You can submit a patent application for anything you want, that doesn't mean it will be granted. I can submit a patent application that's simply "What is claimed is: 1. A method for creating the first post in a Slashdot thread.", and the patent office has to accept my application. Of course, the examiner will laugh at me, and they might even take the time to write up a page or two telling me off.
I checked the status of that cookie pie patent (go to this USPTO page and enter application number 11/333238), and it was abandoned after the initial rejection. The examiner rejected the application on the basis of prior art.
It's the idea behind the fact that you can patent what amounts to a recipe, along with every variation of said recipe.
Machines are just a bunch of atoms, and you can't patent atoms. The reduction argument doesn't work.
How does the "textual" description differ from "the source code", which is also text the last time I looked.
A plain English description of the system can not be directly used to achieve the function of the patent.
And how does "pseudo code" differ from Python, exactly (seriously, I frequently treat Python as pseudo code for C++).
Which is why I'm not certain about pseudocode. In theory, pseudocode cannot be executed by a computer, which is what makes it pseudocode. If it was in a "real" programming language (i.e. one that can be parsed, compiled/interpreted, and executed by a computer), it would no longer be considered pseudocode.
In particular: for any complete description of an algorithm, I can write a custom parser that reduces that textual description to executable code, possibly via an intermediate languge.
When that becomes possible (not just theoretically possible, but can be demonstrated on a real computer), it will make the issue far more interesting. Doing this will require huge advances in artificial intelligence, though, so I doubt it will happen any time soon.
So is posting a recipe for chocolate chip cookies, but you don't see Betty Crocker suing every mother in the world who makes the same cookies for their kids.
Uh, that might be because, as far as I know, Betty Crocker doesn't have a patent on any of their recipes.
Yes, exactly. In the same way that a description or schematic of a patented invention does not infringe a patent, simple source code does not infringe a patent. How is this difficult to understand?
Because in the U.S. it's not true. The software analog of a schematic would be a textual (or possibly pseudocode, though I'm not certain on that) description of the algorithm. The source code is the implementation.
I'm not. There are patents on anything, like say multitouch.
Are you talking about the physical screen that can detect multiple points of contact, or software that can work with such a screen? If you mean software, please tell us which patent is only about detecting multiple touches.
...for software, a vague description of the algorithm -- too vague to be of any use in implementation -- is enough.
In theory, that's not true. For software, like with anything else, the patent is supposed to disclose enough information that "a person of ordinary skill in the art" can recreate the invention. I have seen patent applications that have been rejected for not adequately describing the invention. Of course, that isn't to say that there haven't been patents granted that have been incredibly vague.
Although it would no longer be a trade secret, can't you reveal in-house documentation that proves that you were using the patented method already? Or show that your already-distributed program is using the patented method?
I think you can still fight the patent even if you had a trade secret.
I'm not certain if you'd be able to use your earlier implementation of the patent as a defense for yourself, but if it isn't published, it absolutely cannot be used as prior art to invalidate the patent.
So, once someone made a word processor, nobody else should be able to make a word processor. And once somebody made a program that can play music files, nobody else should be able to write a program that can play music files.
Only if the first person to describe (in a fairly large amount of detail) those programs were granted patents for them. Even in the U.S., you can't get a patent for something as broad as "a word processor" or "a music player". You can only get a patent for a fairly specific way of creating such a program. Also, if something is first described in an academic paper (which is quite common in computer science), you can't get a patent for the same thing.
The operating system is composed of the kernel and all the applications necessary to run and use the system. (and sometimes -always these days- more additional applications)
That's a recent change to the definition, and not one that all computer scientists will agree with. Traditionally, "operating system" deals with process management, memory management, and hardware I/O. Everything else is a user-level application.
When it's 99% just packaging someone else's kernel. The operating system (i.e. process management, memory management, and I/O) in Ubuntu is Linux, just as it is in Red Hat, Debian, Arch, and Gentoo. The significant differences among the distributions are just what software is installed by default and what software is available from the repositories.
The passage from Genesis is irrelevant, since it isn't a commandment about homosexuality, but a story about mistreatment of visitors. The verses from Leviticus are translations from the Hebrew, and there's been a decent amount of debate about exactly how to translate it.
Moses is the supposed author of Genesis and Leviticus.
