thisthisthis

It should have been invalidated in the course of the trial, but we have a wonderful notion of presumed validity.

Instead we just went through both an expensive lawsuit and a re-exam procedure for a patent that never should have been filed and hence never should have issued.

It begs the question: How often are damages paid for "infringement" of invalid claims?

Lawyers made money. The USPTO made money.

Businesses lost money, not to mention time.

Anyone who is paying licensing fees for Apple's bogus pinch to zoom patent, you can stop paying now. Thanks for playing.

It would be interesting to know what FB (or Twitter, for that matter) tells its advertisers about how they can purportedly control the appearance of commercial content to the user. Are they upfront about the realities and the risks? Are they leading the advertisers on? Are advertisers well-informed? What would advertisers have to say about the existence client-side options that can easily manipulate content to the user's preferences? It would be interesting to know.

Facebook has no control over a user's browser. The most they can do is randomly ban users, like this guy.

The truth is this is something no website can control. If I want to view FB via a local proxy on my device that filters out commercial garbage, I can do so. And I can show any of my friends how to do the same. A little tcpserver, tcpclient and sed and we can clean things up quite nicely, with minimal fuss.

These attempts to control how someone views a website (e.g. see Twitter's recent efforts) are futile. This is digital, not print. A social website is mainly just text (html) and various resource files (e.g. images), it is all malleable in digital form and there are myriad ways to process it and render it, of which the Facebook developers' choice or a popular web browser developers' choice are only a few.

You have to wonder if FB's legal team even understands what is technically feasible and what isn't (like controlling how a page is viewed, on the client side).

What is DNT? Can we differentiate between the idea and the implementation?

As an idea I think DNT is quite strong. Do you agree?

Of course the implementation is incredibly weak, but isn't that a separate issue?

The "right" attitude is an expression, a figure of speech. There is no universal definition. It is a way of stating an opinion of approval. But many people might agree on a similar definition based on a set of facts. Some might disagree. It's up to you, not me.

As for AVTizzle, you could be right. Then again you could be wrong. He wrote what he wrote. He chose a certain tone. I interpreted what he wrote. And I drew conclusions about his attitude.

As one would do with any comment, such as the top one.

You can either agree or disagree with my conclusions. As I can with yours.

Regardless of whether my mind is educated, I've followed Aristotle's idea. I've entertained the thoughts in your comment, however I do not accept them.

It's the AVTizzle's that make things difficult for the young people in the article. He's right about one thing: it's not about money or jobs. It's about attitude.

The top poster has the right attitude.

But many people who are in a position to help others cannot because, while they may be able to manage many things, they cannot manage to adopt the right attitude. They will never be generous. They will never help the less fortunate.

I don't know how to define success in the general sense that it is often used in the context of careers (As the great New Orleans songwriter Allen Toussaint asked: What is Success?), but in my view generous people are successful. They have succeeded in adopting the right attitude.