Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
That's disappointing. More than 24 hours after submitting my e-mail address to them, the offer is over and my link never arrived.Same here. Can you IM me the lady so I can follow through as well? Thanks.
Good thing I didn't pay for it.-Deozaan (July 12, 2010, 10:21 PM)
New album: http://www.shupe.net...ct_info.php?idnum=63 Brand New Shoes
(see attachment in previous post)
$12.95PostHeeHawFunkadelicHipHopNewGrass in its finest form!-Curt (July 12, 2010, 03:04 AM)
Anyway, there are a couple of patent system reforms I think are fairly critical.- Agreed
#1: "Open source" the patent review process. Anyone can submit a patent and once submitted they have first chance at being granted one, but like any patent their application must be reviewed for prior art, uniqueness of the invention, etc. This should be judged by the population at large, not by a relatively few patent evaluators who couldn't possibly individually have the education necessary to properly evaluate every patent. Imagine the Wikipedia model being applied to patent evaluation. 90% of patents would probably be thrown out within a week, either because there is significant prior art out there (nothing is better at finding prior art than "the crowd"), or because the invention is obvious and can be demonstrated to be so.-JavaJones (July 11, 2010, 04:04 PM)
#2: Incentivize the *application* of patented ideas. Or, to look at it another way, discourage or penalize those who patent something and don't actually implement it in a product or service. This would address a multitude of patent-driven ills, from "patent trolls" who survive solely off litigation (contributing nothing whatsoever positive to society), to large companies who buy up patents that threaten their business model or products and just sit on them. The question of course is how to incentivize patent use. Various fee structures or "patent taxes" have been discussed which could potentially do this, and this ties in to the next point.- Agreed x 10.-JavaJones (July 11, 2010, 04:04 PM)
#3: Restructure the fees to reward single/first-time filers and increase costs for those who spam the system or are large patent holders. In other words if you have 1 patent, filing is free or cheap. If you are filing for your 5th patent, it's $1,000. Filing for you 10th? $10,000. 20th? $50,000. It's not a linear scale, it should go up quickly, perhaps even exponentially, and by the time you're looking at your 100th patent, let alone 1000th, it should give even large corporations pause to think just how valuable a given patent really is. Some might argue that there are a few highly prolific inventors who would be hurt by this, but A: many of those inventions might be invalidated if some of these other rules were in effect and B: how many of those prolific patenters actually do anything with most of thier parents? (see #3)- No. There are too many legitimate situations where multiple patents would be required, unless there was a way to use these multiple patents (even if held by other patent-holders) for specific and unique ideas. Many specialized engineering firms come to mind. They create a very complex machine, but to properly patent it, they must patent all subsystems as well or they become subject to patent infringement by using these subsystems that mimic other patents in form or function even if it isn't with the same intent or purpose. Moreover (in a worst case scenario), without patenting these subsystems, someone else can come in, patent the subsystem, and after approval, they can extract royalties for the subsystem they didn't even invent - they just saw it and found it unpatented.-JavaJones (July 11, 2010, 04:04 PM)
#4: Patent term reform. 20 years, which is the generally agreed upon standard these days due to TRIPS, WTO, etc. is just too long. The world moves too fast. 10 years would be better, but even that is questionable. The period should basically be long enough to bring the most complex possible individually patentable invention to market, and to capitalize on it for a few years at most. Personally I think anything more than 2 or 3 years of market *exclusivity* is unnecessary. If you figure the development of very complex technology may take 3 or 4 years to bring to market, and then add on 2-3 years for sales exclusivity, then perhaps 6-8 years makes more sense. I'd be OK seeing 10.- I am split on this and think it should be part of the patent process. There should be a review of recoverability (or whatever you want to call it) and it should be based on that. In some cases, 20 years may seem particularly short, in other cases, 5 years may be ridiculously long. Remember, the invention is designed and ready before the patent process begins, so you should be able to bring it to market long before the patent is awarded - that is what the Patent Pending means. Also remember that Patent Pending provides most of the same protections as the actual patent until such time as it is denied. I would like to see Patent Pending get it's own lifespan of less than a year (far too many companies take advantage of it by prolonging the pending as long as possible before starting the clock!).-JavaJones (July 11, 2010, 04:04 PM)
#5: Patent maintenance fees, which already exist, should be extracted yearly rather than every few years, and should also depend on the number of patents held. If you have 100 patents, your maintenance fees are higher.- Agreed on the yearly but flat rate. See above on the other part of the topic.-JavaJones (July 11, 2010, 04:04 PM)
