Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Yo (Score 1) 258

Again, incorrect. "For profit" or "commercial" is never mentioned in the law. It is "use", straight-forward. That means home users can be sued to prevent the USE of a patented invention. See here:

It is a right to stop others from making, using or selling - any one of these. Thus, even if an infringer were to make the invention in a foreign country, he could not sell it in the USA. Similarly, it is still an infringement if the invention is made in this country but exported immediately, or if a person buys the invention overseas and uses it in the USA for their own use - there is no "personal use" exception for patent infringement.

And see here:

There is no equivalent law for patents to the U.S. fair use clause which applies to copyright. Other countries have a patent law with similar applications, but there is no provision that allows a general exemption from liability when using a patent without obtaining a license from the patent holder.

Comment Re:Yo (Score 1) 258

You are mistaken. Patents cover even the USE of an item. Wikipedia has a nice article on patents. Under Law...Effects, this sums it up quite nicely:

... a patent provides the right to exclude others[14] from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent...

Comment Re:he said bing, not ms (Score 1) 141

I'm not sure if you're just trolling or you just can't read. Here is the full text from the reply, fully quoted:

Uhm, no. The submitted said in his submission that Yahoo! is losing money. It is not. As much fun as it may be to kick Y! I think one should at least use the facts. MICROSOFT is losing money fast, but Y! is profitable.

Comment Re:But did they found what they were looking for? (Score 1) 385

Correct, the OP did not mention Google. But every reply after the OP was specifically mentioning Google. And reading the first reply after the OP, I thought they were specifically saying that Google has a lot of answers directly in the search results which resulted in not as many click-throughs. I inferred (perhaps incorrectly) that they were saying that's why Google's numbers were supposedly lower than Bing, and I thought they may not know that Bing has similar summaries. Then every reply after that specifically mentioned Google, which reinforced the inferrence.

I was only saying that Bing also has similar results along with Google, meant to be purely informational.

But yes, the metric of click-throughs is really stupid.

Comment Re:Catholics (Score 1) 280

You're off by a little bit. According to Wikipedia, summing up South America, Central America, Caribbean, Cuba, and Mexico, there are a total of 451,655,584 Catholics out of 1,082,368,942 worldwide. So it's about 41% of the Catholic population that are in the Americas (excluding Canada and US). Even if you include the US and Canada (539,745,532 total), it's just under half of the total worldwide population of Catholics (49.93%).

Comment Re:I agree.. less math (Score 1) 583

Agree with your original post. As part of my CS major, I took enough math classes to qualify for a Math minor. However, my school did not allow a Math minor for CS, because those classes were required. Any OTHER major taking those math classes would have gotten a math minor (even EE or Computer Engineering!). 3 more elective math classes, and I could have also majored in Math. That's far beyond "basic college-level math". Nearly all of it was completely useless for what I do. I thought the classes were useless then, and I still think they were useless. Who knows, maybe in 15 years I'll suddenly decide to pursue something that would require that math. But I've forgotten almost everything I "learned" in those classes, so I'll just have to relearn it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich, German theologian and historian

Working...