Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:HERE IS WHAT YOU NEED, KIDS !! (Score 1) 680

Missing two roots in "Take the cube root..."
>> roots([1, 0, 0, 1])

ans =

    -1.0000
      0.5000 + 0.8660i
      0.5000 - 0.8660i

The first equation has two solutions. But the equation x^3+1=0 has three solutions. You chose the one solution that didn't apply. The other two work just fine.

>> roots([1,-1,1])

ans =

      0.5000 + 0.8660i
      0.5000 - 0.8660i

I like the problem though!

Comment Re:I think it's good either way (Score 1) 307

"If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search.. I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor." - Nikolai Tesla

Comment Re:limiting? (Score 1) 728

Twenty six letters, sure. But twenty six glyphs? Far from it. Along with all of the punctuation (the obvious addition) there are ligatures, italics, bold, caps, small caps, etc. Authors use all of these tools to express complex ideas clearly when twenty six letters isn't enough.

Comment Re:not my experience (Score 1) 278

I have 9 patents issued and a handful more pending. As other posters have said, it's just part of some of our jobs. They have varied wildly in pendancy time. The fastest was 18 months, with no office actions (shocked the heck out of myself and the other inventor). The slowest (so far) was over 6 years. However, since Obama took office, I have had several that were mired in "docketed for examination" limbo suddenly get a flurry of activity and issue (three patents filed years apart issued within 50,000 of each other). Many of my colleagues are having the same experience. So I do suspect that things are changing at the USPTO. The dashboard and article seem to bear that out, at least in effort.

Comment Re:Ummm... (Score 1) 276

Further, these rankings are often based on the OECD data, which is seriously flawed as a ranking mechanism. From Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 29: The Broadband Performance Index: A Policy-Relevant Method of Comparing Broadband Adoption Among Countries (emphasis mine)

A thought experiment can highlight the problems with the OECD's approach. In Table 2, we use OECD data (and some other sources) to show what the OECD broadband rankings would look like in a "Broadband Nirvana"--a situation in which every household and business establishment across the OECD has a broadband connection. One would initially think that in a Broadband Nirvana, every OECD country would be tied for first place, but the per capita method of ranking that the OECD utilizes does not show that result. In fact, in the scenario in which every home in business in the United States and every other OECD country had a broadband connection, the OECD would rank the United States 20th --five spots lower than the United States ranked in December 2006. Moreover, the United States would be further from the top position than it is today (16 percentage points back rather than 11 points back in 2006).

Comment Re:No software ruling (Score 1) 232

But therein lies the key. You have to say how you are going to do this with enough specificity that one of ordinary skill in the art could accomplish the same without undo experimentation. That is, you have to say how you plan to approximate pi (thus specifying the algorithm). Then the question becomes is your method of approximating pi unique and non-obvious? I think the problem is that the USPTO has gotten quite slack on non-obvious. It seems that the standard practice is just to wear them down. Get your rejection/final-rejection/appeal/final-rejection/appeal/oh-whatever-have-the-damn-patent-already-and-go-away rulings.

Comment Patent infringement includes use (Score 1) 457

It seems that several here are making the argument that because you only "use" the technology, its not infringement. From the U.S. Code.

Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. [emphasis mine]

So yeah, use is infringement, and you need a license. I agree that the expectation is that the manufacturer has provided you with this license, but it seems in this case the manufacturers have cheaped out and only pony up for a non-commercial license, expecting the user to purchase a commercial license if one is needed.

Slashdot Top Deals

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Working...