They aren't supposed to. Utility patents cover functional elements, while design patents cover aesthetic elements. Design patents are more like trademarks than utility patents.
Are you arguing that Apple's design patents cover functional elements that they shouldn't be allowed to cover?
Well, technically that design also requires a round thing (I can't tell if it's a headphone jack or a light) on the right edge near the top-right corner.
Not quite. The idea of psychohistory was that you could predict the actions of a large group of people, but it didn't handle individuals at all (e.g. the Mule). It's basically just an extension of probability. Your odds of correctly predicting a single roll of a six-sided die aren't very good, your odds of closely predicting the total of 20 rolls is pretty good, and your odds of closely predicting the total of a million rolls is pretty close to 100%. Similarly, psychohistory can't predict the actions of one person, and can't do a good job of predicting the actions of a planetary population, but it gets pretty good at predicting the actions of a galactic population.
Any process sent to the background has the kernel's sword of damocles hanging over it at all times - it can be killed instantly and without warning if android decides it needs the resources. That's not "for real" multitasking in my book.
I learned recently that the Linux kernel does this, too. If it's pretty much completely out of memory, it will kill a process to get some memory back. As noted above, the alternative is for the kernel to just crash.
Complex objects that contain objects and lists inside of them do not always map directly to a single row in a single table.
This is so true. If only relational databases had a way to connect a row in one table to a row in another table. It would be even more awesome if it could connect a row in one table to more than one row in another table. Just imagine if you could, I dunno, like, join the data together or something.
Not trolling, just asking... didn't they do away with the 'prior art' clause in the U.S?
No, of course not. Other than idiotic trolls on Slashdot, what would make you believe this to be true?
The only recent change in the law is that it now doesn't matter if an applicant demonstrates that they came up with the invention before someone else applying for a patent on the same thing. Instead, whichever of the two applicants filed their application first gets priority. This greatly simplifies the resolution of the rare scenario of two applicants filing for the same patent at the same time, since you don't have to go through the lengthy process of determining which of the applicants invented it first.
This change in no way affects any of the requirements for patentability, including distinguishing over prior art.
Wow. I knew Mormons were kinda crazy too, but that's pretty impressive.
I would, however, like to point out that that doesn't make them a "lost tribe". The word "tribe" generally only refers to one of the original tribes of the twelve sons of Jacob. The lost tribes are the ones that don't appear to have survived through all of the exiles, which are more or less all of them except for Judah and Levi. It doesn't look like they believe that an entire tribe of Israel sailed to the Americas, but only a few people.
Just to clarify a bit, the second pair of tablets that Moses brought back (having smashed the first pair when he saw the golden calf, so presumably somebody saw him do it) weren't exactly hidden away. Everybody knew where they were kept. Also, the exact words were never kept secret.
Having said that, well played, sir. Definitely deserves a +1 Funny.
While I can imagine it offending the purists, there wouldn't be anything fundamentally broken about a school choosing to price their services by credit-hour, or by degree, as opposed to per semester.
I can't imagine why it would offend purists or be fundamentally broken. Maybe my state university was unusual (though I doubt it), but you basically paid for two things: tuition, which was $X per credit hour, and room and board, which was a fixed amount per semester.
Except that mathematics is not patentable, and we has fundamental results about software being a form of math
Atoms aren't patentable. We know that machines are just a collection of atoms. Therefore, no machine should be patentable.
There are several good arguments for why software patents do not achieve the goals that the patent system is supposed to have. "Software is just math" is not one of them.
I haven't seen the HBO show, but assuming that it's relatively close to the books, I would be shocked if anyone that was so easily offended was watching the show. There is a lot of nasty stuff that happens in the story. Having Bush's head on a pike probably wouldn't even be the most offensive part of the episode.
Asimov was a writer, who wrote fiction books. He didn't understand technology at all...
You might want to brush up on your knowledge of Isaac Asimov. He had a Ph.D. in biochemistry and wrote a significant number of science (non-fiction) books. I would venture to guess that he understood far more about science and technology than most of us here.
Slashdot Mirror
They aren't supposed to. Utility patents cover functional elements, while design patents cover aesthetic elements. Design patents are more like trademarks than utility patents.
Are you arguing that Apple's design patents cover functional elements that they shouldn't be allowed to cover?
And the law should be changed to allow for patenting branding elements but not functionality. The problem is that isn't the law right now.
Did I miss the elimination of design patents?
Please show us a source where Apple claims to have patented the concept of a 'rectangular portable touch screen'.
[Citation Needed]
US Patent D504,889
USPTO page
These days, whenever someone is in New England and asks about Yankees, we kick their ass and send them back to New York.
Well, technically that design also requires a round thing (I can't tell if it's a headphone jack or a light) on the right edge near the top-right corner.
