...at 36,000ft. That's why I never use mine... After about 7,000ft I get 0 bars. I'm not going to pay $18 to use WiFi for longer than an hour so I'll just use the time to drink and relax.
I've got a dozen games, about two hundred books, and a handful of tv shows and movies on my iPad. I use it every flight, and it's annoying being stuck reading the in-flight magazine during takeoff and landing.
You want to talk about preconceived bias? From you comment history, you claim to be a patent attorney. You're aggressive in defending patent trolls in general and this one in particular.
At no point did I defend patent trolls, and in fact, you even replied to my comment saying "Hate him for his IP policies if you want, but that doesn't mean you have to hate his cooking." That's not a defense of patent trolling - it's a defense of cooking.
It doesn't take a lot to connect the dots.
The dots being that you are so outraged over patents that if someone has anything to do with patents whatsoever, then everything they do must be the most evilest thing in the world. Have a patent? You must eat kittens. Work for the USPTO? Probably torture babies for fun on the weekends. Founded a patent troll company? Clearly, your grill must burn the souls of the damned instead of propane.
Pro-tip - learn to compartmentalize. People have many different aspects to their lives. Hating everything someone does because of one thing they do only makes you insane. It certainly doesn't help your credibility.
What's your point? Are you implying that in order to criticize someone for taking an undue portion of the credit for other people's work, that I have to do a amount of work comparable to what the person I'm criticizing is claiming in the exact same field?
You haven't shown that it's an "undue" portion, and you certainly can't speak from experience as to what's "due". How much of your anger is simply preconceived bias?
Because, IV and patent trolling aside, he's also the author of Modernist Cuisine and an award-winning BBQ chef. Hate him for his IP policies if you want, but that doesn't mean you have to hate his cooking.
And how the fuck am I supposed to evaluate his cooking if I have to worry about being sued for infringing his recipe by making dinner for guests?
What's a reasonable royalty for your dinner for your guests? Is it $0? What if he collected treble damages - why, that would be 3 times $0!
*Co-author* of Modernist Cuisine, along with two other co-authors, 50 staff, 36 researchers and14 outside experts. He may have financed the project, but its not as if he wrote the bulk of the material himself.
I see... And which cookbook did you co-author?
[crickets]
Given that he raises the spectre of salmonella from uneven temperature in sous-vide cooking, it's pretty clear he knows fuck all about cooking. Hey Nathan? Sous vide is done in a precision-controlled water bath, you numpty. Not an oven.
From the article:
Domestic ovens tend to swing in temperature and can be off by as much as 5 percent at any point during cooking. At 205 C—a temperature at which you might cook a turkey—that 5 percent isn’t a big deal. But consider a style of cooking known as sous vide, in which you cook food in bags in a water bath at low temperatures such as 60 C, near the threshold at which bacteria can survive. Here, 5 percent can be the difference between safe and unsafe.
He raises the spectre of salmonella from uneven temperature to point out why ovens can't do the low and slow temps in sous vide cooking. And I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he knows significantly more than fuck all about cooking.
"With reasonable energy efficiency, electric broilers can heat quickly and reliably to temperatures as high as 2,200 C. Maximum settings are typically restricted to 1,200 C in order to extend the life of the heating element and avoid charring the food."
I think repeatedly confusing C and F should immediately disqualify someone as an oven engineer. Or an oven operator, for that matter.
What about confusing the temperature of the food or the air in the oven and the temperature of the heating element?
Electric broilers use bars or rods made from Nichrome, an alloy of nickel and chromium (and often iron) that heats up when electricity passes through it. With reasonable energy efficiency, electric broilers can heat quickly and reliably to temperatures as high as 2,200 C. Maximum settings are typically restricted to 1,200 C in order to extend the life of the heating element and avoid charring the food.
The nichrome bars heat up to 1200C. They heat up the air and also radiate in the infrared to cook the food.
I have no idea why so many people reading this article got confused about that point and think the guy's trying to cook food to 1200C.
Why the fsck should we listen to anything this dishonest vulture says or wants?
Because, IV and patent trolling aside, he's also the author of Modernist Cuisine and an award-winning BBQ chef. Hate him for his IP policies if you want, but that doesn't mean you have to hate his cooking.
at 400 C, radiant energy starts doing a fair amount of the heat transfer. At 800 C, radiation overwhelms convection.
800 degrees C??? That's 1470 degrees F! Who has an oven that goes that high? That will turn just about anything into charcoal in under a minute.
Even 400 C-- 750 degrees F-- is quite a bit hotter than most ovens.
Commercial ovens, and specifically commercial salamander ovens. And what the summary failed to explain is that the heating elements get up to that temperature, not the air - hence, infrared radiation cooks the food, rather than convection through the air.
They're useful for anytime you want a quick and hard sear, including steaks, creme brulee, flash broiling fish, etc.
You said that USC 135 cannot be used to delay a patent in a manner that counts toward it being extended.
1. Have you ever filed a petition to institute a derivation proceeding?
Almost no one has. First, under the pre-AIA rules, they were called interferences; derivations have only existed for a year. Second, there were 20 interferences per year, on average. Out of half a million patent applications. They're horribly expensive, and have little point. The fact that you reference that statute really indicates you have no idea what you're talking about.
As for 35 USC 156, do I need to handhold you through the million ways they can make a product subject to regulatory review? One way is to say is that it's going to be in a medical device or a medical device is going to use it.
Yes, and then you can't sell it in the meantime, nor can anyone else. Congratulations, the "40 year monopoly" you were ranting about just disappeared, since there's no mono.
And again, I should point out that (i) you failed to use the 'quote parent' button or otherwise quote me; (ii) failed to answer any questions from me to you; and (iii) changed the topic yet again, once I pointed out you were wrong. This is just pathetic.
