$499 3-D Printer Drew Plenty of Attention at CES (Video)
Specifically, it appears to be a translation-and-back-again of the LA Times article which is the first link in the article, or an automated synonym-substitution (trying to avoid being detected as copyright violation for reposting stories in full, perhaps, though strangely they link to the original article at the bottom). The other articles on their site (see Latest USA News sidebar on the right) appear to have undergone the same process.
Ford Will Demo Solar-Charged Car At CES
Your idea will also help people who commute to work, whose cars will not BE under the canopy during most of the daylight hours.
What Will Ubiquitous 3D Printing Do To IP Laws?
But only where there is enough of a market. If you're making and selling tens of thousands of a product, then mass production can work. If you can only sell a hundred of something, or less, the costs in mass producing it and the risk in producing something you may not be able to sell may shift the price advantage to 3D printing.
Jury Finds Google Guilty of Standards-Essential Patents Abuse Against MS
The missing information is that Google bought Motorola Mobility, the Motorola unit involved in this case, in 2011.
Amazon Forbids Crossing State Lines With Rented Textbooks
In addition to this, the idea that $50 to rent or $150 to buy a general chemistry textbook is a "very low" price, as mentioned in the article, also suggests cartel-like price hikes from the textbook makers.
After a User Dies, Apple Warns Against Counterfeit Chargers
If you read the older article linked within the article for this story you will see that the woman who was electrocuted was using an iPhone 4, not an iPhone 5 as was first reported. So this was indeed using the older connector.
British Porn-Censoring MP Has Website Defaced With Porn
Member of Parliament
Microsoft Is Sitting On Six Million Unsold Surface Tablets
Well, I don't know about stupidly low, but a big discount is what this writeoff represents. The estimate of 6 million Surface tablets comes from the $900 million writeoff and the $150 discount which they started offering to educational buyers last month, and are now offering to the general public.
If I search online for my full name...
There are a few other people with my name, and now that the internet is more ubiquitous, some of them actually have some meaningful online presence. Since I don't post on Facebook much, the Facebook result that comes up in the first page of Google results is somebody else. Still, though, more than 80% of the first several pages of results on my firstname+lastname are about me. It was more extreme 10 years ago, when there was the small insurance company that got one result, a college football player with a couple results, and pages and pages of nothing but me.
Personal Audio's James Logan Answers Your Questions
James, you wanted to hear about what the real problems with the patent system are? One of them is the continuation patent.
Back in 1996 you filed for a patent which issued in 2001 as U.S. patent 6,199,076. This actually sounds original for the time; it seems to be a system for providing hyperlinks that could be followed while listening to an audio program, along with a way to jump back to the previous program. Of course, we had those features already in web browsers; whether doing the same thing in an audio program was sufficiently innovative enough to deserve a patent is debatable (and presumably was debated a bit, since it took 5 years for the patent to be issued).
However, that patent in no way describes podcasting, which involves an ability to subscribe to a recurring series of audio programs, including ones not yet issued. That is instead covered by patent 8,112,504, which you filed in 2009 as a "continuation" of the much earlier patent application, one which had, in fact, already been issued as a complete patent for 8 years. Podcasting generally does not (and as far as I know, never does) include the hyperlinking-within-audio-programs feature of the '076 patent. (Yes, each item in a feed includes a hyperlink to where the audio file can be retrieved, but there aren't hyperlinks within those files to other podcasts - not unless they are spoken and you have to type in a URL yourself.) The features of that patent that podcasting programs do include - the ability to select one or more of a set of audio programs to listen to, possibly setting them to repeat, and with the ability to interrupt and redefine the sequence - were available in programmable CD players that already existed when the '076 patent was filed. And none of those features are features of the podcast, but of the podcasting program or hardware device.
The ability to go back and rewrite your old patent to include new features, and claim you invented them back when the old patent was filed (even if, as you noted, you're limited to collect damages on activity after the new version of the patent is issued) is one thing that is broken in the patent system. You basically saw something that people were doing, found an old patent which bore a little similarity, but which didn't have any claims against that activity you could enforce, and rewrote it so it covered the activity, after the fact. This should not be allowed.
Now I realize that there are legitimate reasons for continuations being considered a part of the original application. But you shouldn't be able to introduce new concepts outside the scope of the original patent application in a continuation. This sort of thing should either be rejected outright, or treated as a new application with priority date set to when the new concepts were first filed.
Computer Memory Can Be Read With a Flash of Light
Actually, this is an error in the summary. The article says that it doesn't change state in response to light, but with an applied voltage. It's read with light that doesn't change the polarization state.
White House Announces Reforms Targeting Patent Trolls
If multiple separate parties all try to patent the same thing, then the idea was too obvious to be patented in the first place.
You say that, but exactly this situation has occurred with inventions as original and important as the telephone (1876).
White House Announces Reforms Targeting Patent Trolls
The you clearly haven't read the law.
Section 271 of Title 35:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
The "uses" part covers customers who have bought the infringing product. It is not common to go after the customers but it is legal and there are examples.
As an example of going after customers, see the story about patent trolls extorting money from business who use scan-to-email functionality. There are more recent stories on this subject, but this one from January is what I can find right now.
