What we've gotten recently is two right-wing candidates, with one more extreme than the other. We haven't had a "hard left" candidate get past the Democratic primaries for at least as long as I've been paying attention. As a good example, look at Dennis Kucinich in 2008, and he isn't all that extreme.
If the patent is valid and not expired, it can be enforced. It does not matter when you become aware of the violation, nor how much time has elapsed between awareness and filing of a suit.
It does matter in one respect. If you know about someone infringing your patent, and you purposely delay notifying them and/or filing suit in order to let damages build up, you generally aren't entitled to any damages for the time after you became aware of the infringement.
"IBM has apparently made a breakthrough..."
They either have or haven't made breakthrough. "Apparently" doesn't really cut it I'm sorry.
It's not always immediately known if something will be a major breakthrough or not. If and when these chips come to market, we'll be able to look back and decide where the breakthroughs were.
Have you looked at the design patent? I've already mentioned all of the identifying features that I've been able to get from it. If there's something you think that I'm missing, feel free to say so.
I'm not arguing that design patents shouldn't be allowed. All I meant is that the design patent that was asserted against Samsung really is just a rectangle with rounded corners. The only other elements that one could possibly argue are required by the design are what appear to be an LED and a connector of some kind, but it isn't all that clear what they are supposed to be.
A pen and paper (remember those) is ideal for note taking, especially if you want to include charts, graphs, math, etc., take notes in a non-linear way, or need to make quick annotations to notes taken earlier.
Appending to or editing previous notes is exactly where pen and paper fail. If you need to go back and insert an additional two (or any N) lines of text in to a place where there's only one (or any N-1) blank lines, you have a problem.
Look, the market has really 2 devices they are choosing from. If they want lock-in, they to with Apple. If they want cutting edge they go with a Droid.
Just to be annoyingly pedantic, that should be "Android". "Droid" is a line of Android phones made for Verizon, mostly by Motorola, but HTC made at least one.
Susan Collins is the other senator from Maine. Snowe is retiring this year, I think because, as a moderate Republican, she's sick of what Congress has become.
Yeah, it's not as if he and Apple are largely responsible for making personal computing mobile thereby changing the day to day routines of a good portion of the developed world or anything.
Starting axioms that don't match reality let you reach all kinds of bizarre conclusions.
Yes, but you cannot have a jury decision which decides that the patent is invalidated by prior art, and then find infringment.
Yes, you can. That's exactly the example I gave. Of course, there's no liability for infringing an invalid patent, but it is still a finding of infringement.
The question is not whether Apple infringed prior art. That is not the point of prior art. Prior art says, that if it exists, than Samsung did not infringe Apple.
Just to clarify a bit, prior art and infringement are determined mostly independently. You can have a ruling or jury decision that says you infringe a patent, but that the patent isn't valid. One reason this is important is for appeals, where one of the decisions could be reversed, for example, leaving the finding of infringement and making the patent valid.
The most obvious example I can think of is the first company to manufacture some product, say, the first television. Without a law allowing a company to manufacture televisions, nobody can manufacturer televisions. So if a company wants to produce this new thing called a "television", they'd have to get a law passed to allow it. That would inform the public, including potential competitors, what they're planning, which most companies would rather not have happen.
I certainly agree that corporations shouldn't necessarily have all of the rights that a person does. At the same time, though, it isn't feasible for corporations to only be able to do what the law explicitly allows them to do. Thus, we have (a whole lot of) laws that prohibit certain actions.
Clearly I've lost the thread here. Your original point was that the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it illegal for an employer to ask for a prospective employees password. That may be true if the employer is a government agency, but it does not apply to non-governmental employers. This does not, however, preclude a state government from passing a law to make it illegal even for private employers.
Slashdot Mirror
What we've gotten recently is two right-wing candidates, with one more extreme than the other. We haven't had a "hard left" candidate get past the Democratic primaries for at least as long as I've been paying attention. As a good example, look at Dennis Kucinich in 2008, and he isn't all that extreme.
The tablet version is even more absurd: USD504889
I hope this is just a brilliant troll.
If the patent is valid and not expired, it can be enforced. It does not matter when you become aware of the violation, nor how much time has elapsed between awareness and filing of a suit.
