(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States
Nothing in there about "scientific publication". If someone invented it before you did, even if they never made it public, or if it was made public more than a year before you filed for your patent, no matter when you first came up with the idea, you aren't entitled to a patent.
i don't see anyone else getting hardware banned in patent disputes with apple.
Other than HTC, you mean? And Motorola was another significant target of lawsuits from Apple, though I don't think Apple has managed to win any injunctions yet.
I would think that there's a large intersection of the "remove all government" and the "America! Fuck yeah!" groups, and that the latter sentiment is stronger than the former in most of those people. So if you frame it in terms of pure nationalism, you'll get plenty of support, even if it is entirely government-funded.
A timely example is the story of the Maccabees. Now, all that gets talked about is the successful rebellion. You don't hear much about the Hasmoneans after the end of the rebellion. Turns out that they weren't all that nice once they were in charge, so they were intentionally left out of the Bible.
By useful information, I meant something that would helped helped people living in that era improve their quality of life. For instance, scientific or medical information (cures for common diseases would have been nice)...
And if God came to you today and told you that curing cancer is as simple as inverting the deflector dish and using a tachyon pulse generator connected to a Heisenberg compensator to reverse the quantum polarity of the cancer cells, would that be helpful?
You misread me. I said over 90% of the states are still holding on to these laws.
That's interesting math. By my count on the map here, nearly half of the states in the country have decriminalized marijuana and/or made it legal at least for medical use.
Just because one side of a dispute is evil, that doesn't mean that the other side isn't also evil. "Evil" is not some monolithic organization that only fights "Good". Sometimes evil fights evil.
So what you're saying is that you pay to receive a text message?
In the U.S., yes, SMS messages that you receive count against your limit. This is becoming less of an issue than it was a few years ago, though, as most plans now include unlimited* SMS messages.
* Not the "unlimited data" definition, either. At least not yet.
You are mistaken as regards libel. If she made an allegation on a matter of fact, she has to be able to show it is true. It's not up to him to show it was false.
>
well, no. the plaintiff in a civil suit has the burden of proving his case. that the statements in question are false is one of the elements of defamation, and therefore the plaintiff must, in fact, be able to show that the statements were false. He cant just stand up and say 'Nuh-UH' and mysteriously shift the burden of proof to the defendant.
The problem is that, as the saying goes, you can't prove a negative. If the woman alleges that someone stole her jewelry, how is that person supposed to prove that they didn't?
I was only speaking in general. I haven't read everything about this specific case, so I can't say whether or not I think this jury should have found any of these patents invalid. I've seen people here on Slashdot say various things about what happened with this jury, and I know enough about Slashdot, especially when it comes to patent law, not to assume any of it is true.
Couldn't the jury rule that the patent is invalid then?
If there was sufficient evidence presented to them, yes, they could have found the patent invalid.
There is no infringement if the patent isn't valid.
Patent trials are a bit counterintuitive on this one. Infringement and validity are decided separately, so a jury could find that Samsung infringed the patent, but that the patent isn't valid. This might seem pointless, but if the invalidity finding is overturned on appeal, the infringement finding may still be upheld.
The problem is that in the US, you (or a corporation) can't take a patent owner to court (seeking to overturn his patent) unless you/the corporation have "standing" -- ie, an infringement suit has been filed against you. And the patent's owner can drop the suit against you at any time up to the final moment the judge rules it invalid (preventing the troll from suing YOU again, but not others). I might be wrong, but I believe that in China, it *is* possible for a coalition of likely victims to gang up on the patent's owner & sue to get it overturned.
No, you can file for declaratory judgment that you don't infringe a patent. I'm not certain about declaratory judgment to have the patent invalidated, though Wikipedia states that you can. All it requires is a reasonable belief that there's an imminent threat of being sued. See Wikipedia for more.
In the US, you CAN seek "re-examination", but it's expensive, the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against you, and (afaik), the only thing "winning" gets for you is immunity from treble damages if you act upon your victory, get sued for infringement anyway, and they prevail.
If the USPTO rejects a patent as part of a re-examination, that patent is no longer valid. The re-examination process is more or less just like the original application process, so the successive appeals can take a few years. It's up to the judge if they want to delay a case pending the outcome of a re-examination.
The problem is compounded by American patent law's willingness to grant total blocking power to even the most incidental case of infringement.
A judge doesn't necessarily have to grant an injunction. It might be rare for a judge to refuse to grant an injunction, but it is allowed.
There's no legal process to say, "Yes, I agree his patent is valid, but he's an asshole/troll/sociopath and is demanding more than its fair market value relative to the whole product, or is flat-out refusing to licence it at all."
That's true, but it's no different than someone selling a Ford Pinto for $50,000. If you don't like the asking price, you can still steal the car and hope that the judge and/or jury orders restitution for the actual value of the car and not the ridiculous asking price. Patent infringement cases work the same way; just because the patent owner says that the patent is worth $5 billion, the judge and/or jury don't have to agree.
Slashdot Mirror
bees are not cute and cuddly, so no.
Neither are bears. They're godless killing machines.
If you didn't publish it in a scientific publication it is not valid prior art.
Um, yeah, that's completely wrong. Quoting 35 USC 102,
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States
Nothing in there about "scientific publication". If someone invented it before you did, even if they never made it public, or if it was made public more than a year before you filed for your patent, no matter when you first came up with the idea, you aren't entitled to a patent.
i don't see anyone else getting hardware banned in patent disputes with apple.
Other than HTC, you mean? And Motorola was another significant target of lawsuits from Apple, though I don't think Apple has managed to win any injunctions yet.
Isn't this Windows Vista Aero?
The original application was filed in 1993, so no, Windows Vista cannot be prior art.
"Money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money, spam, money."
Fixed that for ya.
