Now I think you're just trolling. Section 6 of the AIA actually establishes a process for ANYone to challenge the validity of the patent right immediately after it is awarded and for MORE reasons than currently exist for filing a reexamination.
 

That was just two sections of the 30+ sections in the bill, many of which have nothing to do with either of these. Please don't pretend like you know what the purpose of the bill is when you don't even know what it contains.

God, your comment is so misinformed I want to explode.

1. First-to-file actually doesn't go into effect until March 2013 so you are wrong on that front.
2. This patent was filed in 2008, well before the AIA was signed into law, so even if the first-to-file aspect of AIA had gone into effect on Sept. 16, 2011, it would be irrelevant anyway to this patent
3. Your comment - I assume - is some form of dig that first-to-file means companies have carte blanche to file patents on obvious ideas just because somebody doesn't already have a patent on it, which seems to be a viral misunderstanding of the law here on slashdot. First-to-file itself has nothing to do with determining patentability. The AIA - if anything - made it harder to get a patent because it increased what things could be considered when determining novelty of a claim, i.e., under the old laws, some invalidating product could be on sale in another country more than a year ago and it wouldn't be considered, whereas now it will be.

FFS, please STFU until you educate yourself on what you are commenting about.

Thank you, Theaetetus. I've enjoyed reading your responses over the last week. Slashdot has beaten me down to point where I don't have the energy to try and correct people, so I appreciate you saying all the things I'm too tired to say myself.

That sounds like a pain in the ass. I agree: Solving that problem 12 years does sound like innovation. Oh, I see. You're the type that thinks innovation has to be lightbulb-level innovation. Well, agree to disagree.

Could you be a little more specific? Is there a place you can buy them and get them for free, but to get them for free you have to watch an ad first?

The patent is directed to a website that sells things.

And the patent goes back to 2000.

No, that is not what the patent is about.

It's about offering the content for sale AND offering it for free, but you only get it for free if you watch an ad first.

Did YOU actually read the letter? The whole letter and not just the excerpt that you linked to? Here's the whole letter.

http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/mcphersonletter.html

Maybe you should do a little more digging before you grab your pitchfork.

First, even in the excerpt you cited, Jefferson acknowledges that progress can be made towards forming a general set of rules. He's not saying there shouldn't be anything such as IP (which is what you and every other knee jerk engineer seems to quote this for).

Second, he actually requests that the very letter you're excerpting not be used to misrepresent what he's saying:

"I have thus, Sir, at your request, given you the facts and ideas which occur to me on this subject. I have done it without reserve, although I have not the pleasure of knowing you personally. In thus frankly committing myself to you, I trust you will feel it as a point of honor and candor, to make no use of my letter which might bring disquietude on myself."

Long story short, you do much disservice to your point when chastising me for cherry picking points but then rely on them yourself as your sole support for your main argument.

And I'M the troll.

And yet Jefferson was the first Commisioner of the Patent Office. Kinda undermines his repeatedly copypasted quotes.

Based on what? Processes are absolutely meant to be patentable. 35 USC 101 says:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

It says processes are patentable right there in the statute and has for 50+ years.

LoL.

Hillarious and TRUE.

McDonalds is definitely cheaper per Calorie.

(I think!)

Hell, Tacobell has a 550 calories per dollar in their beef burrito. (IIRC).

That would be like 10 oz of chicken.

which is pretty calorie dense for a home processed food. Or about 7 apples, which still costs more.

SO, depends on how you determine costs. If you count everything as calories in and calories out, and want to see the costs per calorie, a lot of fast food / canned and processed food, is a much better deal for caloric volume.

If you put in the cost of personal labor, it is _FAR_ cheaper.

Imagine you were, yourself, a food industry worker making 7.50 an hour. You just got your food from your local CSA farm share, and you cooked up (time to cook 1.5 hours), you just spent 11.25 dollars of your life cooking for food that in itself was more expensive.

I spent 1 hour last night with my GF making food, we make far far more than minimum wage, and it took 2 people. So lets pretend our time is worth a dollar a minute (combined, it is worth more but this an example), that would be 60 bucks of "effort" put in.

Etc.... etc... Even if you just take our income and divide by 3 (assuming we work 8 hours a day, but spread it out over 24 hours so that even sleeping itself would "cost" money) it would still imply 20 dollars an hour to make that food.

Far more than driving through McDonalds parking lot or Taco bell and getting the same calories that way.

It all depends on how you look at this stuff.

Take a look at this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5360768

Where a guy determines the true cost of a tomato he gardened to be 64 dollars a tomato.

Very Very expensive.

It is calories in calories out.

I started at 310 lbs, ate mostly taco bell, restaurants, and fast food, but i tracked my calories, and I lost 130lbs with strenuous exercise.

Now that I eat "healthy" (prepared meals, balances of nuts/veggies/pastas) the math all comes out to be the same. My weight fluctuates depending on the calories I consume, nothing more, nothing less.

If you want to see how your body actually works when it comes to weight (not necessarily HEALTH), based on thousands of people testing it via tracked exercises etc... join fitocracy and read the begginners guides to weight loss.

In the end, it is all about calories in and calories out. If you have a calorie deficit at the end of the day, you are going to lose that much fat/muscle.

Simply, easy. People just don't track these things, it doesn't matter that they are eating processed sugars etc... It only matters that they are eating more calories than they expend in a day.

I, personally, have to eat around 3500 calories a day to maintain weight, because I am active now. It doesn't matter if I eat those as healthy or unhealthy calories, as processed sugar or whole unprocessed sugar from the teat of the organic wholesome sugar fairy.

By the way, you claim that Edison patented "his lightbulb." You assume he only had an appatatus claim. Just out of curiosity, would you change your opinion if one of the claims of his patent said "a method of producing light..." Choose your answer carefully.

I'm actually not being facetious. So did Edison discover that running a current through a filament when encased in glass makes it glow or did he invent it? Seriously.

I disagree that it's disconnected from reality and common sense. It's the same invention, we're just looking at it from different angles. You claim to want to protect inventions, but are drawing a very narrow definition of what is an invention (apparatus) and what is not (process).