#6: Life forms should not be patentable. Period. Neither should business methods or software. Anything that is subject to copyright should not also be patentable (e.g. software).- Agreed! Also w/ regard to software, I believe the copyright should only be on the product and not the code structures. While it is easy to rebrand a product and keep the same code, by patenting code structures you prevent use outside of your protected area which is just wrong. It creates situations where far too many people have to create far too much (often bloated) code for no good reason. Moreover, it is difficult to prove outside of open source that the code blocks were used, and even harder to prove they were used knowingly since there are only so many ways you can structure a code segment to accomplish any given task.-JavaJones (July 11, 2010, 04:04 PM)
I've read a couple of chapters from Simply Javascript (they were giving away two chapters as a PDF download a while back, it might be worth investigating if they still are), and from what I've seen it is a fantastic book for today's Javascript beginner, a necessary update to the pile of now-worthless Javascript books that popped up during the document.writeln era.The two chapters are still available (as always, this is how they reel you in). It says on the site they are available at the discount until they are knocked out of the running. So if you want this one and believe Spain will win, rather jQuery will win
So does this mean the books are on are sale until they are eliminated, or does it mean when there is a winner, there is a sale? (EDIT: Never mind, I read the first post, and I see it is a little of both. And a freebie!)
-daddydave (July 09, 2010, 08:07 AM)
, then you will want to buy it now while it is 83% off ($4.95 USD). Note, however, this is ONLY for the PDF versions. IF you want a hardcopy, you will either need to print it yourself (if it is not prohibited) or pay the full price for the book. )
Yep. Pretty much. Right on target and more or less the implication that the TheQuerty had.
Isn't this where I supply the same argument that was raised in the Kindle vs Nook pricing thread?-wraith808 (July 08, 2010, 11:07 AM)
At some point the insanity really needs to end. But when will that be?I always thought of the delicious irony of patenting patents and/or the patenting process...
I still want to patent breathing...-Renegade (July 07, 2010, 07:20 AM)
Do any of these programs/services allow one person (me) to serve as the host but which do NOT require the guests (everyone else) to download software or register on a website to participate?In short, the answer is no. I did see a screencast from a vendor that used a microsoft product that appeared to not require any downloads, but it did require you already have Microsoft Media Player installed. (Unfortunately I don't know the name of the product that they used.) I think your best bet is something like (dare I suggest it *shudder*) Webex for your situation. I like others better, but Webex is the best supported for multi-watching environments.-jdd (September 08, 2007, 08:56 AM)
Of course not, but that's not how you'd sell it anyhow. They'd sell it to you, the distributor, and then you'd price it pretty much however you like and sell it to the consumer. The app stores are a different distribution model more like consignment shops.Not so. Apple will not sell it to you at all unless you agree to their marketing terms which include telling you how much you can charge for it, how much you will buy it for, and how you are allowed to market it.-TheQwerty (July 07, 2010, 08:16 PM)
If you have a cell phone with [free] long-distance, you can do what I do when I need to send a fax. I simply forward my cell phone to the fax number and then fax to my cell phone number (which is a local call but forwarded on to the fax number). It works a treat for me on the rare occasion I need to send a fax since I don't keep long-distance on my house's landline.How do you do that from your computer? This sounds neat, but I don't quite get where it converts from a file to a fax? Is this in your phone or do you use something to convert it to a fax before you forward it to the phone? If it is the latter, what do you use to convert it?-skwire (July 08, 2010, 02:22 AM)
Well, it's bad enough that a program is counterintuitive enough to require going to the help file, now I'm telling people the interface is so horrible they have to watch a movie to figure out how to use it. And with a help file ideally they can hopefully glance at it and get on with their work. You can't skim a video. In that way it is respectful of the user's time. That was my thinking, but I know not everyone thinks the same way, that's why I was asking.This is my mind exactly. Screencasts as help files is the lazy way out because it never helps! It shows one persons' thought on how something should be implemented without a thought to my needs as the customer/user. I could care less about using fancywidget's video capabilities, yet that is all the screencast shows! No, it is a great marketing idea, but marketing and help are two totally different things.
I did have in mind to do a screencast, but mainly for the benefit for those trying to figure out what it is and whether it was worth downloading. And some how-to screencasts as well, but not as a replacement for the help file.-daddydave (July 08, 2010, 05:56 AM)
