|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 09:35 PM EDT |
So what's his solution? The article seems vague, giving very little details of
what is proposed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 10:40 PM EDT |
The "as such" clause was inserted into the NZ bill at the last minute
after submissions on the bill were closed as the result of strenuous lobbying
from US trade representatives at the TPP negotiations. It is clearly intended as
an "emasculating" provision designed to render the software exclusion
ineffective and we all wish it wasn't in there. However things are not quite as
bad as it seems as it isn't certain that the inclusion of this language will
have that effect.
While NZ courts take note of UK precedent they are not obliged to follow it. I
would expect a skeptical eye to be cast on the UK interpretation should this end
up in court. In the UK software can be patented because the courts say
"software" is not "software as such". It isn't certain that
NZ courts will collude with the patent trolls in reaching this bizarre
interpretation.
The NZ bill is not worded in exactly the same way as the UK one leaving room for
the court to make a de novo interpretation. In that case it might well reach the
much saner conclusion that "software" is almost always "software
as such".
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
"To address this, the Linux Foundation bootloader will present its own
splash screen and require user input before it actually boots"
I use wake on LAN to start up one of my computers and then use XDMCP to access
the desktop. How will that work, if the loader requires user input? What about
the servers on UPS that shut down on long power outage and are expected to
restart when power restores?
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:23 AM EDT |
| Is this all that different to what Hogan did? Both flouted very clear
instructions by the judge. We can't compare murder to a civil copyright and "IP"
case, but the degree of disobedience to the court seems to be very similar,
which is surely what counts, not the subject matter of the trial. So should
Hogan go to jail? I have always thought that he should, because in many
countries what he did would be a clear contempt of court, but US courts seem to
be rather lenient in that area, sometimes at least. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- it depends - Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:17 AM EDT
- Descendents? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 10:06 AM EDT
- Descendents? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 10:13 AM EDT
- good points - Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- Descendents? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT
- Link to article - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 10:11 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:19 AM EDT |
There is article about the topic on <a
href="http://betanews.com/2012/10/11/appeals-court-ruling-is-big-trouble-fo
r-apple-and-judge-lucy-koh/">betanews</a>
Link in plaintext:
http://betanews.com/2012/10/11/appeals-court-ruling-is-big-trouble-for-apple-and
-judge-lucy-koh/
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 01:27 PM EDT |
Beeeelllions!
I think this is great! Bury the pig in lipstick! SPEND!!!!
That's beeelions more of their war chest down the drain.
Of course, it means they'll have to ramp up the litigation teams, but they're
going to do that anyway, so now they can do it with a few billion less in
funding.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Microsoft spends BIG on Win8 - Authored by: webster on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 01:43 PM EDT
- 1,500,000,000 - 1,800,000,000 USD, OMG, LOL! - Authored by: albert on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 03:48 PM EDT
- If window 8 is a bust (as it appears to be) - Authored by: jesse on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- The bigger the marketing blitz, the worse the product - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:49 PM EDT |
| Looks like Apple is now also being sued for copyright
infringement over the
marketing materials in relation to the
retina display. Eye Photo [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 12:19 AM EDT |
In yet another case where it becomes blatantly obvious that the examiners at the
Patent Office are eminently unqualified to examine software patents by granting
a patent on cross-table/db SQL/nosql joins. How old is SQL? 1974. Apparently,
I've been violating a major portion of the Microsoft patent since about 1991. Oh
wait, the patent dates to 1995/6, so for those first 4/5 years, I wasn't. Of
course you have to violate all of an independent claim to violate.
I've only ever written two or three such applications. One for a computer
programming class in college in 1992 or 1993. I still have it on a floppy
somewhere. Maybe even a CD. I got an A. But it was super basic. I also had
several AI programming problems in grad school requiring doing some mapping and
joining disparate dbs and overlaying the output. The traveling salesman problem,
for one. Plot the best route on a map for a salesman, given different maps and
different destinations (points of interest).
In fact virtually every PC game with a virtual world violates said patent. Take
for example, PACMan (22 May 1980). Now, I don't know if PACMan was written to
use two databases, but in concept it could have.
Of course Mapquest started violating all the claims back in the mid 1980s, but
didn't put it on the Internet until 1996.
Then of course this applies only to mobile devices. So in Google's case they
violate by allowing people to use an Internet connection to visit their website,
on a mobile device, but as long as no mobile device is allowed to access the
Internet Google is ok. But ,then apparently Apple violates the patent and every
phone and table and laptop also violate. Hey HP! Lenovo! There must be Billions
and Billions of violating devices out there!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- There you go then - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 12:57 AM EDT
- and... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 01:52 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 03:32 AM EDT |
There is prior art for this. Etak displayed POI (Point of Interest) info from
separate db on their maps in their stand-alone navigation units. TomTom (nee
TeleAtlas nee Etak) may even have a patent for it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
Someone, and I do mean as in persons, is really working the
government backdoors. I wonder how much it costs to get the
gov to go after a business that has done nothing to deserve
such attention? People actually get to FREELY CHOOSE to use
Google and its products.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
