|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 21 2013 @ 09:46 PM EDT |
(Christenson) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, April 21 2013 @ 10:21 PM EDT |
Typo in the Title Block, if it fits.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, April 21 2013 @ 10:23 PM EDT |
For those items that are waaaay out there.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Double Quadfecta - Authored by: hardmath on Sunday, April 21 2013 @ 11:30 PM EDT
- Thank you - Authored by: artp on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 05:47 PM EDT
- What legal rights should Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 01:10 AM EDT
- alsup vs gov't (re: no fly list) - Authored by: designerfx on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 01:15 PM EDT
- Apple's slide into mediocrity and eventual oblivion - Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 02:29 PM EDT
- Senators Are Trying to Rush Through a Massive Online Sales Tax Hike - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 02:31 PM EDT
- Amazon? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- I wonder. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 06:47 PM EDT
- I wonder. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 08:17 PM EDT
- Rebuttle - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 02:58 PM EDT
- Further Proof That Judge Alsup Is Awesome - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 02:32 PM EDT
- Carmen Ortiz and the boston bomber prosecution - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 05:52 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, April 21 2013 @ 10:24 PM EDT |
URL, please.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, April 21 2013 @ 10:31 PM EDT |
See link above - "Comes v. MS" - for further details on how
to help and where to help.
Thank you.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 12:32 AM EDT |
Although we have been frustrated by some of the actions of the USPTO, they are
not alone in that regard, but this is certainly an encouraging development,
especially if it gains real traction.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 04:35 AM EDT |
Ya'know, Apple based its OS-X on BSD, an open-source OS that can be modified,
then the resulting OS made closed source. Now, they're trying to kill off open
source -- or at least Android.
It's my impression that RMS is -- or at least was -- a champion of the BSD
license, which allows one to make the closed-source step. Without this, Apple
would not have OS-X, at least not without a whole lot more development time,
effort and expense.
I wonder if Apple has thought about what they're trying to destroy!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
The following:
"Red Hat says, adding that after a lot of experience dealing with
litigation, it has come to believe that litigants specifically choose poor
quality patents to use, precisely because they are so vague:"
in the vernacular of many middle schools back in the day, would have been
responded to with "No duuuuh".
Those patents are not vague, they are broad. They were written broadly because
the inventors believed they had invented something that could be implemented a
great many ways. Therefore, the claims were written broadly to encompass
everything that had been invented. Those claims were examined and the patent
office agreed that no one else had ever made anything covered by the broad
claims before.
Narrow claims don't get litigated because they are easy to work around, so
infringers work around them rather than infringe.
Patent applications with narrow claims don't usually get filed, because such
patents are not worth the effort needed to go through the application process or
the enforcement process.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
USPTO seems to not even follow the Supreme Court's rulings, are they really
gonna listen to us?
Software is Math, period.
No Patents allowed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
How about valid parents must have the examiner's signature
under their social security number, and they must be liable
under civil and criminal law for the damage they do.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
I'd be interested in seeing a patent examiner that is thinking of granting a
patent on software build it themselves based on the patent application only,
without help from the "inventor" or his lawyer.
I'd bet that in more than half the cases they would be unable to do it. A
patent examiner should be able to do it quite easily as they should, on average,
be more skilled than a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
j [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: seanlynch on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
This was quite a lot to take in at once. Took a few sittings to get through it
all.
There are some very intelligent people arguing for the open side.
It makes me feel confident the ideas and message are getting through.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: davecb on Tuesday, April 23 2013 @ 10:15 AM EDT |
Pubpat released a set of claims constructions glossaries, linked to from here as
http://www.pubpat.org/garrodglossariesreleased.htm
Is this a good starting-point for a "common, controlled vocabulary"
for patents?
--dave
---
davecb@spamcop.net[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|