It does matter in one respect. If you know about someone infringing your patent, and you purposely delay notifying them and/or filing suit in order to let damages build up, you generally aren't entitled to any damages for the time after you became aware of the infringement.
"IBM has apparently made a breakthrough..." They either have or haven't made breakthrough. "Apparently" doesn't really cut it I'm sorry.
It's not always immediately known if something will be a major breakthrough or not. If and when these chips come to market, we'll be able to look back and decide where the breakthroughs were.
Have you looked at the design patent? I've already mentioned all of the identifying features that I've been able to get from it. If there's something you think that I'm missing, feel free to say so.
Okay, fine, a rectangular prism with rounded corners.
Do Samsung's tablets have an LED and a connector in exactly the same place as shown in the design patent? Was it ever brought up in any of the trials?
The recent case in California also involved several utility patents. I don't remember offhand if there were any other design patents.
I'm not arguing that design patents shouldn't be allowed. All I meant is that the design patent that was asserted against Samsung really is just a rectangle with rounded corners. The only other elements that one could possibly argue are required by the design are what appear to be an LED and a connector of some kind, but it isn't all that clear what they are supposed to be.
Does the slashdot crowd really believe this is about rectangular devices with curves?
The people that have looked at the design patent in question, yes.
Sorry, but there is absolutely no company in the world that has this thing called "character".
I dunno, I always thought Ballmer was quite a character.
A pen and paper (remember those) is ideal for note taking, especially if you want to include charts, graphs, math, etc., take notes in a non-linear way, or need to make quick annotations to notes taken earlier.
Appending to or editing previous notes is exactly where pen and paper fail. If you need to go back and insert an additional two (or any N) lines of text in to a place where there's only one (or any N-1) blank lines, you have a problem.
Look, the market has really 2 devices they are choosing from. If they want lock-in, they to with Apple. If they want cutting edge they go with a Droid.
Just to be annoyingly pedantic, that should be "Android". "Droid" is a line of Android phones made for Verizon, mostly by Motorola, but HTC made at least one.
Susan Collins is the other senator from Maine. Snowe is retiring this year, I think because, as a moderate Republican, she's sick of what Congress has become.
For instance, say the universe was was a car...
Okay...
The universe was was a car.
The second option describes either Obama or Romney. What is the name of the candidate for option 1?
Jon Stewart?
To be fair, SSD could also stand for Solid State Disk, in which case SSD drive wouldn't be quite so bad.
Yeah, it's not as if he and Apple are largely responsible for making personal computing mobile thereby changing the day to day routines of a good portion of the developed world or anything.
Starting axioms that don't match reality let you reach all kinds of bizarre conclusions.
While they're at it, how about Dice also puts that text in place of all the stupid "jokes" that get repeated over and over.
Yes, but you cannot have a jury decision which decides that the patent is invalidated by prior art, and then find infringment.
Yes, you can. That's exactly the example I gave. Of course, there's no liability for infringing an invalid patent, but it is still a finding of infringement.
The question is not whether Apple infringed prior art. That is not the point of prior art. Prior art says, that if it exists, than Samsung did not infringe Apple.
Just to clarify a bit, prior art and infringement are determined mostly independently. You can have a ruling or jury decision that says you infringe a patent, but that the patent isn't valid. One reason this is important is for appeals, where one of the decisions could be reversed, for example, leaving the finding of infringement and making the patent valid.
It's also helped by most politicians being complete jokes.
The most obvious example I can think of is the first company to manufacture some product, say, the first television. Without a law allowing a company to manufacture televisions, nobody can manufacturer televisions. So if a company wants to produce this new thing called a "television", they'd have to get a law passed to allow it. That would inform the public, including potential competitors, what they're planning, which most companies would rather not have happen.
I certainly agree that corporations shouldn't necessarily have all of the rights that a person does. At the same time, though, it isn't feasible for corporations to only be able to do what the law explicitly allows them to do. Thus, we have (a whole lot of) laws that prohibit certain actions.
Clearly I've lost the thread here. Your original point was that the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it illegal for an employer to ask for a prospective employees password. That may be true if the employer is a government agency, but it does not apply to non-governmental employers. This does not, however, preclude a state government from passing a law to make it illegal even for private employers.