Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Software Patents Are Crumbling, Thanks To the Supreme Court

American Patent Guy Re:Alice does nothing to stop software patents (118 comments)

I would be pleased to offer you a reply to your unsupported mastications, but unfortunately I require that I be paid in advance.

Apparently you don't understand how lawyering works: the greater the controversy, the more people involved want us to work for them. With views such as yours out there, I'm confident I'll have work for a long, long time...

4 days ago
top

US Patent Office Seeking Consultant That Can Stamp Out Fraud By Patent Examiners

American Patent Guy OMG! (124 comments)

USPTO officials also told congressional investigators that they are seeking an outside consulting firm to advise them on how managers can improve their monitoring of more than 8,000 patent examiners. The Patent Examiners union responded to the original Washington Post report with a statement that includes this line: "If 'thousands' of USPTO employees were not doing their work, it would be impossible for this agency to be producing the best performance in recent memory and, perhaps, in its entire 224 year history."

STUPID! This problem was solved years ago: when people commit fraud, you send them to a jail cell! The few overt miscreants suffer, while the rest are given cause to think twice. These officials are doing nothing more than complaining how hard their jobs are and setting up a smokescreen for their incompetence.

And ... I'd really like to know by what standard the patent examiners claim to "be producing the best performance in recent memory". Their memory doesn't seem to be terribly reliable...

When you really want to find misery, look first to the bureaucrats...

about two weeks ago
top

Liquid Sponges Extract Hydrogen From Water

American Patent Guy Next... (113 comments)

someone needs to engineer a conversion unit that is safe from accidents. This process relies upon a controlled release of hydrogen from the solvent by a careful (and small) reaction with a catalyst. If the catalyst component were suddenly submerged in the liquid solvent (such as might happen if a car bumper forced the component through a containment wall), there would be an uncontrolled release of hydrogen that would be accelerated from any heat resulting from combustion of that hydrogen.

Gasoline doesn't combust if a spark plug is dropped in...

about two weeks ago
top

Software Patents Are Crumbling, Thanks To the Supreme Court

American Patent Guy Alice does nothing to stop software patents (118 comments)

The Alice decision stops the patenting of certain methods of using software (which some of you above are calling "business methods") that are not limited to certain computer configurations. An invention that includes a computer having software configured to perform certain well-defined steps is still patentable subject matter. The submitter (walterbyrd) and many others of you posting here apparently don't understand the distinction.

I will have no problem getting my clients patents to software inventions in light of the Alice decision. (Yes, I'm a patent attorney.)

Those of you who are software developers will actually be harmed by this incorrect point of view: investors like guarantees of return on their investment. If there's no possibility of collecting royalties for innovative developments, the money will go elsewhere.

From time to time I am disgusted by the patents issued by the USPTO: it's apparent someone wasn't diligently examining the case. Do you want less patent trolls out there? Then get Congress to throw some more money toward the USPTO specifically for the purpose of hiring competent people to do the examination. (I've corresponded with many examiners from overseas and apparently fresh out of college, some of which could barely speak English. I've got nothing against foreigners, but please lets hire people who can read and understand the subject matter of the patent applications.)

about two weeks ago
top

UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

American Patent Guy Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (427 comments)

Ah, a rational point of view!

I myself have been accused of being a "global warming denier". I don't deny at all that either average global temperature or CO2 is increasing: what I do deny is that any of these pundits can show that these changes are meaningful to me or anyone else. Yet again we hear the drumbeat of the UN chicken-littles: (from the article)

“We know without any doubt ... our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “...We are running out of time ... The laws of physics are non-negotiable ... Pleading ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not acting,” said Mr Jarraud.

What I have not seen, Mr. Jarraud, is any proof that "extreme" climate changes you shout about are actually going to happen. You can't even point to, with any certainty, a few tenths of a degree at some location on the planet that supports your global warming theories. I don't have beachfront property: if the ocean rises by a few inches I won't care. If my temperature warms by a degree or two, my response will be ... so? Someone will cry out about rainfall change, and I will ask: how are you going to stop that from changing?