Moore's Law Fails At NAND Flash Node
Uhhh, the article refers not at all to anything about performance. It refers to the fact that the chip is still using a 19nm process. i.e. the transistors are still 19nm on each side, and because of that, there's the same number of them.
Actually, it doesn't say that. While they are still using a 19 nm process, they found a way to pack them closer together, and hence there are more of them even though they are still the same size as the previous ones. They didn't say how much closer, though. Packing the units of the same size closer together is the kind of thing you can probably only manage to get useful improvement out of once. Then they'll probably make the chips bigger once, to deliver more transistors. This sounds like the stopgap things you do when the next smaller process won't work, or is too expensive, and they are already talking about stacking them in 3D as the next improvement. But adding another dimension has huge potential. Imagine how many layers you could stack in a 1 mm-high chip if each layer consisted of a 19 nm-thick circuit and a 19 nm-thick insulator.
I don't think this is really a Moore's Law failure. More like a hiccup, as the new technology needed to continue the growth of Moore's Law gets built up - as has happened multiple times in the decades since Moore stated his famous law.
Scientists Study Getting an Unwanted Tune Out of Your Head
From the article:
Some of the easiest songs to get stuck in your head (as used by the researchers)
Alejandro – Lady Gaga
Bad Romance – Lady Gaga
Call me Baby – Carly Rae Jepsen.
Single Ladies – Beyoncé
She Loves You – The Beatles
I Wanna Hold Your Hand – The Beatles
She Loves You – The Beatles
SOS – Rihanna
You Belong with Me – Taylor Swift
Apparently She Loves You is such a catchy song that it gets stuck in your head twice.
Bitcoin To Be Regulated Under US Money Laundering Laws
Then donate $1.
Life's cool up here in my Mansion tower.
And that is exactly the problem with this regulation. If transactions of more than $N into and/or out of bitcoins must be reported, criminals will keep their transactions under $N. They can create as many bitcoin accounts as they want. As long as they get the money into different US dollar accounts before buying bitcoins with it, there is nothing to tie the transactions together, and they won't be reported.
We Should Be Allowed To Unlock Everything We Own
Actually both industries believe that ripping to another format is illegal. The music industry just at some point realized that calling all their customers criminals and suing joe downloader into bankruptcy wasn't going to guilt them into buying cds again.
"Believe," sure. But the difference in Jason Levine's example comes from the fact that DVDs are encrypted. This is considered an "access control" protecting a copyrighted work. Even though the password to this encryption is now public information, the DMCA makes it illegal to rip to another format, even when you don't distribute it. CDs have no such access control. While copyright law still applies to music, the DMCA does not apply, and the type of copy Jason describes falls under the fair use exception in copyright law as interpreted by just about everybody outside of the RIAA.
This is much the same with cell phone unlocking. You know (or can find out without too much effort) how to unlock your cell phone, but the DMCA prohibits actually doing it. The only difference is that there was, for a while, an exception to the DMCA permitted for unlocking cell phones. (See the previous slashdot story linked in the summary for an explanation of why this exception expired.)
The Patents That Threaten 3-D Printing
This comes up every now and then, and it honestly looks like the majority of 3d printing patents are legitimate, original inventions that the owners created.
Take the "soluble print materials that support a structure whie it's being printed"; that's genius, I would never have come up with that.
I agree that the soluble print materials one is quite likely valid, a patent on an ingenious choice of materials that makes 3-D printing possible. This is an innovative field, and this patent is old enough to possibly be able to legitimately claim to have invented this idea and not be invalidated by prior art.
However, the patent linked in the summary on distributed rapid prototyping does not appear to have been granted, only filed (almost 6 years ago), and no doubt is having some trouble getting accepted due to broadness, prior art, and other considerations. This patent does not even appear to cover any specific 3-D printing method, but just the general process of setting up a service to produce 3-D models, and as such, should be invalidated due to being an obvious adaptation of services for conventional (2-D) printing into a new market for 3-D printing given the availability of 3-D printers.
The MIT patent is expired. It is more than 17 years since issue and more than 20 years since filing. The article says this one is "on the brink of expiration" so I assume it was written sometime last year when the patent was still valid. But it was very likely valid until it expired, and another innovation that helped establish the field.
The article contains some other possibly valid patents, e.g., the smoothing one (if there is not prior art), the temperature control one from 2004, and possibly the filament coil one if their methods for keeping the filament feed smooth and/or automatically switching spools are really original. The summary just chose (2 out of 3) bad examples out of the article which stretched a bit to make a "top 10" list.
Ask Slashdot: What Is Your Favorite Monitor For Programming?
Square monitors. This reminds me of the IBM RT workstation. Back around 1991 when IBM was discontinuing this model, my university got a bunch of these cheap and used them to add seats in the Unix lab. For whatever reason they were set up for 1024x1024 resolution, with large color CRTs that has a special switch along with the usual image size/position/tint controls. This switch flipped between the image filling the screen and only filling a square section in the middle of the screen, so that you could get square pixels. Not exactly a square monitor (more akin to an earlier poster's suggestion to apply duct tape...) but supported in hardware!
LibreOffice 4 Released
He refers to this story, though we've only heard that MS plans to release Office on Linux, not that you can already pre-order it.
devjoe has no journal entries.