Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Announcements

+ - Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an 'absurdity'->

Submitted by
RobertinXinyang
RobertinXinyang writes "The Pope has spoken out on both the issue of creation v. evolution and on the issue of the environment. Of course, many slashdot readers are such bigots that thtt will have to watch that their jerking knees do not hit their, foaming with ignorant hate, mouths when the pope is even mentioned; however, the facts are that a lot of people do listed to him. If the number of people who listen to him were taken as a sole concern, his comments are relevant.
"Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an "absurdity," saying that evolution can coexist with faith... This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such... Benedict also said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence... We all see that today man can destroy the foundation of his existence, his Earth... We cannot simply do what we want with this Earth of ours, with what has been entrusted to us," said the pope."

Link to Original Source
Patents

+ - Patent Reform from USPTO on Claims & Continuan->

Submitted by
Patent-Monkey
Patent-Monkey writes "The Patent Hawk reports: While Congress considers the Patent Reform Act of 2007 and the Supreme Court has already chimed in with KSR, the USPTO has come up with its own methods to crack down on process abuses by putting forth restrictions on the number of claims each patent application can have as well as the number of continuations, or extensions, that can be made from each application."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Sorry for the long post, it is a very long claim.. (Score 1) 104

by Patent-Monkey (#19413435) Attached to: WizKids Sues Wizards of the Coast over Game Patent
From the patent's claim (the thing that needs review as much as the date of the filing, which has priority to a provisional filed in Oct. 2002):

1. A method of playing a game by first and second players, the method comprising:
providing at least first and second toy bases for use by respective first and second players, wherein each toy base comprises multiple components, wherein the multiple components of each toy base are formed as generally-planar pieces, wherein the generally-planar pieces are manually punched out or removed from at least one rectangular panel by at least one of the first and second players, and wherein each of the first and second toy bases represent at least a portion of a vehicle or robot; manually assembling the first toy base by the first player;
manually assembling the second toy base by the second player;
removably securing at least one accessory to a location on the first toy base by the first player, wherein the accessory has use under predetermined rules of play;
removably securing at least one accessory to a location on the second toy base by the second player;
moving the first manually assembled toy base under the predetermined rules of play by the first player;
moving the second manually assembled toy base under the predetermined rules of play by the second player;
generating a first random number and playing the game according to the predetermined rules of play by the first player; upon occurrence of an negative event under the predetermined rules of play and based at least in part on the first generated random number, then either (i) removing the accessory or one of the multiple components of the second toy base, or (ii) replacing the accessory or one of the multiple components of the second toy base with a substitute accessory or substitute component, respectively, wherein the substitute accessory or substitute component represents damage to the accessory or one of the multiple components; and
generating a second random number and playing the game according to the predetermined rules of play by the second player;
upon occurrence of an negative event under the predetermined rules of play and based at least in part on the second generated random number, then either (i) removing the accessory or one of the multiple components of the first toy base, or (ii) replacing the accessory or one of the multiple components of the first toy base with a substitute accessory or substitute component, respectively; and
repeating the generating of random numbers and the removing or replacing of accessories or components, under the predetermined rules of play, until one of the first or second players wins the game at least in part because of the removing of accessories or components from the toy base, or because of the replacing of the accessories or components on the toy base with substitute accessories or substitute components.
Lots of elements to the claim, but they add up.
Patents

+ - New Patent Reform - A Good Thing?

Submitted by
Patent-Monkey
Patent-Monkey writes "BetaNews reports that new legislation is being proposed by Congress today that promises to "change the very fabric of patent law" by limiting damages to lost economic profit by a company and define an invention on its novel merits without taking credit for prior art. The article also notes that "Open source advocates may appreciate the amplified language that would prohibit any organization from claiming patentability over a concept that was "in public use or sale" (note the distinction) prior to the claim." Something the Peer to Patent project also hopes to help with.

This bill clearly limits the impact of future NTP v RIM style cases, but could also have the potential to allow large companies (e.g. IBM, Microsoft and Google) to copy a number of smaller company's ideas since the damages would be limited to that small company's lost earnings.

Are patent damage limits a good solution? For all of you to answer..."

It is not every question that deserves an answer. -- Publilius Syrus

Working...