There is a wonderful, clean energy source that is available right now with a well-developed and reliable technology. It's called "nuclear power". The generators can be located well away from population centers, and they can be located far underground to shield them from attack. The fuel is practically inexaustible: it's a by-product of mining operations on-going and in the past. The waste product is solid, and will not pollute the environment. The electricity that it provides can be used to generate hydrogen or other hydrogen compounds that can be used as fuel for a fuel-cell or simply burned, which waste products can be easily returned to the environment in the forms they naturally occur. Having such technologies available makes the people using it independent from exporters of coal, oil and natural gas.

Here we read all kinds of rude comments using words beginning with "f", "s" and other words. If we could convince the population that the word that begins with "n" is a good one, then perhaps the stupidity expressed by Mr. Jarraud and his crowd could be silenced.

about two weeks ago
top

Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US

American Patent Guy Re:This does not bother me (237 comments)

The feds do it directly in Washington D.C., in the nationally managed parks, on federally-funded highways and on military posts. They do it indirectly through taxation and regulation.

The idea that the government (federal or state) cannot control something not enumerated in the constitution is a fairy tale. It should be obvious: the meaning behind the combination of letters on any page is not intrinsically sufficient -- the meaning ultimately lies in the minds of those who hold those words to be valuable.

about three weeks ago
top

Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US

American Patent Guy Re:This does not bother me (237 comments)

I'm not a troll nor am I thick. I'm a licensed IP attorney.

If a person does not take reasonable precautions to keep their communications private, then a judge will consider it to be public. The burden lies on the person desiring the privacy, not on the millions of people who could potentially be exposed to his accidental or negligent disclosure.

When a person selects a communication medium for their information, they accept all the limitations that come with it. For cell phone traffic, that means having it exposed to ears having the right equipment. Do you and I (having cell phones) accept these limitations? Apparently yes, because we use the medium. If we truly want privacy, then we can meet in a secure room, or we can communicate by passing writings, or we can use an encrypted link having privately exchanged keys beforehand.

The fact that a higher technical skill or more work is needed doesn't really help your argument. Pick your technology ... I'll tell you of a time when equipment became publicly available to intercept it, or I'll argue that I can hire someone to do it for me. And again ... there is no such thing as "wireless wiretapping". I don't have to touch or physically connect with (trespass) your medium to intercept a wireless communication. You're broadcasting it for all to receive who have the capability.

about three weeks ago
top

Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US

American Patent Guy Re:This does not bother me (237 comments)

Hey, I'm not trying to tell you what the law ought to be, nor am I trying to say what is moral. I'm just trying to clarify what it actually is. The examples you give are arguably lawful conduct.

If you want control of your personal information (you want to keep it private), don't look to Uncle Sam to protect you.

about three weeks ago
top

Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US

American Patent Guy Re:This does not bother me (237 comments)

In which case they aren't intercepting any communications. If the police seize your phone out of your pocket, then they are invading your person. If that invasion is unreasonable, then it is against the 4th amendment. Here were talking about an invasion that is so insignificant that you don't even know it happened.

about three weeks ago
top

Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US

American Patent Guy Re:This does not bother me (237 comments)

I already showed in two other comments that the 4th Amendment doesn't cover your wireless conversations. You can say over and over again that the 4th Amendment prohibits that, but without any supporting law you have only empty argument.

The DMCA is statutory law, not constitutional law. What I said is still correct even in the face of your argument: there is no constitutional right to privacy that prohibits the feds (or anyone else) from intercepting your cell phone communications.

The "intent" of someone to have a private communication is irrelevant. If a person uses an insecure means of communication, anyone with a view can see it and will not be protected by the law. Your "private letter" in your mailbox isn't in an envelope, and isn't inside a mailbox: it is open for anyone to see (particularly the mail carrier -- who clearly has the right to read anything unsealed in his duties to deliver the mail.)

