Comment April 1st? No, try October 31st (Score 1) 92
This is a zombie story.
This is a zombie story.
Worse than regular fraud, because I don't understand computers.
Computer fraud isn't some special set-aside in addition to "normal" fraud. It's just a subset of fraud, akin to mail fraud, identity fraud, tax fraud... the list goes on and on.
Yes, because the White House assigns stuff like this to their interns, and doesn't employ squadrons of people who are masters at wordsmithing.
No, it just means Microsoft will be able to plausibly sue over every manifestation of foot-controlled computing. And with patent case law strongly favoring a wide interpretation of a patent's coverage and narrow interpretation of prior art, they'll likely win. Wait, my first "No" is incorrect, then.
I've not seen evidence of the "wide interpretation" of patent claims you're talking about, but I could be convinced if you had some evidence.
Also, it's important to note that prior art isn't the only limiting factor on viability of patent claims. In particular, non-obviousness is important. With the KSR ruling, the Supreme Court actually introduced the notion that the test for non-obviousness should incorporate a broader understanding of how practitioners of an art solve problems. The upshot is that it's more difficult for inventors to claim that a reasonably skilled practitioner of the art involved in their field wouldn't have come up with the same solution.
"Somehow, Arrington's version of the story smells a lot like half-truths."
Arrington's version of just about any story is going to smell like a lot of half-truths. He's monumentally skilled at drawing attention to himself, but he makes his reputation and his money off of confrontation, so it's no surprise that the CrunchPad project went down in flames. It's amazing that after making such a hash of the project, he still has the balls to tell actual tech leaders in the Valley how they should be running their businesses.
Sure, Rathakrishnan comes off sounding half-baked, but the fact that Arrington did business with him speaks volumes about Arrington's business acumen. The public finger-pointing is in keeping with Arrington's reality TV/daytime talk show style. It doesn't matter whether it's truth, fabrication, or idle speculation, as long as it draws visitors.
Most Air Force critters aren't pilots. Plus, Air Force Para-Rescue as well as Forward Air Controllers are specialized grunts who happen to work for the Air Force. The military is full of weird situations like this. For example, the Army operates 119 vessels (we're not talking about inflatable rafts here).
Please read the actual patent claims themselves before declaring prior art. The fact that the Slashdot headline boldly proclaims "Microsoft Patents Foot Computing" doesn't mean that the patent covers every manifestation of foot-controlled computing. Every single time a patent is discussed in Slashdot, we go through the same song and dance about how there's prior art. And yes, I know it's Slashdot and nobody actually reads the primary sources, but jeez, it gets old.
For a readable primer on how the US patent system works, read Schechter and Thomas' Principles of Patent Law
I suppose it's foot-dragging when you want the patent to be granted, and thoroughness when you don't want it to be granted.
That's the bedrock of trademark law. Here's a classic example from my neck of the woods: A little organic fast-food place called "McDharma's" was sued by McDonald's. McDonald's successfully argued that visitors might be confused and think that because of the "Mc" appelation and the fact that the place served fast food, consumers would potentially be unsure as to whether it was associated with McDonald's or not. Furthermore, if McDharma's made boatloads of money by trading on this confusion, they would be running afoul of trademark law, which is designed to protect consumers from unscrupulous businesscritters.
When someone uses the phrase "It's on like Donkey Kong," there isn't any confusion about what we're talking about. Has anyone else used it in commerce? I don't know of any examples where they have. So Nintendo might be able to trademark this one, as counterintuitive as it sounds. You and I can say "It's on like Donkey Kong" until the cows come home. We can write it, make fun of it, etc., just like we do with any other corporate tagline. We just can't use it to sell something else that is confusingly similar to Donkey Kong.
Then by definition shouldn't Wikipedia be out of operation already, because nobody cares to use it?
It's really only useful for shit no one cares about.
There are boundaries to speech that involve direct legal consequences: libel, slander, trade secret laws, state secrecy laws, etc.
Then how do you explain open source? There is no financial incentive, yet works are free to everyone and they benefit society.
Open source licenses can be used in situations where the licensor wants direct monetary gain. Think of Red Hat distributing GPL'd software – customers pay Red Hat to take the hassle out of putting all the pieces together and making sure they all work properly. It's in Red Hat's interest to contribute to the GPL'd software they sell, because they directly benefit.
Open sourcing software also is used for indirect gain. Many contributors burnish their credentials by contributing source code, which helps raise their profile in the software industry, which helps them get better jobs, which helps them make more money.
Beyond these rationales, it's important to remember that open source licenses work within the copyright system. Copyright is what gives you the right to disallow someone else from distributing your work. It also gives you the ability to tell them how they can distribute your work, under conditions you establish. In a world without copyright, the GPL would also not exist, because you would not be able to form a contract around distribution of source code. No reciprocality could be enforced.
Successful and fortunate crime is called virtue. - Seneca