Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Patent Attorney chiming in (Score 2) 58

by Theaetetus (#47938895) Attached to: Alice Is Killing Trolls But Patent Lawyers Will Strike Back

I think this procedural aspect is critically important. Patent litigation is incredibly expensive. Defendants generally expect to spend >4 million dollars to defend against allegations of infringement. Post-Alice, judges have been ruling on the issues very early in litigation and cutting of those costs and timelines. As Theaeteus mentions, the problem with this approach is that it is generally done without full development of evidence. As a policy-matter, it remains unclear which approach is better (we don't know how good judges are at making the 101 determination (knowing it when they see it)).

They've been great in the two major 101 cases, Bilski and Alice. Hardly anyone thought those claims were (or should have been) valid, as the methods were old and well known... But that's also like going back to the old obscenity cases and having your "test case" be Two Girls, One Cup. The old saying "bad facts make bad law" is true primarily because everyone agrees with the outcome based on those bad facts... but then it's used as precedent in cases where the facts aren't nearly so bad.

As an aside, patents have a historic tie to property law, hence things like permanent injunctions and willful infringement damages... but maybe that's not such a good thing, as they're primarily economic instruments. It leads naturally to equity-based judgements rather than concrete tests and rules... people would be outraged if judges were routinely invalidating contracts as a matter of law on a "I know it when I see it" justification.
If we did away with the property tie and abandoned permanent injunctions and what are effectively punitive damages, in exchange for compulsory licensing and reasonable royalties, a lot of the issues people have with trolls would go away, too.

Comment: Re:Patent Attorney chiming in (Score 1) 58

by Theaetetus (#47938631) Attached to: Alice Is Killing Trolls But Patent Lawyers Will Strike Back

of which I've to actually see an example

Let me quickly respond to that point too. One recent victim (at least at the lower courts) was this patent: The district court found the claims to upselling to an online buyer invalid under the Alice case.

Technically, one could easily argue that the District Court found the claims to be invalid under 35 USC 103 over an electronic device in view of Official Notice that "suggesting an additional good or service... based on certain information obtained about the customer and the initial purchase" is known in the art because "shrewd sales representatives have long made their living off of this basic practice" and it therefore is "purely conventional steps that are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry". Certainly, nothing in the decision points to it being abstract - rather, the judge repeatedly states that it is known.

In fact, one could argue that if something is routinely done, it's not abstract at all. It's just not new.

Comment: Re:Patent Attorney chiming in (Score 1) 58

by Theaetetus (#47938551) Attached to: Alice Is Killing Trolls But Patent Lawyers Will Strike Back

Those patents - of which I've to actually see an example - would already be invalid under 103:

I so hate this argument. Sure, they could be. The road to a 103 invalidity is an expensive and often arduous task that is often left to a jury. What's more, its met with a high burden and a presumption of validity.

... at trial, yes. Not at the USPTO or before the PTAB.

The Federal Circuit and patent lawyers have done a marvelous job making invalidity under 102/103 all but impossible except in the most extraordinary cases.

And in KSR, SCOTUS pushed that way back. Now it's actually quite easy, unless the claims recite an element that you just can't find a reference for, anywhere.

The point is: they shouldn't have been patent eligible in the first place. You can't take something done previously, stick it on a platform that's used for it's conventional purpose and suddenly you're in patent-eligibility land.

That'd be an easy 103 rejection: you can prove it's been "done previously," right? You can prove that the platform existed previously, right? Where's the problem?

Now the burden, under 101, is for the inventor to show that which they did was actually inventive.

Good patents shouldn't have this issue. 101 should be a very, very low hurdle.

How do you define "actually inventive"? Currently, we have the 102/103 tests of novelty and nonobviousness, but if you're saying we shouldn't use those tests and should just determine, under 101, whether something is "actually inventive", what's the test? As Judge Wu said, "I know it when I see it"?

Comment: Re:What's your suggestion for intelligence work? (Score 1) 265

by daveschroeder (#47938235) Attached to: Apple Will No Longer Unlock Most iPhones, iPads For Police

An oversimplification. The US, UK, and allies variously broke many cipher systems throughout WWII. Still the US benefitted from this.

What if the Germans were using, say, Windows, Android phones, SSL, Gmail, Yahoo, and Skype, instead of Enigma machines?

Comment: What's your suggestion for intelligence work? (Score 1) 265

by daveschroeder (#47938053) Attached to: Apple Will No Longer Unlock Most iPhones, iPads For Police

I presume you wouldn't say it was "wrong" of the United States to crack the German and Japanese codes in WWII... when US adversaries (and lets just caveat this by saying people YOU, personally, agree are legitimate US adversaries) don't use their own "codes", but instead share the same systems, networks, services, devices, cloud providers, operating systems, encryption schemes, and so on, that Americans and much of the rest of the world uses, would you suggest that they should be off limits?

This isn't so much a law enforcement question as a question of how to do SIGINT in the modern digital world, but given the above, and given that intelligence requires secrecy in order to be effective, how would you suggest the United States go after legitimate targets? Or should we not be able to, because that power "might" be able to be abused -- as can any/all government powers, by definition?

This simplistic view that the only purpose of the government in a free and democratic society must be to somehow subjugate, spy on, and violate the rights of its citizens is insane, while actual totalitarian and non-free states, to say nothing of myriad terrorist and other groups, press their advantage. And why wouldn't they? The US and its ever-imperfect system of law is not the great villain in the world.

Take a step back and get some perspective. And this is not a rhetorical question: if someone can tell me their solution for how we should be able to target technologies that are fundamentally shared with innocent Americans and foreigners everywhere while still keeping such sources, methods, capabilities, and techniques secret, I'm all ears. And if you believe the second a technology is shared it should become magically off-limits because power might be abused, you are insane -- or, more to the point, you believe you have some moral high ground which, ironically, would actually result in severe disadvantages for the system of free society you would claim to support.