You require an explicit recitation of rights, and at the same time you don't. You can't have it both ways...

about three weeks ago
top

Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US

American Patent Guy Re:This does not bother me (237 comments)

If under your cell phone protocol I can put up my own private cell phone tower and fool your phone into using it, then it can't be very secure, now can it?

Cell phones use well-known protocols that are easy to decode if you have the entire communication. You might not be able to decode a single packet in isolation, but if you have them all you can decode the entire conversation. The "encryption key" you refer to (which is really a decryption key) is transferred as one of the first packets of data. It's like shouting to your traveling companion standing across a lobby the combination code on your hotel door lock.

There is a state law that prohibits entry into your hotel room without your permission, regardless of whether or not it is locked. You have a property right in that space when you rent it. The public airwaves are not something you can own: there is no property right there and correspondingly nothing that you can be "secured" in. I think that's the important difference.

about three weeks ago
top

Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US

American Patent Guy Re:This does not bother me (237 comments)

Oh, I get it. Since the Constitution doesn't enumerate a right for the police to sit in front of my house and conduct surveillance, they're acting unconstitutionally. Good luck with that argument the next time you get a traffic citation...

If these towers are sitting on federal land (such as military bases), then they can't be infringing upon your personal rights. (The federal government can have property rights, too.) If these towers are sitting on state-managed land, then their use is governed either by a constitutionally-enumerated federal right or by state law. (I'm not sure that you noticed this, but your statement of the Bill of Rights refers to the rights of the "federal government". That is because there is a separate state law that exists independently of the federal constitution and Bill of Rights. If you don't see something enumerated in the Constitution, that doesn't mean the law is void on that subject; it means you have to consider other sources of law.)

about three weeks ago
top

Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US

American Patent Guy Re:This does not bother me (237 comments)

Let's see:

Is a cell phone transmission part of one's "person"? No.
Is a cell phone transmission part of one's house? No.
Is a cell phone transmission part of one's papers? No.
Is a cell phone transmission part of one's effects? No.
Is a cell phone transmission part of one's mail? No.

How then is monitoring openly broadcasted radio transmissions unconstitutional, exactly?

(The issue of whether or not the military can or is opening the mail is entirely separate: the mail is at least put in a secure enclosure ... otherwise it couldn't be "opened".)

about three weeks ago
top

Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US

American Patent Guy Re:This does not bother me (237 comments)

There is no U.S. constitutional right to privacy.

Yes there is. It is contained in implications of and the relationships between the 4th, 9th and 14th amendments. See Griswold v. Connecticut for more details.

No, there isn't. The case law you refer to defines aspects of privacy in the "penumbra" of other rights. Now, I can define any term I want to any way I want to and, if it appears in a Supreme Court case, it instantly becomes "the law" to those who want it to be. The "right to privacy" that Griswold discusses is the right individuals have to control aspects of their lives (such as the use of contraception). Griswold does not grant any right to keep the government from peering in your open windows, following you around town or reading your postcards you put in the mail.

Perhaps the most supportive case you have is Mapp v. Ohio: http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup... ... and that says that the government can't invade your SECURED residence to collect evidence. If you leave the information or the evidence in the open (as you're doing when you broadcast your cell phone conversations), you aren't protected by that decision. If you walk out to the street and shout a message to the world, there is no "right to privacy" granted by the Constitution you can use to keep anyone from hearing and recording it.

May I suggest to you that the flaw in your lack of "privacy" lies in the technology, and not in the law as it presently stands? Do you want privacy? Then demand it from your communications carrier, or see that you implement any necessary encryption yourself.

about three weeks ago
top

Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US

American Patent Guy Re:This does not bother me (237 comments)

The government can only do what the constitution says it can. The constitution is not a list of rights that citizens have, but a list of powers that the government has. Therefore, there is a constitutional right to privacy unless explicitly stated otherwise.

