When Delta sold seats at large discounts, some of those seats would have gone empty if the discount glitch didn't happen, and without the discount Delta would have eaten the costs of flying with those empty seats anyway. For some flights, selling the heavily discounted seats may even have been a net gain financially for Delta.

But with the furniture retailer, they had bigger real losses from the discount glitch because without the huge discounts, the items would have remained available for somebody else to purchase at full price.

So Delta is willing to bear the losses because their losses from this were less severe or perhaps nonexistent, whereas for the furniture retailer the losses are too large for them to accept without trying to recoup what they can.

In the US they generally don't use chip & PIN. The stolen PINs involved are for bank ATM cards without chips, not PINs for credit cards with chips.

But the land used for that corn is often suitable for growing other crops for human consumption.

No. If there is prior art, don't grant the patent, with or without a working model.

Under the rule I proposed, the patent holder can't sue before the working model is demonstrated. While the patent is provisional, its 20-year expiration clock is ticking, the information is public, and others can't be sued for infringing it. So there would be advantages to the public and disadvantages to the patent holder for acquiring a patent before the working model is ready.

Without a working model, all they have is words and diagrams on paper that might not work in practice. But that piece of paper gives them the right to sue somebody else who implements the concept and makes it work.

They need to bring back the working model requirement. If there is no working model, grant the patent provisionally. Don't let the patent holder sue before they have a working model, and if they don't build a working model by a specific deadline (say 5 years) the patent goes up for auction, with proceeds going to the patent owner. Or they can sell the patent before the 5 years are up. The new owner must have a working model before they can sue.

That way inventors can still get paid for a useful invention even if they don't have the resources to build the working model themselves.

Heisenberg wouldn't be in danger of getting fired. He is the danger.

"Also, I frankly think there is nothing wrong with ex-cons having to work their way up from the bottom when they reintegrate into society."

In theory that sounds fine, but in practice it is a problem because the less they earn from law-abiding jobs is the more they'll be inclined to return to crime. If they have the skills for a $30/hour job, the rest of us are better off if they can get that $30/job, as they'll be more likely to stay out of trouble than if they had a minimum wage job.

" On the other hand, why are you whining about Photoshop. Plenty of FOSS and offline commercial packages will teach you the same skills. For someone who has spent a good amount of time behind bars, you're awfully entitled (I wonder how much that attitude figured into your original incarceration)."

Employers want experience using Photoshop, not the FOSS equivalents which aren't similar enough to convince employers that the skills are readily transferable.

Their complaint is about price-fixing from January 2004 to January 2010. You couldn't get a DVD-R drive for under $20 back in 2009.

"Maybe it's time for the US to take the hint and stop this barbaric and medieval practice?"

Maybe it's time for the US to take the hint and start manufacturing their own propofol and other drugs of major importance.

The schools are bad because they can't attract good teachers to the area due to the high cost of living, and they're not willing to double or triple the salaries to bring in the good teachers.

In this case, the father wanted them to get the vaccine but the mother didn't. The parents disagreed, the court broke the tie, it didn't impose its will against both parents.

They need to bring back the working model requirement. If you can't produce a working model, maybe your idea won't work exactly as written, but if your patent would block others from making a variation which works.

For cases where the working model is too expensive or time-consuming for the inventor to build, grant the patent provisionally with the requirement that a working model must be produced within 7 years. If no working model is produced by then, the patent automatically goes up for auction (alternatively the inventor can sell it or put it up for auction before that), with auction proceeds going to the inventor. Whoever buys that patent has to produce a working model before they can sue anybody for infringement.

With that system, the inventor can still get paid for what they invent even if building a working model is beyond their capabilities.

So what if it's not really 15 minutes for a colonoscopy? The 15 minutes was just an example to demonstrate a point, which is that for various procedures the payment is based on an assumed X minutes for a particular procedure although it actually takes X/5 minutes.

Yes, the writer could have done a better job on choosing numbers more consistent with reality, but the point they're making still stands.

You apparently work for somewhere like Microsoft, Intel, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, or HP, where most of their employees in the US are US citizens, and they pay H1B workers the same as US citizens.

But most H1B visas are used by big outsourcers like Infosys, Cognizant, Wipro and Tata. Making $100,000/year while working for them is way out of the ordinary for anybody who isn't in management.