granting a patent and challenging a patent?
Then by that reasoning, the Patent Office shouldn't be able to invalidate a previously granted patent, and yet they can.
The ITC can't actually invalidate a patent, they can only "find a patent invalid"
My, you are fond of stating the obvious. You are also splitting hairs.
The ITC makes decisions on the validity of patents and imposes what effectively amounts to remedies and penalties. The fact that they can be challenged in federal court does not change the fact that they are acting like a court themselves. But unlike a court, they aren't bound by the rules by which normal legal proceedings have to be conducted.
I assume you already know this, but for anyone else that might be reading, the only penalty that the ITC can hand down is to block the import of illegally infringing products, which is arguably part of enforcing importation laws and thus the responsibility of the Executive. And while the ITC does not use the exact same rules as a federal court, they do have their own set of similar rules. As a side note, every district court has its own rules anyway, so it's not like there's a single standard for every federal court.
Whether or not you think the ITC is qualified to rule on technical patents and whether or not you think the import bans are justifiable are both matters of debate, and there are reasonable arguments to be made against both points. However, the argument that the ITC shouldn't be allowed to rule on the validity of patents just because they are part of the Executive branch makes no sense at all.
The ITC is part of the executive branch and has no business adjudicating the validity of patents.
1) What branch do you think the Patent Office is part of?
2) The ITC can't actually invalidate a patent, they can only "find a patent invalid" and refuse to grant an injunction based on that patent. Even after an ITC finding of invalidity, the patent can still be used in federal court, though the defendant will almost certainly bring up the ITC ruling to try to convince the judge to invalidate the patent.
You're clearly confused about what a claim in a patent is. Each claim of a patent is considered to be a separate invention, although you can have dependent claims (e.g. "The system of claim 1 where..."), which would include everything from the claim that it depends on, in addition to what is in the dependent claim. "A microprocessor controller comprising memory, input-output and memory" could never be an entire claim, unless you really were the first person to invent the microcontroller. Things like "processor" or "memory" might be parts of a claim, called elements or limitations.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile, if between the time it is filed and granted, anyone else either files for or implements the patent, it is presumed insufficiently non-obvious.
Keep in mind that patent applications are made public relatively shortly after they are filed, and usually long before they are granted. I think the standard is 12 or 18 months after filing.
Everyone has a name, which people pronounce out loud. English uses characters and combinations of characters to represent sounds. Thus, everyone has a Name which can be translated into English.
If this last statement has an accuracy requirement, then it is demonstrably false. Many (most? all?) languages do not have characters representing every sound that a human can make. For example, there is no letter or combination of letters in English that represent the sound of the guttural (I don't know the accurate linguistic term) letters Het and Haf. Conversely, Hebrew has no letter for the sound of the English combinations ch and th, though there is a letter for sh. You can get close enough for most purposes, such as using h or ch for those Hebrew letters, but if you pronounce them as if they were English, you'll be pronouncing the name incorrectly.
...slapping Apple logos all over the place and dressing staff in apple branded clothes...
If only there was some way Apple could prevent others from using the marks that identify them in their trade...
...trademark is just about the only way of protecting against this...
Yeah, that!
There are two reasons for using phrases such as "may cause".
First, diseases are usually probabilistic. You can be in the same room as someone with a cold and not get sick, but that doesn't mean that the virus can't spread through the air. Maybe you got lucky and didn't inhale any contaminated air, or maybe your immune system fought off that particular strain of the virus. Cancer is even more complicated than cold viruses.
Second, the only information doctors and researchers can use is from the people that walk through their doors. Controlled experiments on humans are generally not approved of, especially when the experiment would involve causing cancer in the subjects. Without controlled experiments, it's difficult to determine precise amounts of risk.
While we as technical users might enjoy a plugin-free experience with no extra clicking involved, the average Joe User is going to be pissed off.
I know this can be a dangerous idea, but I think you may be underestimating the average user. I suspect the conversation will go something like this:
Average User: Hey, why doesn't the video play automatically anymore?
Other Person: You have to click the big Play button first.
Average User: Oh, okay.
The average user probably won't ever understand why they have to do it, nor will they care, but they'll be able to repeat the necessary step(s).
And... nobodies thought of i.
So does the FlashBlock extension.
The graphics are awesome, but the story line is terrible.
You must really hate evolution
Evolution is a very slight edge case. You can conduct experiments on organisms such as bacteria to show evolutionary effects, but conducting the same experiments on humans would generally be frowned upon. Also, because evolution is to a certain extent probabilistic (an organism with a beneficial mutation isn't guaranteed to survive over other organisms, but is only more likely to survive), even if you start with a bacteria from 3 billion years ago, you probably won't end up with Homo sapiens. I'm sure some idiot will interpret this as my belief that evolution isn't real, which of course is not the case. Evolution is certainly real, but it's difficult or nearly impossible to "prove" all of the details of human evolution through repeatable experimentation.
archaeology, history, your own memories...