And by the same logic the government can't stop you from driving your car on the public roads or from selling narcotics on the corner.

This is particularly true where your communications are broadcast in the clear for the world to receive.

Oh, fuck off. I damn well expect the government to not listen to my communications. And say, "Well, it would be pretty easy to listen to your conversation!" doesn't mean that it's moral to do so. My conversation is between me and the person I'm talking to. It's not public just because it's transmitted in the clear, and people like you with a such a privacy-hostile mentality are the cause of things such as the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, and warrantless wiretapping in general.

I will choose to "fuck off" behind closed doors. You apparently want to fuck off in the street and expect everyone else to turn away or go to jail. If you want to post your conversations in public places, then you can't reasonably expect them to be private, even under the color of your warped sense of morality. (Let me help you to notice the obvious: there is no wire to wiretap where a cell phone is used.) I'm not hostile to privacy at all: I am hostile to idiots like you who won't take it upon yourself to understand the law and protect yourself under it.

If a policeman wants to stand on the corner listening to public conversations, he gets to.

Not if We The People say that that is not okay and punish the government if it does such things. We can place any limitation upon the government that we want.

Well, "we the people" have not said that in the Constitution or anywhere else that I know of. You're living in a fantasy. If you care about your privacy, then take the responsibility upon yourself to protect it and stop pointing the finger and an institution that is apparently acting legally.

about three weeks ago
top

Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US

American Patent Guy Re:This does not bother me (237 comments)

There is no U.S. constitutional right to privacy. This is particularly true where your communications are broadcast in the clear for the world to receive. (You do know that's what your cell phone does, right?)

In the U.S. your right to privacy, to the extent you have one, is granted by statute. Your constitutional right to be secure in your person keeps the government from reaching into your pocket, not from listening to your public ramblings.

If a policeman wants to stand on the corner listening to public conversations, he gets to. If you don't want the government listening to your conversations, the solution is for you to make them secure by means of having them in private rooms and/or with encryption (from both a legal and a technical standpoint). The government doesn't have to implement your fantasies...

about three weeks ago
top

Ask Slashdot: the State of Free Video Editing Tools?

American Patent Guy Re:It still sucks. (163 comments)

I use Magix all the time and have for years. It has the best UI of any video editor that I've used and its cost is very reasonable. It'll burn DVDs, has multi-core support, includes lots of audio and video effects, and will let you construct your own menus and titles in whatever fonts/colors/etc. you want. It will crash if it's fed an improperly formatted MPEG file. Once passed through the convert function of VLC media player, Magix accepts anything.

Free software that doesn't do what you want is worth what you paid for it...

about three weeks ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

American Patent Guy Re:More urgent? (708 comments)

I do indeed find it interesting how these reports "leak" out every month or so. It does fit with an agenda under-supporting these reports ... after all the press releases can be orchestrated nicely when the content of the reports is known beforehand.

... not that anyone at the U.N. has an undisclosed agenda or anything ...

about a month ago
top

Chile Earthquake Triggered Icequakes In Antarctica

American Patent Guy Re:An explanation other than global warming? (21 comments)

Neither can the global warming nuts say that the ice coming off of Antarctica is conclusively caused by global warming. I don't need to say that "no" ice fractures were caused by global warming.

This definitely does say something about the theories of global warming: it shows they are not at certain as their propoundents would like us to believe.

about a month ago
top

Chile Earthquake Triggered Icequakes In Antarctica

American Patent Guy An explanation other than global warming? (21 comments)

Imagine that ... there's another explanation to Antarctic ice depletion other than global warming. Oh, and further yet, it's natural. Chilean earthquake causes ice fractures, and fractures cause movement in the ice.

Perhaps the sky isn't falling?

about a month ago

Submissions

American Patent Guy hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

American Patent Guy has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>