Quick correction here. Genesis is long before Moses is born. Exodus is more or less the story of his life, through the first year or so of the trip from Egypt to Israel. Leviticus and Numbers are basically just lots of laws with some occasionally interesting history, and Deuteronomy is his final speeches. As for the author of each section, that's a deeply examined and widely debated issue.
The dictionary appears to disagree, at least somewhat. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." While tight coupling between government and corporations is part of fascism, it's not the only characteristic. Also, in fascism, it's usually the government exerting control over the corporations (for mutual benefit, of course, but primarily to increase the power of the government), whereas corporatism is primarily to increase the profit of the corporation (with the politicians just enjoying the free ride).
Only in the messed up American political landscape. Most Democrats are moderate right-wing, they only appear to be liberal because most Republicans are so much farther to the right. From the point of view of the rest of the world, the US has very few liberals, only conservatives and ultra-conservatives.
There is one additional place: Security of the client OS. Keyloggers don't really care about SSL, or XSS countermeasures, or just about anything else.
I'm assuming that that is a battle that they simply have no wish to fight, though...
More like a battle that they can't possibly win. There's no way for a bank website to prevent stupid users of any operating system from installing keyloggers.
My credit union, which is part of a not-that-big state university, has supported Firefox on their web site for years. They also support non-alphanumeric characters in your password, but that's a separate rant of mine. If a fairly small credit union can manage this stuff, there's no reason for a giant bank not to be able to.
Even with transparency, what stops one from using a fake name.
Because if the people (I would guess it's part of the Secretary of State's office) checking the petition find out, that signature would be invalidated. If there are a large number of such signatures, there may also be a fraud investigation.
Slashdot Mirror
There is one for a cookie pie: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0166435.html
You can submit a patent application for anything you want, that doesn't mean it will be granted. I can submit a patent application that's simply "What is claimed is: 1. A method for creating the first post in a Slashdot thread.", and the patent office has to accept my application. Of course, the examiner will laugh at me, and they might even take the time to write up a page or two telling me off.
I checked the status of that cookie pie patent (go to this USPTO page and enter application number 11/333238), and it was abandoned after the initial rejection. The examiner rejected the application on the basis of prior art.
It's the idea behind the fact that you can patent what amounts to a recipe, along with every variation of said recipe.
Machines are just a bunch of atoms, and you can't patent atoms. The reduction argument doesn't work.
How does the "textual" description differ from "the source code", which is also text the last time I looked.
A plain English description of the system can not be directly used to achieve the function of the patent.
And how does "pseudo code" differ from Python, exactly (seriously, I frequently treat Python as pseudo code for C++).
Which is why I'm not certain about pseudocode. In theory, pseudocode cannot be executed by a computer, which is what makes it pseudocode. If it was in a "real" programming language (i.e. one that can be parsed, compiled/interpreted, and executed by a computer), it would no longer be considered pseudocode.
In particular: for any complete description of an algorithm, I can write a custom parser that reduces that textual description to executable code, possibly via an intermediate languge.
When that becomes possible (not just theoretically possible, but can be demonstrated on a real computer), it will make the issue far more interesting. Doing this will require huge advances in artificial intelligence, though, so I doubt it will happen any time soon.
So is posting a recipe for chocolate chip cookies, but you don't see Betty Crocker suing every mother in the world who makes the same cookies for their kids.
Uh, that might be because, as far as I know, Betty Crocker doesn't have a patent on any of their recipes.
Yes, exactly. In the same way that a description or schematic of a patented invention does not infringe a patent, simple source code does not infringe a patent. How is this difficult to understand?
Because in the U.S. it's not true. The software analog of a schematic would be a textual (or possibly pseudocode, though I'm not certain on that) description of the algorithm. The source code is the implementation.
I'm not. There are patents on anything, like say multitouch.
Are you talking about the physical screen that can detect multiple points of contact, or software that can work with such a screen? If you mean software, please tell us which patent is only about detecting multiple touches.
...for software, a vague description of the algorithm -- too vague to be of any use in implementation -- is enough.
In theory, that's not true. For software, like with anything else, the patent is supposed to disclose enough information that "a person of ordinary skill in the art" can recreate the invention. I have seen patent applications that have been rejected for not adequately describing the invention. Of course, that isn't to say that there haven't been patents granted that have been incredibly vague.
Although it would no longer be a trade secret, can't you reveal in-house documentation that proves that you were using the patented method already? Or show that your already-distributed program is using the patented method?