Filed != Granted
Of course, if all you can predict is probabilities you quickly diverge from reality.
Hence the Second Foundation.
Not quite. The idea of psychohistory was that you could predict the actions of a large group of people, but it didn't handle individuals at all (e.g. the Mule). It's basically just an extension of probability. Your odds of correctly predicting a single roll of a six-sided die aren't very good, your odds of closely predicting the total of 20 rolls is pretty good, and your odds of closely predicting the total of a million rolls is pretty close to 100%. Similarly, psychohistory can't predict the actions of one person, and can't do a good job of predicting the actions of a planetary population, but it gets pretty good at predicting the actions of a galactic population.
An internet is simply two or more networks (e.g. LANs) connected together in such a way that they can communicate.
The Internet is the internet that most networks are part of.
Desktops have the option of swapping out programs before they hit that point though.
Swap space is not unlimited. When I said out of memory, I meant swap space as well.
Any process sent to the background has the kernel's sword of damocles hanging over it at all times - it can be killed instantly and without warning if android decides it needs the resources. That's not "for real" multitasking in my book.
I learned recently that the Linux kernel does this, too. If it's pretty much completely out of memory, it will kill a process to get some memory back. As noted above, the alternative is for the kernel to just crash.
Complex objects that contain objects and lists inside of them do not always map directly to a single row in a single table.
This is so true. If only relational databases had a way to connect a row in one table to a row in another table. It would be even more awesome if it could connect a row in one table to more than one row in another table. Just imagine if you could, I dunno, like, join the data together or something.
Not trolling, just asking... didn't they do away with the 'prior art' clause in the U.S?
No, of course not. Other than idiotic trolls on Slashdot, what would make you believe this to be true?
The only recent change in the law is that it now doesn't matter if an applicant demonstrates that they came up with the invention before someone else applying for a patent on the same thing. Instead, whichever of the two applicants filed their application first gets priority. This greatly simplifies the resolution of the rare scenario of two applicants filing for the same patent at the same time, since you don't have to go through the lengthy process of determining which of the applicants invented it first.
This change in no way affects any of the requirements for patentability, including distinguishing over prior art.
Wow. I knew Mormons were kinda crazy too, but that's pretty impressive.
I would, however, like to point out that that doesn't make them a "lost tribe". The word "tribe" generally only refers to one of the original tribes of the twelve sons of Jacob. The lost tribes are the ones that don't appear to have survived through all of the exiles, which are more or less all of them except for Judah and Levi. It doesn't look like they believe that an entire tribe of Israel sailed to the Americas, but only a few people.
Source, please? I know politicians are crazy and all, but that's pretty far out there.
Just to clarify a bit, the second pair of tablets that Moses brought back (having smashed the first pair when he saw the golden calf, so presumably somebody saw him do it) weren't exactly hidden away. Everybody knew where they were kept. Also, the exact words were never kept secret.
Having said that, well played, sir. Definitely deserves a +1 Funny.
Looks to me like no one thought of the simple, rounded-corner, black slate before the iPad.
Except for prop designers in science fiction movies and television shows more than 25 years ago.
Why is that more likely? Pessimistic view of human intelligence?
Hanlon's Razor
While I can imagine it offending the purists, there wouldn't be anything fundamentally broken about a school choosing to price their services by credit-hour, or by degree, as opposed to per semester.
I can't imagine why it would offend purists or be fundamentally broken. Maybe my state university was unusual (though I doubt it), but you basically paid for two things: tuition, which was $X per credit hour, and room and board, which was a fixed amount per semester.
Except that mathematics is not patentable, and we has fundamental results about software being a form of math
Atoms aren't patentable. We know that machines are just a collection of atoms. Therefore, no machine should be patentable.
There are several good arguments for why software patents do not achieve the goals that the patent system is supposed to have. "Software is just math" is not one of them.
Europe is once again reborn as a democracy, of the people, for the people.
That's our line, you damned socialist hippies.
Signed,
'Merika, Fuck Yeah!
Either the /. editors are hopping on the sensationalism bandwagon, or they're lazy.
That isn't an exclusive OR, I hope?
I haven't seen the HBO show, but assuming that it's relatively close to the books, I would be shocked if anyone that was so easily offended was watching the show. There is a lot of nasty stuff that happens in the story. Having Bush's head on a pike probably wouldn't even be the most offensive part of the episode.
Asimov was a writer, who wrote fiction books. He didn't understand technology at all...
You might want to brush up on your knowledge of Isaac Asimov. He had a Ph.D. in biochemistry and wrote a significant number of science (non-fiction) books. I would venture to guess that he understood far more about science and technology than most of us here.
Did you ever read any of Asimov's stories? The questions that you ask are exactly what drove the stories.