Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I think you may be confusing anticipation with prior art. Prior art can be anything that teaches an element of a claim. The combination of prior art makes an invention obvious. A single piece of prior art renders it anticipated. Iaapl (I am a patent lawyer).
You are, of course, correct.
Open mouth, insert foot. I should be more careful about my own terminology before I go on trying to correct other people for theirs.
Hopefully people see this and mod my previous comment down.
First off, IANAL. I am a law student with IP and patent law classes under my belt, but I'm still just a law student. Take the following with a grain of salt.
In a lot of the patent articles on Slashdot, where someone will ask "Isn't X prior art?" Often, even though it seems intuitively that it should be, it's not.
Actual prior art, which would be sufficient to legally defeat a patent, must read on all of a patent's claims. Assume the patent in question has claims (basically, technical description of features) A, B, and C. You research patents, and you find older patents:
Patent 1 has claims A and B.
Patent 2 has claims B and C.
Patent 3 has claims A and C.
None of those will defeat the patent in question on prior art grounds, because none of them include all of the claims A, B, and C.
What you may have at that point is an obviousness objection. You could argue that because there are patents 1-3 exist, that combining them to create A, B, and C was so obvious to someone skilled in the art that the patent should be invalidated for failing to be non-obvious. But that's different than prior art.
Having a patent invalidated for prior art is actually pretty uncommon. Obviousness issues are more common, but often, it's cheaper to just settle.
Well, a typical textbook from West or Aspen, which most classes use, runs about $150.
Then you have other materials; treatises, study aids, course packs, outlines, supplements, etc. Prices vary wildly depending on what you buy. Some of these, like the hornbooks, are just as expensive as your textbook. And since the majority (or at least about half) of the courses offered after your first year's required courses are only two credits, it's entirely conceivable that you could be shopping for books for six classes.
I'd say $5,000 is definitely towards the upper limit of what would be necessary. I've never come all that close to $5,000 in required books, but picking up, say, five textbooks, a couple treatises, some Q&A books, and a nutshell or two (or something equivalent)... that'll put you well over $1000/term. A good number of my classes have had more than $600 worth of books, if you picked up all the recommended materials.
Of course, I should've pointed out that I was considering software for laptop exams (which you need to purchase every year) and other supplies (e.g. the highlighters I go through by the case) in that figure, too.
Overall, $5,000 is a high estimate, and I personally spend less, but it's not unrealistic.
It gets far, far worse. Think about rent and cost of living.
I attend a law school that costs ~$1,000/credit hour. That works out to $36,000 year, full-time, in tuition alone. Furthermore, students enrolled full-time are not allowed to work more than 18 hours/week. And although you may think a JD candidate could make a fair amount of money, they don't. You're looking at the same $8-10/hour pay you could get as an undergraduate, except now you're clerking or doing paralegal work.
As you'd expect, law school is far more academically intensive than your average undergraduate program. The rule of thumb is that you'll spend a minimum of three hours studying for every one hour of class time. On a standard full-time track, that's 12 credits per term; 12 hours per week in every class, another 36 hours studying. So, 48 hours/week devoted to academics. Let's assume that you get a job at $10/hour, and work the full 18 hours/week. That's $180/week, or $720/month.
The short of it is that any job you get as a full-time law student isn't even going to put a dent in tuition costs.
But now, add, say, $700/month for rent. Then you have bills. And food. And transportation. Let's say the student's frugal, and he gets by on about $1200/month (obviously this varies based on where you're living, but I'm trying to pick a number that would be typical of a suburban law school). And upwards of $5000 worth of books every year.
So... add it all up.
Rent, food, bills, etc.: $14.4k/year
Working income: $8604
YEARLY TOTAL: $46,796
TOTAL TO GRADUATION: $140,388
Now, consider the time constraints.
1 week is 168 hours.
You're spending 48 hours/week in class or studying.
You sleep 8 hours/night (or 56 hours/week).
You're working 18 hours/week.
That's 122/168 hours per week spoken for. That leaves 46 hours/week on average for leisure, additional studying, eating, and transportation time. That's almost 7 hours per day. In my personal experience, it's about 2-3 hours/day for relaxing and/or working out. It's not an impossible task, but it's stressful, and not fun. But going tens of thousands of dollars into debt for the "privilege" of being too damned busy all the time isn't much fun. Clinic and volunteer work - both of which the school pushes pretty hard - all come out of this time, too.
Thankfully, I'm at the school I'm at (as opposed to a more prestigious one) because they offered me an enormous scholarship. But I have friends that are borrowing their whole way through. One of them half-heartedly jokes that the only way to get through it is to pretend that loans aren't real money, because the debt is otherwise just stifling.
One, Dell has reintroduced PCs running Windows XP on its website due to customer demand. Two, Microsoft is conducting a worldwide firesale on a bundle of Microsoft Office 2007/WindowsXP Starter Edition. According to Inquirer.net, at least, these are signs of serious problems selling Vista.
Are we seeing the stumbling of the Microsoft Juggernaught with the slow adoption of Windows Vista?"
You wanna make that scan result accurate?
Replace the word "Mozilla" with "Internet Explorer" and the warning will be pretty damn accurate.