Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Capsid Inhibitors Already Being Developed (Score 3, Interesting) 90

by dplentini (#43887899) Attached to: Researchers Determine Chemical Structure of HIV Capsid
Check out U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 20130053267 and 20120302556 (among others from the same assignee). Capsid structures, like protein structures, can be useful starting points for drug development. Ultimately, however, the goal is to find a substance that will kill the disease without killing the patient. So far, no computer graphics package has replaced the grunt work of medicinal chemistry---methyl, ethyl, butyl, futile.

Comment: Re:Don't Panic (Score 1) 175

by dplentini (#32140380) Attached to: USPTO Plans Could Kill Small Business Innovation
But most small companies are incorporated and require their inventors to assign the inventions to the incorporation. Making "small entity" available only to individuals would kill all patenting by small businesses. These companies don't have big pockets either. So much then for any pharmaceutical or biotech start ups as well as most software and electronics start up. I'm all for a page limit, but 10 pages/10 drawings is way too small for most inventions. Some areas, especially pharma and biotech requrie lengthy, detailed exposition to meet the teaching requirements of the patent law. And good examiners don't read every page anyway, but look to find what's relevant based on the claims.' Life's way more complex than individuals vs. big business. :-)

Comment: Re:Don't Panic (Score 1) 175

by dplentini (#32139104) Attached to: USPTO Plans Could Kill Small Business Innovation
By "wait and see", I mean holding on to your patent and waiting to see if someone else's activity infringes and then seeking license fees or litigating. I think that after a suitable period patents should either be worked by their owners (i.e., make the invention your patent covers) or given up to the public, or if you want to sit on the patent then pay a large fee for the privilege.

Comment: Re:Don't Panic (Score 1) 175

by dplentini (#32139066) Attached to: USPTO Plans Could Kill Small Business Innovation
I've spent about half my career managing patent departments. Even the big guys will take notice of fee increases for filing and maintenance, especially the latter. I believe that a fee structure that focuses on big fees for big filers and big maintenance fees for those who sit on their patents will be a help. Many large companies have patent departments that run on quota---the more you file, the bigger your bonus---and the result is just like the old days when IBM paid programmers by lines of code---lots of bloat and little quality. Simply dealing the problem by "disposing earlier", as if we can just waive our hands and make the pendency problem disappear, will only make the situation worse. First, we'll return to the days of the Compton's patent---when the most egregious allowances become litigation burdens on the market. Second, a liberal allowance policy will only encourage big companies to file more and build their portfolios. The patent system has always had a stated policy of encouraging the examiners to work directly with the applicants to find allowable claims. But the workload coupled with a very onerous and arbitrary "quality review" that was initiated by Bush appointee Dudas have crippled that route. So, yes, we indeed need better communication. But that will not fix things by itself.

Comment: Re:Don't Panic (Score 1) 175

by dplentini (#32138378) Attached to: USPTO Plans Could Kill Small Business Innovation
The PTO already has a page charge for applications longer than 100 pages. While a more aggressive approach may help, the real problem is the number of applications, not the length of the applications. Indeed, for many inventions more description may be helpful from the standpoint of teaching---the ultimate purpose of the patent system---since some inventions do require a lot of description.

Comment: Don't Panic (Score 5, Insightful) 175

by dplentini (#32138076) Attached to: USPTO Plans Could Kill Small Business Innovation
I think it's too early to panic. Having practiced before the USPTO for over 20 years, I've seen many times how the small inventor lobby works its magic to protect the small filers. In fact, I was disappointed that the article didn't even mention the two-tier fee system, providing smaller fees for small businesses, that's been in place for many years now. The PTO needs lots of fixes, but I agree that somethings need to change with the fee structure. Large companies can game the system by flooding the system with new applications, re-filing to wear down examiners, and taking frivolous appeals. Wise changes to the fee structures, which take into account these sorts of tactics, as well as increasing maintenance fees to discourage "wait and see" litigation, will be helpful to the small guy. Hopefully the PTO will show some wisdom.
Bug

Passage of Time Solves PS3 Glitch 147

Posted by Soulskill
from the if-only-they-were-all-so-easy dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A quick update on the widespread PlayStation 3 glitch we discussed recently: as of last night (Monday, March 1st) the problem has resolved itself. I powered up my PS3 to find the clock was set to April 29th, 2020, but once I went into the system menu and set the date and time via the internet I got an accurate date. That seems to be the test of whether your PS3 is 'fixed' or not; Sony says you should be all set."
Advertising

Google Awarded Broad Patent For Location-Based Advertising 54

Posted by kdawson
from the you-are-here-and-we-own-you dept.
Mashable has a report of a patent that just issued (6-1/2 years after filing) — apparently Google now has a lock on location-based advertising. It's not clear that the search company intends to assert the patent against any other companies (such as emerging rival Apple), but it's useful as leverage. Here is the patent. Update: 03/02 14:34 GMT by S : Reader butlerm noted that the incorrect patent was linked. It now points to the correct URL.
Space

