Why would you need ribbons? Manual typewriters will make a physical impression on the page - it's good enough for teaching.

The original post was pretty clear about this: yes, they intend to destroy the phone multiple times. Remember that part about the OP submitting multiple claims previously?

"Insurance" is a great buy if you're paying less than 100% of the value of the item - if you _know_ you're going to use it. You're just buying n phones for something like $(1.3n).

And (heavily socialist, although strangely often claiming to be conservative) farmers own lots of Republican politicans, so there's no chance they'll have to play in a free market any time soon.

Replace your law firm _immediately_. They're not competent.

Yes, the EU has software patents, they just don't call them that. You get them in through mechanisms that looked to me (a non-lawyer) kind of like US business method patents, but that's too much of a simplification. When you're interviewing new legal firms, have them talk you through their process for European software patents. It's not that complicated, and only a little more expensive than the US. It's been a couple years, but I think the numbers for a simple software patent from a top-tier US law firm were roughly $20k for US, $30k for Germany, and then some increments for other EU countries. But get a more recent and less vague quote :-).

If you're putting together an assembly line, it's your call whether or not to mark things with a patent number. If you do, you better be sure that you will retool before that patent expires. If you want to avoid that, the solution is to not mark. Simple, easy, foolproof. Whether or not that hurts your patents is completely uninteresting.

If you're continuing to run a production line, knowing you're marking with expired patents, your intention is to deceive the public and the penalties should be harsh. I think it's bizarre to suggest otherwise.

Or if you do think the penalties for misusing patents should be light, then they need to be light for everyone, always.

Not the same in the US. We stick tracks on regular streets all the time. The local one here is http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/

Agreed. There is one sensible arrangement: 1 developer, 1 office. There are many other terrible arrangements.

Interruptions need to go to zero. Intentionally creating a physical setup that increases interruptions is astonishingly stupid.

It's not quite that bad - it's more like assuming every case is equally interesting to the supremes, which obviously isn't true. Bilski may be the bottom of the barrel, and 1 in 75 may be far too generous.

But do you disagree with the basic point? Appeals to the Supreme Court are very rarely successful. Saying that a case is "far from decided" simply because an appeal is submitted seems to me to be deceptive. The chances of even going in front of the court are slim, much less winning. "Bilski pursues slim chance of victory," maybe, or "Bilski takes last, desperate shot at vindication." But no way can you say "far from decided."

People hear about successful appeals all the time (they're news - failed appeals are the boring, normal case), so they have an exaggerated idea of what the likely outcome is.

"It's entirely within the Supreme Court's discretion to take the case or not, but for now it looks like the issue is far from decided."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/washington/07scotus.html

Number of cases that go to the Supreme Court: 7000-8000. Number decided? About 100.

You DO NOT want to be the side appealing. You're better off in Vegas.

Bilski is done. The chance that it isn't done is about one in 75. That's "over, for all practical purposes," not "far from decided."