Comment: Re:Patent Attorney chiming in (Score 2) 58

by Theaetetus (#47937593) Attached to: Alice Is Killing Trolls But Patent Lawyers Will Strike Back

Among other things, the worst offenders were patents that issued between 1996 and 2006 where there is a huge number of "do such and such old thing on a [computer | web | network| mobile device]" as if the "such and such old thing" was suddenly now a patentable thing by virtue of a new platform. Alice will largely undo those patents.

Those patents - of which I've to actually see an example - would already be invalid under 103: [known method]+[known computer/network/device]=obvious combination of two prior art elements that, between them, teach or suggest each and every element in the claim.

Sure, they're also invalid under Alice's interpretation of 101... but that's because Thomas' eligibility test is really just an obviousness test, hence his repeated references to "conventional techniques". Effectively, what Alice changed was to give courts an easy way to handwave something away as obvious as a matter of law, without requiring any actual prior art evidence, simply by calling it "abstract".

Comment: Re:Still pretty affordable (Score 1) 367

by Firethorn (#47937415) Attached to: Is the Tesla Model 3 Actually Going To Cost $50,000?

How are you powering the timer/microcontroller?

I'm not disputing that it'd be easy to do - as a matter of fact I believe that most chargers/cars already have more complex logic installed to control charging in order to save money via drawing when electricity is at it's lowest rates.

Of course, if 'everybody' starts getting EVs said lowest rates might go away, but it'd still be cheaper than gasoline.

Comment: Re:Still pretty affordable (Score 1) 367

by Firethorn (#47937383) Attached to: Is the Tesla Model 3 Actually Going To Cost $50,000?

being a home improvement, he'll get that back in house value, so i wouldnt chalk that up against fuel cost equivalence.

Only if he can find a buyer specifically interested in the charging capability. That's getting easier and easier, but if we lose too many rebates and incentives it could bottom out, at least before Musk gets the gigafactory up and an 'affordable' model out.

Same deal really with my interest in having a vault in my house. Nice for most people to have some secure storage, but they generally don't value it at what it cost to put it in.

Comment: Re:Still pretty affordable (Score 1) 367

by Firethorn (#47937345) Attached to: Is the Tesla Model 3 Actually Going To Cost $50,000?

As he mentioned, it was an electrical upgrade he was looking to do anyways due to his house not meeting his standards for electrical work. I'd have done more of the work myself, but I'm lucky that way.

As for 'saving money after 4 years', it'd actually be a bit longer - $4.5k costs like $225-450 a year in opportunity costs alone. Then I was figuring that there was at least some extra expense with the vehicle. With the revelation that his electrical wasn't to code(or even all that safe) otherwise and that he was deliberately building in room for expansion it all became a lot more reasonable.

Comment: Re:Actually against Islam (Score 1) 890

by Firethorn (#47937285) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

I know you are probably referring to the paradox of teaching Chemistry without using Math being a bit difficult.

Exactly what I was referring to.

However the cynic in me thinks that the morons at least understand that basic chemistry is required in the manufacture of things like bombs and bullets.

My cynicism is that they'd have their bomb & bullet makers run an apprenticeship where they teach the stuff to 'properly vetted', IE fanatic enough to their cause/group, individuals.

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 1) 256

For your grandfather, would he have been allowed to install it himself the final 500 feet and if so what would have the telco cost been to establish the connection?

For the rural community, what sort of housing density are we talking about?

One thing that I would like to see it community networks that are then leased out to ISPs, with non-exclusive agreements. I would hope that in this scenario the ISPs and telco could not argue unfair competition and therefore be unable to block this.

Comment: Crawl, *then* walk (Score 4, Insightful) 115

by Space cowboy (#47934209) Attached to: Scientists Twist Radio Beams To Send Data At 32 Gigabits Per Second

Yeah, I could do with one of those office-space meme's right now.

If all the nay-sayers faux-gasping at the extreme length of 2.5m could shut up, that'd be great.

I'm not sure what people expect these days - this is a major achievement - whether it *can* be extended, or whether it *will* be extended would be different achievements. You could almost apply Jackson's rules of optimisation to this (refresher below) - in that first you *do* it, and only then (if you're an expert) do you try to do it *well*.


Jackson's rules of optimisation: "The First Rule of Program Optimization: Don't do it. The Second Rule of Program Optimization (for experts only!): Don't do it yet."

Comment: Re:Natural immunity (Score 1) 116

by Firethorn (#47933877) Attached to: Farmers Carry Multidrug-Resistant Staph For Weeks Into Local Communities

I kinda already did?

As for the 'Ted Talks' I kind of ignored them for a number of reasons:
1. No reason to believe that they're peer reviewed.
2. Audio would be incredibly rude where I was at the time.
3. I'm a visual learner - listening to youtube lectures is painful for me.
4. My conclusion from the earlier 3 was that the latter 3 would be more the same. On reaching home, I confirmed this.

Anyways, some more articles on antibiotic growth promotion:
It improves growth, but not enough to justify the cost in chickens grown in clean & sanitary environments
The Mode of Growth Promotion by Antibiotics
The European ban on growth-promoting antibiotics and emerging consequences for human and animal health. link
Alternatives to Antibiotic Use for Growth Promotion in Animal Husbandry link
Effect of Abolishment of the Use of Antimicrobial Agents for Growth Promotion on Occurrence of Antimicrobial Resistance in Fecal Enterococci from Food Animals in Denmark link
Antibiotic Usage in Animals link

Conclusion: The cattle industry isn't feeding billions of dollars of antibiotics to their animals for fun.

Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence. -- Dijkstra