Space Photos Taken From Shed Stun Astronomers 149

Posted by timothy
from the love-the-gold-mylar dept.
krou writes "Amateur astronomer Peter Shah has stunned astronomers around the world with amazing photos of the universe taken from his garden shed. Shah spent £20,000 on the equipment, hooking up a telescope in his shed to his home computer, and the results are being compared to images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. 'Most men like to putter about in their garden shed,' said Shah, 'but mine is a bit more high tech than most. I have fitted it with a sliding roof so I can sit in comfort and look at the heavens. I have a very modest set up, but it just goes to show that a window to the universe is there for all of us – even with the smallest budgets. I had to be patient and take the images over a period of several months because the skies in Britain are often clouded over and you need clear conditions.' His images include the Monkey's head nebula, M33 Pinwheel Galaxy, Andromeda Galaxy and the Flaming Star Nebula, and are being put together for a book."
Image

Police Called Over 11-Year-Old's Science Project 687

Posted by samzenpus
from the duck-and-cover dept.
garg0yle writes "Police in San Diego were called to investigate an 11-year-old's science project, consisting of 'a motion detector made out of an empty Gatorade bottle and some electronics,' after the vice-principal came to the conclusion that it was a bomb. Charges aren't being laid against the youth, but it's being recommended that he and his family 'get counseling.' Apparently, the student violated school policies — I'm assuming these are policies against having any kind of independent thought?"
Space

Spectrum of Light Captured From Distant World 32

Posted by Soulskill
from the what-are-you-made-of dept.
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Cosmos: "Astronomers have made the first direct capture of a spectrum of light from a planet outside the Solar System and are deciphering its composition. The light was snared from a giant planet that orbits a bright young star called HR 8799 about 130 light-years from Earth, said the European Southern Observatory (ESO). ... The find is important, because hidden within a light spectrum are clues about the relative amounts of different elements in the planet's atmosphere. 'The features observed in the spectrum are not compatible with current theoretical models,' said co-author Wolfgang Brandner. 'We need to take into account a more detailed description of the atmospheric dust clouds, or accept that the atmosphere has a different chemical composition from that previously assumed.' The result represents a milestone in the search for life elsewhere in the universe, said the ESO. Until now, astronomers have been able to get only an indirect light sample from an exoplanet, as worlds beyond our Solar System are called. They do this by measuring the spectrum of a star twice — while an orbiting exoplanet passes near to the front of it, and again while the planet is directly behind it. The planet's spectrum is thus calculated by subtracting one light sample from another."

Comment: Re:I Like the Sentiment, But ... (Score 1) 484

by dplentini (#28184513) Attached to: The Perils of Pop Philosophy

There are many different understandings that can be reached on a single topic.

It all depends on which questions you ask, and how you ask them.

Reaching an understanding is first reaching an understanding about this important point.

It's not sophistry, either.

Everyone comes to a discusssion with at least one ontological basis. This is the framework of their viewpoint. In general, most questions they ask will be generated inside this framework.

However, this framework is invisible, both to self and other. It is only through a discourse on the framing questions themselves in the discussion that these can be talked about.

And that is the true beginning of understanding.

Regards.

I agree that reaching an understanding is not sophistry. But "framing" with the intention of winning an argument is sophistry, which was my point. Yes, we all come to any discussion or argument with our views, or "frameworks", or whatever other word you want to use to characterize the fact that we cannot share our minds with each other. But don't confuse theories about how our minds work with the actual work of discourse. Too often theoretical categories of knowledge only interfere with the real work needed to approach a "meeting of the minds" that is necessary to achieve effective discourse and understanding.

Comment: Re:I Like the Sentiment, But ... (Score 1) 484

by dplentini (#28181451) Attached to: The Perils of Pop Philosophy

We don't need more fights over how to name our problems; we need to understand them...

Don't think of it as a "fight over how to name our problems" Think of it as a "fight over how to frame our problems"

Because, as a general principle, he who frames the issue can load it so the debate is weighted one way or another. For example, calling a doctor "Tiller the baby killer" effectively spikes a legitimate debate from the beginning.

I'm not sure if you're serious; but if you are, then you're confusing sophistry with real debate and understanding. Winning an argument, i.e., getting someone to agree with your view, is not the same as reaching understanding. Supposedly that was Sanchez's point too, but I think he doesn't really understand the difference.

Comment: I Like the Sentiment, But ... (Score 3, Insightful) 484

by dplentini (#28179577) Attached to: The Perils of Pop Philosophy
I like the quote on Slashdot, but reading his blog I get the sense that he actively practices what he preaches against. Reducing people and complex issues to simplistic (and usually undefined) categories is the heart of the oversimplification that Sanchez laments. We don't need more fights over how to name our problems; we need to understand them, which means we need to understand our selves.

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you are working for someone else.

Working...