But HP still defends the feature, arguing it's "to protect HP's innovations and intellectual property, maintain the integrity of our printing systems, ensure the best customer printing experience, and protect customers from counterfeit and third-party ink cartridges that do not contain an original HP security chip and infringe HP's intellectual property."

When your' double speak sounds like you're talking about protecting the 'intellectual property' of using a chip to control markets for inks and toners aa well as the ability to evade the security chip by cloning you have to ask 2here are the copyright and patent lawsuits?

  'Oh we don't want to piss off the customers.' Too late, been there done that, got the bricked mostly plastic printer as a souvenir. Driving customers to the competition? Priceless for a company selling the customer the idea of reliability. Really bolstered the customer experience there, HP.

Who's gonna protect those customers from HP?

Put a moat all the way around the white house and they'd start referring to it as Fantasy Island.

Shouldn't that be 'double plus, double plus un-good'?

She was following the preceding gentleman sharing a pace and they appear of a compatible age. Complaining of an earache and stopping suddenly, her companion's pace too quick for comfort. I'd vote for a perforated eardrum which can be painful when draining while walking in particular before the widespread use of Penicillin, attributed to Alexander Fleming that same year.

Somehow I doubt Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes would have immediately jumped to the notion of extemporaneous behavior, despite Doyle also having been a Science Fiction author.

The Machine or Transformation test would still need to be trimmed to: a) make a general purpose computer not a particular machine, and b) add the word particular back to article in the transformation test ("particular article"). Otherwise software patents are still possible under the USPTO's Interim rules. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-25_interim_101_instructions.pdf (PDF, 732 KB)

Page 6:

For computer implemented processes, the "machine" is often disclosed as a general
purpose computer. In these cases, the general purpose computer may be sufficiently
"particular" when programmed to perform the process steps. Such programming creates
a new machine because a general purpose computer, in effect, becomes a special purpose
computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions
from program software.

and
Page 7:

An "article" includes a physical object or substance. The physical article or substance
must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified. An article can also be
electronic data that represents a physical object or substance. For the test, the data should
be more than an abstract value. Data can be specifically identified by indicating what the
data represents, the particular type or nature of the data, and/or how or from where the
data was obtained.

Particular article would require something real and physical and not representational or abstract. Without the definition of particular machine and article being fixed software patents are possible under the Machine or Transformation Test as interpreted by the USPTO.

(d)"Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(1)Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

(2)Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy

Apple would have to show actual or potential economic value (loss) for any information released, which after disclosure on the 27th by Apple would no longer enjoin trade secret status. Apples losses would be for a period of less than 9 days now. There hasn't been time for competition to take advantage of any 'leaks' for perhaps 6 - 10 months? Certainly not since Apple cornered the market on 10.1 inch LCDs.

18 USC 1832 is a bit more explicit.

(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly--
...
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;

The AG would need to show Gawker benefited economically and that Apple was knowingly or intentionally injured by the premature release of the soon to be non trade secret information.

One might imagine that the lawyer authoring the C and D being apprised of economic loss as a result would have been compelled as an officer of the court to contact the justice department under 18 USC 1832? Instead we get a Cease and Desist letter citing the California Civil Code as harassment in an apparent attempt to maintain monopoly control over any premature leaks - imagine the defense seeking discovery on any managed leaks to the media by Apple.

(a) Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes
of, conceals, or has in his or her possession any personal property
from which the manufacturer's serial number, identification number,
electronic serial number, or any other distinguishing number or
identification mark has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or
destroyed, is guilty of a public offense, punishable as follows:
      (1) If the value of the property does not exceed four hundred
dollars ($400), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six
months.
      (2) If the value of the property exceeds four hundred dollars
($400), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
      (3) If the property is an integrated computer chip or panel of a
value of four hundred dollars ($400) or more, by imprisonment in the
state prison for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years or by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year.
      For purposes of this subdivision, "personal property" includes,
but is not limited to, the following:
      (1) Any television, radio, recorder, phonograph, telephone, piano,
or any other musical instrument or sound equipment.
      (2) Any washing machine, sewing machine, vacuum cleaner, or other
household appliance or furnishings.
      (3) Any typewriter, adding machine, dictaphone, or any other
office equipment or furnishings.
      (4) Any computer, printed circuit, integrated chip or panel, or
other part of a computer.
      (5) Any tool or similar device, including any technical or
scientific equipment.
      (6) Any bicycle, exercise equipment, or any other entertainment or
recreational equipment.
      (7) Any electrical or mechanical equipment, contrivance, material,
or piece of apparatus or equipment.
      (8) Any clock, watch, watch case, or watch movement.
      (9) Any vehicle or vessel, or any component part thereof.
      (b) When property described in subdivision (a) comes into the
custody of a peace officer it shall become subject to the provision
of Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 1407) of Title 10 of Part 2,
relating to the disposal of stolen or embezzled property. Property
subject to this section shall be considered stolen or embezzled
property for the purposes of that chapter, and prior to being
disposed of, shall have an identification mark imbedded or engraved
in, or permanently affixed to it.
      (c) This section does not apply to those cases or instances where
any of the changes or alterations enumerated in subdivision (a) have
been customarily made or done as an established practice in the
ordinary and regular conduct of business, by the original
manufacturer, or by his or her duly appointed direct representative,
or under specific authorization from the original manufacturer.
  --

PERSONAL PROPERTY

3. Property in personal chattels is either absolute or qualified; absolute, when the owner has a complete title and full dominion over it; qualified, when he has a temporary or special interest, liable to be totally divested on the happening of some particular event. 2 Kent, Com. 281.

We tend to think of personal property rights as absolute. In California the State claims your rights are qualified and subject to imprisonment for removal or concealment of identifying marks on your personal property. Your absolute rights have been subsumed by the State.

In case you haven't noticed processed food is all labeled with lot numbers. Six months for obliterating the lot number on a soda can or ripping the end tab off a box of vanilla wafers? ("other distinguishing number or identification mark")

Sounds like you can't remove those Windows certificate tags from the bottom of your laptop when you delete Windows in favor of installing Linux, either. No more reassigning MAC addresses on your Ethernet interfaces...

I guess it's easier to keep the proles in line when you first make them all criminals. Next thing you know those mattress tags you pulled off will mean hard time.

Maybe this law is poorly crafted?

The first paragraph of 35 USC 112:

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

How can a invention be describe well enough for a PHOSITA to make and use the invention if it has not been reduced to practice, in particular by an inventor who has not or cannot do so?

Further, 35 USC 114:

The Director may require the applicant to furnish a model of convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his invention.

When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the Director may require the applicant to furnish specimens or ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment.

Should some doubt as to the adequacy of the invention's description in the specification surface during the patent pursuit, the USPTO may require practical proof that an invention is useful. Imagine requiring practical proof of Bill Gates patent applications on hurricane prevention. It might require a reliable method of generating hurricanes first in lieu of disproving a negative.

Not to mention the people in those 27 countries party to negotiations for ACTA.