dhume
No, I'm going to continue to blame that subset of JS coders who consume far too much of my CPU/memory resources. Thanks to them, I got to watch my browser slow to a crawl and become so unresponsive that it was difficult to even close the tab containing the offending site. The simplest solution is to have JS off by default. A whitelist system is nice for non-offending sites (I've never had this sort of trouble with JS on, say, HN).
2. People are upset that takedown notices are issued for works to which the issuer does not hold copyright and that those who issue such notices do so with impunity.
This makes your earlier claim of never having seen most of the concepts rather dubious.
This seems closer to "statistics versus logos" than "statistics versus rhetoric."
Quite the opposite: this is all the dull, menial stuff that distracts people from their primary tasks. These are jobs that were "supposed to" get automated out of existence and didn't. The store has not automated the bagging of your groceries. This only frees up an employee by having you do it instead.
Of course not. We just want to encourage them to do so.
Nope, somehow "creators" feel that the society is owing them the copyright protection.
That's the agreement between this society and creators who publish their creations.
Nothing you can say, perhaps, but here's something Facebook can do: establish a years-long history of having new privacy options/controls default to the setting which reveals the least information to other users. Doing that for several years should help Facebook overcome their reputation for not doing so (a reputation which it has for a reason).
Directly trading one luxury for another doesn't help when what you need is a way to feed yourself, pay the rent, heat the house, etc.
Keep in mind when looking for the cause of the lopsided male-female split that it happens well before they even start university.
It's more of an acknowledgment that our concept of ownership is derived from the scarcity of the objects we may own. Whether the thing over which someone claims ownership is natural doesn't enter into it.
You don't appear to have any will to solve the issue at hand.
I don't think GP is convinced there is a genuine issue at hand.
It's been a while since I last read TPM though.
Public sector teachers have to deal with all of the problematic students that private schools can remove or refuse to admit in the first place.
You are confusing "insure" and "ensure."
6) If you don't use the patent in a business use-case, you lose it. A bit like Trademark.
Suppose somebody invents a device but lacks the facilities to mass-produce them (building by hand is probably too expensive to make for a viable product). Rule (1) bars the inventor from selling the patent to somebody who has these facilities, so it appears necessary to arrange a licensing deal with a manufacturer (I expect selling a license to manufacture is still allowed and would count as a business use of the patent). How long does the inventor have to make such a deal before those who do have the right production facilities can simply ignore the patent and produce/sell the invention without compensating the inventor?
a) implemented it into a working system (prior art)
b) patented it themselves first
It seems to be fairly common that somebody already did (a) but chose to forgo (b).
spent $130 million dollars just in the R&D phase for what amounts to…. Obvious? Perhaps. But nobody had gone through the trouble to actually do it, and spending that kind of overhead was a significant risk.
How much of that was it actually necessary to spend just to come up with the concept? Evaluation of the available COTS components, writing the perl scripts and cron jobs, management overhead, etc. are costs a competitor would have to incur as well, which makes them not part of the cost a patent is meant to compensate for. The fact that nobody had done it before does not necessarily mean nobody was clever enough -- just that nobody who was clever enough had had the problem this product was meant to solve, and being a solution to a novel problem does not make it patentably non-obvious.
In other words, if the ideas are obvious, a piece of software that does this should be buildable.
I don't think a computer program is likely to cover everything that would count as obvious.
"A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." - SCOTUS opinion on KSR v. Teleflex
From someone who was present at a meeting discussing this:
“This decision, apparently still potential, is a permanent statement of the University about the future of Computer Science. The impression conveyed in the meeting with the Provost and Dean was that we had reached the End of History. Now that everyone has a computer and a spreadsheet and a wordprocessor, the contribution of computing to the life of the mind has been exhausted. I do not write this sarcastically. This was the sense of the meeting.”
http://www.geekwire.com/2011/western-washington-university-c...