I would think that there's a large intersection of the "remove all government" and the "America! Fuck yeah!" groups, and that the latter sentiment is stronger than the former in most of those people. So if you frame it in terms of pure nationalism, you'll get plenty of support, even if it is entirely government-funded.
A timely example is the story of the Maccabees. Now, all that gets talked about is the successful rebellion. You don't hear much about the Hasmoneans after the end of the rebellion. Turns out that they weren't all that nice once they were in charge, so they were intentionally left out of the Bible.
By useful information, I meant something that would helped helped people living in that era improve their quality of life. For instance, scientific or medical information (cures for common diseases would have been nice)...
And if God came to you today and told you that curing cancer is as simple as inverting the deflector dish and using a tachyon pulse generator connected to a Heisenberg compensator to reverse the quantum polarity of the cancer cells, would that be helpful?
You misread me. I said over 90% of the states are still holding on to these laws.
That's interesting math. By my count on the map here, nearly half of the states in the country have decriminalized marijuana and/or made it legal at least for medical use.
Just because one side of a dispute is evil, that doesn't mean that the other side isn't also evil. "Evil" is not some monolithic organization that only fights "Good". Sometimes evil fights evil.
I'm not going to go through each of the claims on the patent...
There's your problem.
So what you're saying is that you pay to receive a text message?
In the U.S., yes, SMS messages that you receive count against your limit. This is becoming less of an issue than it was a few years ago, though, as most plans now include unlimited* SMS messages.
* Not the "unlimited data" definition, either. At least not yet.
You are mistaken as regards libel. If she made an allegation on a matter of fact, she has to be able to show it is true. It's not up to him to show it was false.
>
well, no. the plaintiff in a civil suit has the burden of proving his case. that the statements in question are false is one of the elements of defamation, and therefore the plaintiff must, in fact, be able to show that the statements were false. He cant just stand up and say 'Nuh-UH' and mysteriously shift the burden of proof to the defendant.
The problem is that, as the saying goes, you can't prove a negative. If the woman alleges that someone stole her jewelry, how is that person supposed to prove that they didn't?
even balls of slime have their uses.
And their rights.
The MPAA is working on fixing that.
They're voluntarily giving up their own rights?
When I was growing up, you could get lobster from the back of a truck for about $4 per pound.
I was only speaking in general. I haven't read everything about this specific case, so I can't say whether or not I think this jury should have found any of these patents invalid. I've seen people here on Slashdot say various things about what happened with this jury, and I know enough about Slashdot, especially when it comes to patent law, not to assume any of it is true.
Couldn't the jury rule that the patent is invalid then?
If there was sufficient evidence presented to them, yes, they could have found the patent invalid.
There is no infringement if the patent isn't valid.
Patent trials are a bit counterintuitive on this one. Infringement and validity are decided separately, so a jury could find that Samsung infringed the patent, but that the patent isn't valid. This might seem pointless, but if the invalidity finding is overturned on appeal, the infringement finding may still be upheld.
I loved Freelancer. If there's ever anything like it for Linux, I would be all over it.
Maybe it's been overused lately, but it isn't a new term. It's originally from Blackjack. At least it's usually being used somewhat correctly.
The problem is that in the US, you (or a corporation) can't take a patent owner to court (seeking to overturn his patent) unless you/the corporation have "standing" -- ie, an infringement suit has been filed against you. And the patent's owner can drop the suit against you at any time up to the final moment the judge rules it invalid (preventing the troll from suing YOU again, but not others). I might be wrong, but I believe that in China, it *is* possible for a coalition of likely victims to gang up on the patent's owner & sue to get it overturned.
No, you can file for declaratory judgment that you don't infringe a patent. I'm not certain about declaratory judgment to have the patent invalidated, though Wikipedia states that you can. All it requires is a reasonable belief that there's an imminent threat of being sued. See Wikipedia for more.
In the US, you CAN seek "re-examination", but it's expensive, the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against you, and (afaik), the only thing "winning" gets for you is immunity from treble damages if you act upon your victory, get sued for infringement anyway, and they prevail.
If the USPTO rejects a patent as part of a re-examination, that patent is no longer valid. The re-examination process is more or less just like the original application process, so the successive appeals can take a few years. It's up to the judge if they want to delay a case pending the outcome of a re-examination.
The problem is compounded by American patent law's willingness to grant total blocking power to even the most incidental case of infringement.
A judge doesn't necessarily have to grant an injunction. It might be rare for a judge to refuse to grant an injunction, but it is allowed.
There's no legal process to say, "Yes, I agree his patent is valid, but he's an asshole/troll/sociopath and is demanding more than its fair market value relative to the whole product, or is flat-out refusing to licence it at all."
That's true, but it's no different than someone selling a Ford Pinto for $50,000. If you don't like the asking price, you can still steal the car and hope that the judge and/or jury orders restitution for the actual value of the car and not the ridiculous asking price. Patent infringement cases work the same way; just because the patent owner says that the patent is worth $5 billion, the judge and/or jury don't have to agree.
phpBB has everything you need, a very active "addons" community...
If by "addons" you mean security holes, sure. phpBB is legendary for the number of SQL injection holes that it has.
The CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) was signed into law by Nixon. Blame him.
So was the EPA. Nixon is the real filthy communist.
Better yet. I live in a contiguous state. How exactly would we go about seceding from this American sinkhole?
And leave only Alaska, Hawaii, and a few other small islands as the "United States"?
Protip: "Contiguous"... You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Companies that don't do the right thing, don't last long.
Can I come live in your world? It sounds so much better than the real one out here.
Not-for-profits are not supposed to be able to endorse a candidate. Are religious organizations exempt from this?
They aren't supposed to be exempt, but apparently enforcement of this is basically non-existent.