Who knows? I can't relate because I'm not compelled to take naked pictures of myself. Perhaps if I had that frame of mind I'd also want to keep them on my phone? Maybe they think pictures are safer on a mobile than on a desktop computer connected to the Internet? *shrug*

Yes, the Supreme court ruled that it is legal so we are now seeing many companies adding this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_v._Concepcion

As I said, if there were cars piled up behind me and they couldn't pass I would just pull over but this has never been a problem because most of the streets around here are either two lanes or wide enough that I can ride to the right and cars just pass me if they need to. Honestly, in downtown traffic I'm sometimes moving faster than traffic and more often than not it seems like we're all racing just to wait at the next light anyway.

I guess my area is a bit more temperate than many but it is going to hit 100F today. That's not a problem though because it's not hot until I'm already at work for the day. And I don't care if I sweat on the way home. Yes it's going to rain during the winter but that's what rain gear is for.

Between the various bags that can be mounted on a bicycle and the option of wearing a backpack you can carry a lot more than you'd think. I personally have a relatively small bag on top of my rack which is plenty to carry my lunch in the morning and the extra layers I don't need on the ride home. I keep several articles of nicer clothing at the office and wear comfortable and practical clothing for the actual commute.

Not for me it isn't, and I know I'm not alone. Bicycling is by far the best way for me to get to and from work. Gas prices are high; parking is limited and expensive near where I work; taking the bus costs more and takes longer than cycling. Not to mention that I sit in an office for work so my commute is often the only exercise that I get all day. Since I started biking to work I've lost several inches off of my waist.

If there were cars piled up behind me with no way to pass then I would pull off, just as I would if the same situation occurred while driving a car. I don't suddenly merge into fast moving traffic at a slow pace any more than I would do so with a car. I wear brightly colored clothing and lights when visibility is bad so if a driver can't see me right in front of them then they shouldn't be licensed. If everyone follows the law and common courtesy there is no problem with sharing the road.

Well, I think the policy is crap but the second article indicates this was to be a present for someone in Iran. From a purely he said, she said perspective I'd have to give the guy the benefit since she later said she was going to do what he said she was going to do.

Well, we may actually see some progress. Supposedly Sandia had a demo day in November where they invited "Potential licensees and commercialization partners"

This would be new to the console mass market I suppose, but not new as a controller. A small company called Novint has been selling haptic feedback controllers for years now on the PC.

There's also a company called TNGames that sells a haptic vest designed to simulate bullet hits & explosions.

I've no idea what the legalities of licensing an idea are. What I am saying is that there is no legitimate reason I can think of why someone should be able to sue you solely for having an idea. The solution is to make sure you can't be sued for an idea, not force you to sell off your idea out of fear. If removing the option to sell a patent introduces significant risk due to a problematic legal system then obviously that can't be ignored and there should be corresponding efforts to mitigate or eliminate that risk. I'm not saying this should be done in a vacuum. And so if appropriate action is taken to ensure that the patent system still works and has no significant disincentive with a purely licensed based model then I have no problem with that.

If you're going to sell or you're going to license you should still have representation either way. The difference is whether this is a perpetual state or a one time event. As a perpetual state I'm sure some smart person could start a business based on the idea that inventors need not be constantly involved and do it at a reasonable price when they distribute the cost of all those experts you mentioned over a large number of clients. A corporation is going to do essentially the same thing with a patent except some of those experts may be in-house since they operate on a larger scale.

I agree that obviousness is a big problem and I agree that it needs to be fixed but that is only one of many problems. If you believe that cleaning up standards will magically fix everything, I say that is a bit naive. The ability to aggregate (even non-obvious) patents and use them to leverage unrelated business areas because you don't like to play fair will still be a problem.

I'm coming from the perspective that the patent system should do just enough to encourage people to release their ideas and nothing more. I've yet to see how the ability to sell them is required for this to happen. Anything beyond the bare minimum that is required is what will cause negative consequences.

If you have an idea and someone else licenses it and implements it then there's no reason you should have any legal problems since you weren't involved. If you do then that is a problem with the legal system, not the patent system. Now, if you are the one that implements it then yes you should assume all relevant liabilities just like any other person or corporation marketing something.

I'm sorry, someone came up with a better idea without infringing on yours? That's life. You're not entitled to profit from a now worthless idea. And I don't think the prospect of a better idea eclipsing yours is going to make you keep it a secret to the grave (the only concern of the patent system) as you will have lost before you even began, so to speak.

Not necessarily. A license, even exclusive, doesn't grant you everything that ownership does. For one, it doesn't grant you carte blanche use of that patent as a weapon.

I didn't say that people had to produce their own ideas personally. In many cases that's just not practical. But I would argue that the ability to profit from the license of your idea is incentive enough. I don't see why the patent system needs to go any further than that to work as intended.

And yes I understand that the ability to sell and not just license would be an additional incentive but at what cost to the system as a whole? We have huge corporations buying up all sorts of patents so they can stifle competitors on unrelated products. We have trolls who have never had an original idea in their life buying patents so they can extort money out of legitimate businesses. This doesn't magically go away if patent sales were eliminated but it at least puts a few road blocks in the way.

^H^H^H^H undue

None of that sounds like a problem. So what if they would prefer to sell it? Tough luck IMO. Pay someone to manage your licenses if it becomes an undo burden. Remember that the purpose of patents is to provide protection so that people will be able to bring their ideas to realization without someone stealing it. Making patents non-transferable doesn't undo that but it could sure fix a lot of what's wrong with the patent system as it stands.

Maybe you were. Speedometers aren't perfect so unless you've had your speedo checked against a calibrated device it could be wrong.

Netflix charges an extra $3/mo for Blu-Ray while BB does not. Combine that with the ability to swap in store with BB (one about a mile away from me) and BB is cheaper with an extra feature.