I think you can still fight the patent even if you had a trade secret.
I'm not certain if you'd be able to use your earlier implementation of the patent as a defense for yourself, but if it isn't published, it absolutely cannot be used as prior art to invalidate the patent.
Well patents are pretty damn public knowledge, so I don't see how an open-source project that does the same thing can be infringing on a patent.
Distributing source code isn't just discussing or summarizing the patent, it's implementing and distributing the invention.
So, once someone made a word processor, nobody else should be able to make a word processor. And once somebody made a program that can play music files, nobody else should be able to write a program that can play music files.
Only if the first person to describe (in a fairly large amount of detail) those programs were granted patents for them. Even in the U.S., you can't get a patent for something as broad as "a word processor" or "a music player". You can only get a patent for a fairly specific way of creating such a program. Also, if something is first described in an academic paper (which is quite common in computer science), you can't get a patent for the same thing.
The operating system is composed of the kernel and all the applications necessary to run and use the system. (and sometimes -always these days- more additional applications)
That's a recent change to the definition, and not one that all computer scientists will agree with. Traditionally, "operating system" deals with process management, memory management, and hardware I/O. Everything else is a user-level application.
When does an OS become just a "distro"?
When it's 99% just packaging someone else's kernel. The operating system (i.e. process management, memory management, and I/O) in Ubuntu is Linux, just as it is in Red Hat, Debian, Arch, and Gentoo. The significant differences among the distributions are just what software is installed by default and what software is available from the repositories.
It's almost like there's some kind of Application Programming Interface layer there. Wouldn't that be new and interesting?
New and interesting, you say? You should apply for a patent!
Yeah, that was the first thing I tried, too. Definitely not a narrow set of results.
"Jehovah" is from the Hebrew name used in the Torah. The only speculation is about the vowels.
I don't know about Lucifer, but Satan is a Hebrew name that means "Adversary" or "Accuser".
Not just Christian, but Protestant. We've only had one Catholic president, and he didn't even survive it.
The passage from Genesis is irrelevant, since it isn't a commandment about homosexuality, but a story about mistreatment of visitors. The verses from Leviticus are translations from the Hebrew, and there's been a decent amount of debate about exactly how to translate it.
Moses is the supposed author of Genesis and Leviticus.
Quick correction here. Genesis is long before Moses is born. Exodus is more or less the story of his life, through the first year or so of the trip from Egypt to Israel. Leviticus and Numbers are basically just lots of laws with some occasionally interesting history, and Deuteronomy is his final speeches. As for the author of each section, that's a deeply examined and widely debated issue.
It helps to know what the quote was. Searching for "saddle" gets it right away.
"Numbers 22:21 -- And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab."
http://www.bash.org/?178890
Corporatocracy == Fascism. Plain and simple.
The dictionary appears to disagree, at least somewhat. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." While tight coupling between government and corporations is part of fascism, it's not the only characteristic. Also, in fascism, it's usually the government exerting control over the corporations (for mutual benefit, of course, but primarily to increase the power of the government), whereas corporatism is primarily to increase the profit of the corporation (with the politicians just enjoying the free ride).
Obama is certainly a liberal.
Only in the messed up American political landscape. Most Democrats are moderate right-wing, they only appear to be liberal because most Republicans are so much farther to the right. From the point of view of the rest of the world, the US has very few liberals, only conservatives and ultra-conservatives.
There is one additional place: Security of the client OS. Keyloggers don't really care about SSL, or XSS countermeasures, or just about anything else. I'm assuming that that is a battle that they simply have no wish to fight, though...
More like a battle that they can't possibly win. There's no way for a bank website to prevent stupid users of any operating system from installing keyloggers.
My credit union, which is part of a not-that-big state university, has supported Firefox on their web site for years. They also support non-alphanumeric characters in your password, but that's a separate rant of mine. If a fairly small credit union can manage this stuff, there's no reason for a giant bank not to be able to.
I don't think this treatment will work on that kind of eye damage.
Even with transparency, what stops one from using a fake name.
Because if the people (I would guess it's part of the Secretary of State's office) checking the petition find out, that signature would be invalidated. If there are a large number of such signatures, there may also be a fraud investigation.
just RTFT(itle): "20 percent of Android apps can threaten privacy, says vendor".
Nuff said.