I thought you were joking until I RTFA. I don't know about you, but I can't possibly think of any device for converting a computer file to a tangible work product that uses rollers to clear its work product from the work area to make room for subsequent work product. Certainly no such analogous device exists, or else 3D printers wouldn't have such a clever and unique name.

While I am here, to forestall successful patent attempts on other obvious means of clearing work product from a work area, I hereby disclose the following novel invention:

1) A work producing system and method comprising a work producing machine, a means of executing stored instructions (sometimes called a "computer"), a set of instructions (sometimes called a "program", or "software") that instructs the work producing machine to produce a work product responsive to a description (sometimes called a "file") describing the work product, a means of conveying said description to said system, and a means of conveying said instructions to said machine. (The system description may optionally include such novel and non-obvious components as RAM, a CPU, wires, wifi, power from the power company, etc.)

2) The claims in Claim 1 where the work-producing machine further includes a method of clearing prior work products from its work area.

3) The claims in Claim 2 where the work-clearing means includes a pushing means to push the old work products from the work area.

4) The claims in Claim 2 where the work-clearing means includes a pulling means to pull the old work products from the work area.

5) The claims in Claim 2 where the work-clearing means includes a scraping means to scrape the old work products from the work area.

6) The claims in Claim 2 where the work-clearing means includes a gravitational means to remove the old work products from the work area. An example of such a means is a tilting means which tilts the work surface, a rotational means which rotates the work surface to a nonhorizontal position, or an antigravity device which causes a local gravity inversion in the vicinity of the work surface.

7) The claims in Claim 2 where the work-clearing means includes a vibrational means to shake loose the old work products.

8) The claims in Claim 2 where the work-clearing means includes additional work surfaces which can be exchanged with the work surface on which work products have previously been produced, and a means of exchanging said work surfaces. (The unused work surface may, for example, be physically exchanged with the used work surface of the same machine, or exist in a second work-producing machine which takes over work production jobs while the first work surface is full)

9) The claims in Claims 3-7 inclusive, where zero or more said means are combined in such a way as to improve the reliability of clearing work products from the work area.

10) The claims in Claim 9 where the pushing means further comprises a solid object configured to move across the work area, thereby pushing work product out of the work area. Compare "broom", "push bar", "squegee", "bulldozer". Since patent examiners have the imagination of a goldfish, I should point out at this time that moving the work surface with respect to the pushing device is the same as moving the pushing device with respect to the work surface.

11) The claims in Claim 9 where the pulling means further includes a magnet. Magnets are magical. (Computer-controlled electromagnets are even more magical because computers are magical and electricity is magical.)

12) The claims in Claim 9 where the pulling means further comprises a suction mechanism and a means of moving said mechanism into contact with the work product and to a location outside the work area. (Compare: "vacuum pick and place")

13) The claims in Claim 9 where the combined pushing and pulling means further comprises a robot arm and a means of moving said mechanism into contact with the work product and to a location outside the work area. (Compare: Industrial pastry sorting robots). Since I may have been unfair toward goldfish in Claim 10, I should point out that the non-difference between moving the work surface vs. the pushing device also exists for a *pulling* device. Or basically any other device or combination of such devices.

14) "Pushing", "bumping", "kicking", "nudging", etc. are the same thing. Just throwing it out there.

15) The claims in Claim 2 where the work-producing machine is configured to produce works which are of a 3-dimensional nature.

16) The claims in Claim 15 where Claims 3-14 are restated here by reference.

17) The claims in Claim 16 where the system further includes a means of collecting the removed work products (sometimes called a "bin" or "bucket").

In my experience, it means the act of updating the spinner is completely decoupled from the act of doing the work, leading to the all-too-common result: The thread updating the animation is happily spinning away, but the one doing the work deadlocked hours ago and you'll never know, muahahaha!

Agreed, I was under the impression many such systems existed for shipment monitoring. Most include temperature in addition to shock logging, e.g. for transporting fruits and other perishables ("cold-chain certification"). Heck, I was on a team that designed such a device for the Tomahawk missile canisters back in the day, 10 years' logging of shocks, temperature, humidity, pressure (the canisters were filled with an inert gas) and fluid intrusion. The only thing missing was an RF reader (RF doesn't travel well thru a missile canister, and there are concerns with RF devices operating near ordnance anyhow) - it was read out by a handheld IR receiver. I'm curious what makes this different from the existing devices, except for the specific choice of BLE as the readout mechanism (it's a fairly new protocol).

*whoosh*

So, when they asked to repurpose your work, you gave them permission?

