Just what we need. Everybody deliberately voting for the biggest idiot on the other side instead of the best candidate on their side. That will definitely lead to a new era of intelligence in government policy.

Or you just make everybody so afraid of the terrists that they won't leave their homes^H^H^H^H^Hbunkers. Then there won't be anybody to drive the trucks.

With regard to the patents, he has nothing to negotiate. However, if he wrote the code, and released it under the GPL, he could definitely claim that their software which uses the technology is a violation of the terms of the GPL license. This claim might be legitimate (if they copied) or completely not legitimate (if they didn't re-use any of the code, and merely developed new software with similar capabilities and features).

In reality, OP is going nowhere with this. The USPTO is unlikely to invalidate the patent because somebody presents them with prior art that they already considered. Even if the USPTO was wrong, they aren't going to reconsider. Even if this was new prior art that nobody had previously known about... the USPTO is extremely unlikely to reconsider the patent grant. If it has been granted already, then, as they say, "prosecution on the merits is closed." Oh, sure, if IBM sues somebody, the prior art might be helpful. Claim 1 might or might not hold up unmodified in court, depending. Were it to require modification, then IBM could potentially lose a suit. IBM is unlikely to pursue the matter at this stage anyway, and they probably don't even realize that they have this particular patent.

I'm not going to read the entire document to make sure that I understand precisely all of IBM's definitions of terms, so I can't give an informed opinion on the validity. Without doing enough reading to be informed ('cause hey, this is the internet after all, I'm supposed to be wrong or at least uninformed), the whole thing probably turns on the feature of not having to re-link or even re-load the application to set the heap checking feature on and off.

Remember, you're only infringing a claim if you are infringing the entire claim. This patent isn't on "heap checking" or even "run-time detection of invalid heap access", or anything of the sort. If you aren't infringing the entirety of claim 1, the entirety of claim 12, or the entirety of claim 16 (the 3 independent claims), then you aren't infringing this patent. Similarly, if the HeapCheck software didn't do everything listed in those claims, then the differences between HeapCheck and those claims is the part that is (supposedly) novel and non-obvious.

(standard disclaimers apply; I'm no lawyer, this isn't legal advice, I'm just an engineer that happens to work the IP/patent process for my department)

I know, but guns scare people.

Everybody knows that a guy with a big ass gun is guaranteed to go on a killing spree. Just go watch any movie that has a guy with a big ass gun in it.

However, with sufficiently poor credit, it becomes impossible to even open a checking account.

OK, fine. Nobody raises prices. Instantly all products sell out, since everybody has enough money to buy everything they need, everything they want, and everything that they feel like buying because its just lying there. Only there isn't enough stuff in the whole world to fill everybody's needs, wants, and whims. So people start fighting over the last few items. Someone offers to pay double, then someone offers to pay double that, etc.

Because there needs to be some inherent balance between the availability of money and the availability of things to buy with it.

If suddenly there were zillions of dollars lying about, candy bars sold for only $1 apiece would sell out everywhere, and there'd be a huge shortage of candy bars until someone had the bright idea to charge more for them -- enough more that they could handle the demand.

Yuri: what's the difference between microsoft and russia?
Sasha: One's a ruthless totalitarian empire bent on world domination, with millions of informers, riddled with organized crime.
The other's a computer company.

i dont know an obvious answer. i'm kind of out of touch with 8 year olds, but they havent heard of carmack or musk and think that tesla's a band.
wil wheaton isn't famous enough, oh i dunno maybe he is do kids these days watch next generation reruns on spike?
he pops up on eureka and csi and that one with the nerds... now and then. i guess 8 year olds dont watch the guild. or know who randall munroe is.
hey how about richard branson? a lot of 8 year olds are virgins these days.

i was thinking more http://xkcd.com/695/ (might not be safe for work; some people cry when reading this)

we got a jitterbug for my mom. she's 80 and almost blind, so it really helps.
i'd get one myself if it were a bit cheaper. i've had email since 1980, but i can't get used to these newfangled cell phone thingies.
currently i have a landline, where the cord goes out the window and plugs into the box; there's something wring with the house wiring.

bad idea, you'd get sued a lot.

that should have been periodic table,and should have had a link back to my blog
http://vark.blogspot.com/2010/11/harry-potter-would-have-had-only-four.html
but at least it didn't get rejected.

I wonder if this has to do with how long people have used various browsers. People are probably less likely to default at the beginning of a loan than they are several years in, and all of the browsers listed except IE and FireFox have had somewhat recent large increases in use, thus increasing the percentage of Chrome and Safari users, in particular, that are in the first 12 months of their loans -- and thus less likely to have already defaulted.

Or it could be something else entirely, but that seems plausible to me.