None of those are physical sciences.
Ankh-Morpork has the same rule of One Man, One Vote: Vetinari is The Man, and he has The Vote.
Most people in west don't want the world to be ruled by a nation that does not allow people's mind to be free.
No, a lot of people in every part of the world are perfectly okay with that happening, as long as the rules are the ones that they want.
they were down here for the NFL playoffs with other agencies to bust people for fraudulent NFL gear, I kid you not.
That isn't quite as insane as it sounds. My guess is that most of the unlicensed merchandise is imported, and customs falls under DHS. Of course, you're free to feel that they shouldn't be spending the resources on unlicensed merchandise, but if anyone is going to enforce it, it would be DHS.
Thanks for the clarification. I was going on somewhat vague memory and didn't know the details.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that all of the oil fields in Alaska are owned by the state, and that the reason taxes are so low is that the state government makes more than enough money from the oil. That was always one of the amusing ironies of Sarah Palin, that for all her neo-conservative talking points, she was governor of what was a pretty communist state.
I didn't mean Tom Cruise specifically, but the entire organization. See, e.g., nearly every Scientology discussion on Slashdot.
Poor souls? At least a prostitute provides a valuable service, unlike that cult.
Providing hours upon hours of laughter for us sane people isn't a valuable service?
None of them give you a discount equal to the subsidy if you bought it through a contract.
If it hasn't changed lately, the discount that T-Mobile gives you is pretty close to the amount of the subsidy for high-end phones, and probably quite a bit more for mid-range phones. I believe my discount is $20 per month.
Take another look at your Boolean algebra textbook. A -> B (lead poisoning leads to an increase in violence) does not mean that B -> A (an increase in violence means there must be lead poisoning).
I don't know about the laws regarding this particular DRM scheme, but in general, a patent only gives you the right to exclude others from implementing the invention in your patent, and to sue for damages if someone does so without your permission. If implementing your invention is illegal for some other reason, then it remains illegal even if you have a patent for it.
Having a name that causes headlines to be interpreted incorrectly doesn't help.
I had no problem with "38 Studios". "Reason", on the other hand...
The claims are not for any stylus containing circuitry, but for a much more specific invention.
Not that much more specific:
1. An active stylus, comprising: an electrode at a tip of the stylus; and powered circuitry coupled to the electrode and configured for capacitively coupling the electrode with a capacitive touch sensor panel.
Of course, this is just the initial application, so Claim 1 could be changed or dropped, leaving only some of the more specific dependent claims.
Heh, they should just route a garden hose from Venus to Mars to transfer the atmosphere...
We've already solved that problem. It was called MegaMaid.
As far as infringement goes, you have a good point. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with it, but it is a reasonable argument. Invalidity, though, is in theory completely independent of what's being accused of infringement. An ITC finding of invalidity is conceptually no different than if the defendant submitted a request for reexamination with the Patent Office, which can and does often happen.
Do you have trouble understanding the difference between granting a patent and challenging a patent?
Then by that reasoning, the Patent Office shouldn't be able to invalidate a previously granted patent, and yet they can.
My, you are fond of stating the obvious. You are also splitting hairs.
The ITC makes decisions on the validity of patents and imposes what effectively amounts to remedies and penalties. The fact that they can be challenged in federal court does not change the fact that they are acting like a court themselves. But unlike a court, they aren't bound by the rules by which normal legal proceedings have to be conducted.
I assume you already know this, but for anyone else that might be reading, the only penalty that the ITC can hand down is to block the import of illegally infringing products, which is arguably part of enforcing importation laws and thus the responsibility of the Executive. And while the ITC does not use the exact same rules as a federal court, they do have their own set of similar rules. As a side note, every district court has its own rules anyway, so it's not like there's a single standard for every federal court.
Whether or not you think the ITC is qualified to rule on technical patents and whether or not you think the import bans are justifiable are both matters of debate, and there are reasonable arguments to be made against both points. However, the argument that the ITC shouldn't be allowed to rule on the validity of patents just because they are part of the Executive branch makes no sense at all.
The ITC is part of the executive branch and has no business adjudicating the validity of patents.
1) What branch do you think the Patent Office is part of?
2) The ITC can't actually invalidate a patent, they can only "find a patent invalid" and refuse to grant an injunction based on that patent. Even after an ITC finding of invalidity, the patent can still be used in federal court, though the defendant will almost certainly bring up the ITC ruling to try to convince the judge to invalidate the patent.
You're clearly confused about what a claim in a patent is. Each claim of a patent is considered to be a separate invention, although you can have dependent claims (e.g. "The system of claim 1 where..."), which would include everything from the claim that it depends on, in addition to what is in the dependent claim. "A microprocessor controller comprising memory, input-output and memory" could never be an entire claim, unless you really were the first person to invent the microcontroller. Things like "processor" or "memory" might be parts of a claim, called elements or limitations.