From the summary, I was expecting a tiny battery-powered Wifi device stuck to the cat's collar, sending the anonymous threats by way of every unsecured access point the cat walked past and receiving C&C commands for its next strike.

Not really; an EE will see it as gibberish because this is a software algorithm patent. The fact that someone outside of the relevant field can tell it is outside their field does not make it novel. For all I know, this is an obvious and everyday implementation as viewed by satellite communications, compression or similar folks (or hard drive seek algorithm designers), but not to any old engineer (let alone any old Joe Sixpack). Which is exactly my point - a jury of randoms trying to decide a field-specialized patent case are no better than a bag of dice.

Hmm, I see a win-win business opportinity here. Predatory-pricing (ahem, "adaptive pricing") schemes work by trying to guess the maximum a specific customer is willing to pay for an item, mainly using statistical methods on the information available. One of the major signals I expect they'd use, especially for a new customer/account with little history, is the affluence of their neighborhood (IP geolocation).

Business model:
Set up private proxies in poor neighborhoods. Set up a service to route purchases (or account creation, if they are clever and save the 'account created as...' IP as the major signal) through the poor proxies, resulting in the customer receiving lower prices. Split the 'profits' (difference between rich-IP and poor-IP price) with the customer.

Side matter: How to set up IP pools in poor areas? Renting apartments and cable modems for this would be expensive... instead, offer existing residents in these areas a monthly check / other incentive to install the proxy client, creating you essentially a predatory-pricing-gaming botnet :)

Ars has another article; this one actually cites the patent numbers and specific claims found to be infringing.

Reading one of the claims, I can't imagine how a jury of Joe Sixpacks could possibly come to a rational conclusion on whether or not infringement occured. I'm an EE and it's gibberish to me without putting some significant Google-time in. Claim 4 of US6201389, for example:

"4. A method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Viterbi-like detector, comprising:

        selecting a branch metric function for each of the branches at a certain time index from a set of signal-dependent branch metric functions; and
        applying each of said selected functions to a plurality of signal samples to determine the metric value corresponding to the branch for which the applied branch metric function was selected, wherein each sample corresponds to a different sampling time instant."

I saw someone demo a similar system at a small art exhibit a while back (Intro.Inter.Tech 2007). There was not (yet) a force-feedback interface tied in, but kissable cubes / 'lips' with embedded cameras and software that superimposed the kissers over a telepresence system. I was there showing an internet-connected vibrators project (which was not a new idea even then), so tying in appropriate methods to transmit force remotely is not exactly a stretch of the imagination.

Manage the image of your product from the download pages. Get complete control over the download experience. Take your product off shit sites that put sixteen "download here" buttons that lead to adware.

How, exactly, does one go about lawyering an open-source software product off of 3rd party websites? Assuming they are in compliance with the license, I know of no OSS license that can legally prevent redistribution. Further, use of the product's name would be nominative, meaning trademark-related takedown attempts would be unlikely to fly either.

For added security / deliciousness, I like to take the shreds from a home shredder and... feed 'em to the worms! Then feed the worm poop to the garden veggies, then feed the veggies to the people. If they can recover SSNs from the resulting people poop, they can have 'em!

So, lemme get this straight: The whole flap was set in motion by the organizer of a competing conference?

FTFA: "The row seems to have started with a tweet from Josh Susser, a chap who, among other things, organises the Golden Gate RubyConf"

Interesting, that's all.

"Software, in other words, should be considered not for what it is or even what it says but for what it means to society to treat it like speech. [...] Thus, videogames should be protected not because they convey information and not because they are like literature, but because they are a culturally recognized medium of expression."

This definition of when a given piece of software does or does not cross into 'speech' territory sounds awfully familiar. Rough translation: "We can't enumerate what exactly makes software speechware, but we'll know it when we see it." Where have I heard that before...?

But can't a tool itself be a form of speech? Even something as ordinary as a word processor - every release of [Open|Libre]Office is a testament to the power of crowdsourcing and open source; the fact such a tool remains competitive while MS pumps untold millions into MSWord speaks volumes.

Some other tools that are arguably speech:

DeCSS (the US courts upheld that it was speech, in source OR binary form. Consider other politically and ideologically motivated tools, such as DDoS software, Stuxnet, ink-cartridge resetters, jailbreaking tools...)

Not only software tools. What if you built a hammer that plays the sound of Baby Jesus crying if it detects you are pounding nails into a non-sustainable type of lumber? Or nails with a mugshot of a dictator on the head of every one?

I think no matter how you slice it, someone inevitably has to make a judgment call on where the line between speech and non-speech lies. In this case, a human judge would still have to decide whether your tool counts as an "attempt to communicate" or merely just a tool.