AFTER I said "the patent issuance delays are not random
"There are reasons we manipulate delays - for example, where the patent owner is unsure whether to proceed with the application or not, and wants to stall while they release their product or talk to investors - but to get increased patent term extension is not one of them. "
So you admit that the delays can be manipulated, yet patent term extensions aren't a reason. This strongly implies that an applicant has no interest in having a delayed issue date.
It only strongly implies it if you don't bother reading the quote, considering the quote explicitly lists times when the application may have an interest. Try again.
1. A greatly delayed issue date can result in a term extension.
... if the delay was by the USPTO, rather than the applicant.
2. You state that applicants/their lawyer have ways to cause patent issuance delays.
... such delays being by the applicant, rather than the USPTO.
3. You say that applicants have no interest in a term extension.
I say that #2 is not done for the purpose of patent term extension, since the applicant doesn't get one, under #1. This is not complicated.
Also, your reasoning that applicants merely want to stall while they talk to investors or decide whether to proceed makes no sense. They've already paid the fees, why would they need to stall or not proceed with an application?
Cost to respond to an office action may be $4-6k. Cost to get an extension is $180 for the first month. They can spend $180 to take an extra month to decide whether to spend $4-6k.
Unless we are talking about a situation where they are concerned about trade secrets, there is no reason for someone to not want a patent.
Unless patents aren't free. Hint: they aren't.
OK, so now you admit that deliberately causing delays are possible and that you know of ways to do it.
And I also explained why they don't give you extra patent term. So, are you going to admit you were wrong earlier, or are you just going to keep changing topics every time you get called out? Frankly, that's more than a bit disingenuous, and makes me not want to waste any more time trying to educate you.
Since you seem to think that forcing patents into the RCE backlog doesn't help the application get delayed...
As I said, the RCE backlog doesn't help the application term get extended. It delays the application, but not in a way that benefits the patent owner.
... and that USC 135 & 156 are useless...
I never said they were useless. I said they do different things than what you claimed they did. If you say a car is edible, and I say, "no, you idiot, it's a transport vehicle, not a food," that doesn't mean I'm saying that cars are useless.
Honest question - is English not your first language?
.. why don't you tell us some of the ways you do use?
To delay an application? Sure. You can take monthly extensions of time. Up to 3 months on an office action, and up to 5 months on a notice to file missing parts. You have to pay fees that increase significantly for each month, and you lose patent term. So, while it can be done for various reasons, it doesn't help the patent owner, and contrary to your thread title, there's nothing "extremely scary" about it.
Also, you claim that a patent applicant has no gain or financial interest in a delayed patent issuance date
[Citation needed]. I'll wait for either you to cut and paste those words from my post, or an apology. I assume that you're not a liar and will therefore provide such a citation or apology in your next post.
Also, there is no why the law has to say that the USPTO must grant extended time. Let's say the patent office issues in 2015 a patent filed in 2000. The applicant can still sue infringers for back royalties. In fact this "sue for back royalties" has been the trend among patent trolls. The USPTO "realized it" (ie, got called on it) relatively recently and therefore started publishing most pending applications after 18 months so that people can at least check if they might get sued at a later date for using a patent pending idea.
They started publishing applications at 18 months as a result of Congress amending 35 USC 122 to require publication, rather than secrecy. They didn't get "called on it" - they were following the law as Congress wrote it, and then changed when Congress changed the law.
Anyway the fact that a patent owner can sue people for back royalties means that with delays patent owners can have monopolies on technology for extended periods of time far beyond 20 years. For example if you get your patent delayed 30 years (not unreasonable when you consider some HDTV patents from the 1990s have yet to issue) then you basically get to earn royalties on for 50 years. Furthermore you can demand huge sums in back royalties for the delay periods. How is that fair?
You can get "back royalties", in your phrasing, when the patent that's granted is identical to the application that was published. And that's fair when the patent owner files their application, the USPTO publishes it, and then sits on it for years while all of the competitors read the application and implement the invention. Why should the owner be required to publish their idea and tell everyone how the invention is made, but not get any royalties?
And those HDTV patents you mention are in the 20 years from filing regime... They won't get another 20 years of term, and they aren't identical to what was published, so they won't get "back royalties" under provisional rights, either.
Yes they can. They can word their applications in such a manner that increases the delay likelihood substantially and whether it triggers RCEs etc. What can I say, you don't know the basics of getting the USPTO to delay while technically making it fall under the statutes I mentioned you obviously know absolutely nothing.
Actually, I'm a US patent attorney. I'm simply correcting your incorrect reference to 35 USC 135 and 35 USC 156 - a reference that you've completely backed away from, I notice. Again, RCEs have nothing do with either of those statutes.
Until I proved it, you didn't even know that some patents issue quickly whereas there are still patents in the queue from the 1990s and even the 80s (in fact, know of one from the 70s that is not yet acted on but the reason for that particular one is not the applicant's fault).
Of course I know that. I've had patents issued within a year of filing, and other patents take as much as 8 or 9 years. But what you apparently don't know is that Applicants' RCEs count against us for patent term extension calculations. If we stall and delay and push for multiple rounds of prosecution via RCEs, we lose patent term. It's only delay by the USPTO that results in increased term.
Anyway, the patent issuance delays are not random
There are reasons we manipulate delays - for example, where the patent owner is unsure whether to proceed with the application or not, and wants to stall while they release their product or talk to investors - but to get increased patent term extension is not one of them. And, as I said above, this has nothing to do with 35 USC 135 or 35 USC 156, as you originally insisted. You're like the Jon Snow of Slashdot - you know nothing.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
