Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The LSE is a very LEFT-leaning institution... (Score 1) 196

. This report tells us what many of us already knew/suspected. Still, kudos to the LSE for making the effort! +1

What was it the report told you, and what did you KNOW or suspect? The report appears to say that the people who pirate spend more than those who don't pirate. But what does that tell us? Not a whole lot really. Perhaps those who don't pirate don't consume very much. Based on the article we don't really know anything more than we did before.

Comment Re:Your Bullshit is BS (Score 1) 320

You're leaving out something really important and the real reason that he got caught: the casino was cheating too. Otherwise they wouldn't know that he had good cards when he folded.

That's like saying everyone who watches the World Series of Poker on ESPN is cheating. The Casino isn't really playing, so its ok for them to know what your cards are... doesn't mean they are cheating.

Comment Re:Very interesting... (Score 1) 82

If more than one person have a simila idea in a close enough time frame, similar enough to generate competing patents, it should be ruled as obvious and not patentable as too obvious

Why? Is something only non obvious if only ONE person in the world can figure it out? History is rife with two or three people racing to an invention. that doesn't mean the invention is obvious. I would think it would take more than two or three geniuses figuring something out to claim it as obvious.

Comment Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal (Score 1) 225

If I own a hamburger patent, and you own a carwash that does not serve food. Can I threaten you with a lawsuit? Can I threaten you with charging you for a crime if you don't settle the lawsuit? Can I then file a fake lawsuit and make you spend time and money to get it thrown out?
Just because you own a patent, doesn't mean you can threaten people with lawsuits, and when they don't cave in, doesn't mean you can file a lawsuit incorrectly.

Comment Re:hate speach post (Score 1) 225

Suing for hate speech makes about as much sense as trying to apply RICO to completely legal activities. There is silliness from both sides here.

I'm not sure what you consider a completely legal activity. Is it legal for me to threaten you with a lawsuit, and then file what is shown to be an illegal lawsuit? Is it legal for me to claim that I will have you charged with what sounds like a legitimate crime, if you don't comply? What the troll is doing might be legal, but if it is it sure skirts the boundaries of legalities. Makes the RICO claim much more likely.

Comment Re: I have mixed feelings about this. (Score 1) 225

not only do they rip off anyone and everyone but they waste the courts time with absurd charges, or the courts are stupid enough to take on such cases

they aren't wasting the courts time with absurd charges (well they are, as the original patent lawsuit turns out was absurd) but they are threatening the defendant with the absurd charge. And that is the whole issue here.

Comment Re: I have mixed feelings about this. (Score 1) 225

Well if ones creations are not protected the group that invests (often large amounts of) money in creating something new and unique then Joe Schmuck will purchase the product when it is first available then copy it and sell it (usually cheaper) and the creator is then unable to recoup their development costs. This the discourages the creation and money put into creating new things.

This is a good summary of the arguments for the benefits of patents. However, the same reasoning applies to software patents:

Actually it doesn't. Patents are supposed to protect the implementation, not the idea. For example the one click patent, I should be able to implement one click patent myself, if I do it differently than the way Amazon does it. But I don't really know how Amazon does it, cause I can't see their code. Nor can I truly understand the patent itself.
The other issue with software patents is the majority of them are not really patent-able, as they are not novel or they have prior art.

Comment Re:Those kinds of patent laws used to exist (Score 1) 225

Curiously enough, some of the points made by 'anon' in the parent post here used to be part of some patent law systems in really ancient times (like 16th-18th centuries), but they were one by one abandoned, by court decisions or legislative amendments:

>> 1) Patent times are FAR too long in many cases and should not be renewable.

An early example of a time limit, fixed in 1623 in England, was 14 years from a really early time-point when patent grant took place -- which used to be almost immediately on application (compared with today's long process).

Current patents are 20 years from the filing date. This was extended in the 90s, up from 17 years, not sure why. But 20 years isn't much longer than 14 years. I expect someone was thinking of Copyright lengths.

Comment Re:All? (Score 1) 491

It isn't so much as forcing you to attacking the speaker. It is about inciting a mob to violence. According to Mr Wiki: "Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely" If you have an unruly mob next to a bonfire and you shout "lets burn the courthouse to the ground" you can be arrested. But saying "let us join together and burn the government down" is probably protected.

Comment Re:Fraud (Score 1) 351

The only "civil liberty" it attacks is the ability to fraudulently sign in for someone else.

How about the privacy of their fingerprints. Their employer does not need a record of their fingerprints.
Another problem with using biometrics for authentication, is one they are compromised, they are compromised forever.

Comment Re:Two clicks to submit this. (Score 1) 234

But 1-click sales via computer were decidedly not an obvious thing until after it was done .

Of course it was an obvious thing. but any idiot who brought it up, would get shot down with "you can't just charge someone's card because they clicked a button"
That doesn't mean it wasn't obvious.

Comment Re:Independence of the courts ? (Score 1) 234

Since there doesn't seem to be a clause for lack of clarity being grounds for patent rejection (which would help a lot in situations like this), the judges just accept them instead of trying to learn or, worse, looking foolish for acknowledging that they don't understand the patent (gasp!).

But there is, inventions must be Adequately described or enabled (for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention) and Claimed by the inventor in clear and definite terms.

Comment Re:Independence of the courts ? (Score 1) 234

The language is extremely formalized and very hard to read for untrained minds. And the issues are so specialized that the average judge would have to train several years in the particular field to understand what the invention is about.

Every single patent that falls into this category should NOT receive a patent.
Invention must also be:

  • Adequately described or enabled (for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention)
  • Claimed by the inventor in clear and definite terms

Seems most patents today (well at least many software patents) are only readable by patent lawyers.

Slashdot Top Deals

When a Banker jumps out of a window, jump after him--that's where the money is. -- Robespierre