×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech

sanchom Re:And this is how perverted our system has gotten (436 comments)

That is simply restating that you disagree with the outcome. That is too broad to be able to have a discussion about. What part of the opinion that led to that outcome do you disagree with? Where in their line of reasoning did they err?

about three weeks ago
top

Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech

sanchom Re:And this is how perverted our system has gotten (436 comments)

> Only because the Supreme Court is, and has always been, corrupt. Let's focus on the argument and not the people making it. What part of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire do you disagree with?

about three weeks ago
top

Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech

sanchom Re:And this is how perverted our system has gotten (436 comments)

The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute.

That statement is not consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence. There are limitations on many rights listed in the Constitution. For example, the first amendment has been held *not* to give you the right to incite violence. (See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.)

So either the Constitution is absolute or it is not

The answer is that it is not. Interpretation of the constitution comes down to a balancing act between competing rights.

It should have absolutely no influence in a court case between two individuals.

True. That's why this is about the *government's* prosecution of one individual and whether the elements of the crime were actually established.

about three weeks ago
top

The Flaw Lurking In Every Deep Neural Net

sanchom Not trying to mimic the brain. (230 comments)

> how is it so different from the neural networks that are trying to mimic it? These neural networks are not trying to mimic the brain.

about 7 months ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Communication With Locked-in Syndrome Patient?

sanchom Science-based medicine, brain-machine interfaces (552 comments)

"Communicating with the Locked-In" by Yale Neuroscientist and scientific skeptic, Steven Novella: http://www.sciencebasedmedicin...

It discusses the science (imaging, brain-machine interfaces) vs pseudoscience (facilitated communication) relating to communicating with the locked in.

about 6 months ago
top

Could Slashdot (Or Other Private Entity) Sue a Spy Agency Like GCHQ Or NSA?

sanchom Re:Functionally, No. (188 comments)

Functionally, this just means you have to sue the department head responsible for the execution of the practice in question. See Clapper v. Amnesty International, for example. They didn't sue the NSA, they sued the director of national intelligence, James Clapper.

about a year ago
top

Could Slashdot (Or Other Private Entity) Sue a Spy Agency Like GCHQ Or NSA?

sanchom Re:A trademark claim might not be the best (188 comments)

Trademark infringment is not a subset of fraud. Trademark law came out of the tort of passing off, which originally was a descendant of fraud/deceit, but they're now different in that fraud happens between the lier and the listener; trademark infringement happens between the lier and the owner of the mark that they co-opt. It isn't a subset-superset relationship anymore.

about a year ago
top

Could Slashdot (Or Other Private Entity) Sue a Spy Agency Like GCHQ Or NSA?

sanchom Re:No Standing (188 comments)

Ya, without proof, the website owners are in the same situation as Amnesty International et al. in Amnesty International v. Clapper. You'd have to wait until the US tried to use such evidence in court.

about a year ago
top

Could Slashdot (Or Other Private Entity) Sue a Spy Agency Like GCHQ Or NSA?

sanchom Re:A trademark claim might not be the best (188 comments)

Trademark law originated as the common law tort of passing off. Passing off is *like* fraud, but differs in that fraud requires proof of damages, while passing off/trademark infringement does not require proof of damages. Passing off/trademark infringement is what the intellectual property owners could sue for. Fraud is what the end-users could sue for.

about a year ago
top

Taking the Battle Against Patent Trolls To the Public

sanchom Re:Just a thought (107 comments)

If you didn't implement it, you didn't invent it.

I meant implement for mass market production. I may have the resources to build a working model, or a proof-of-concept, but not the resources to bring the invention to market.

If you didn't implement it, you didn't invent it.

That is not consistent with patent law.

about a year ago
top

Taking the Battle Against Patent Trolls To the Public

sanchom Re:Just a thought (107 comments)

The USPTO introduced a micro-entity status that lowers the filing fee for a patent application to $70, $180 for the examination, and $445 for issuance. Just because I can pay $700 doesn't mean I have the means to implement my invention.

about a year ago
top

Taking the Battle Against Patent Trolls To the Public

sanchom Re:Just a thought (107 comments)

IMHO, you do not deserve compensation for coming up with an idea unless you also spend years building a worthwhile implementation.

Patents don't reward the coming-up-with of an idea. They reward the disclosure of that idea.

and patents should only last 3-5 years (about twice as long as it takes to develop a competing implementation).

This is not universally true. It might take 10-12 years to clear the regulatory hurdles in the pharmaceutical industry.

about a year ago
top

Taking the Battle Against Patent Trolls To the Public

sanchom Re:They're not trolls (107 comments)

This is mostly an argument for raising the bar on the non-obviousness requirement.

However, even if concurrent discovery is common, that may only be because of the concurrent incentive to discovery. Any of the hard-working, innovative, inventors could come up with the invention. Each is being spurred on by the promise of the exclusive right waiting at the end of the tunnel. Just because one gets to the patent office before the other doesn't mean that the patent didn't provide the incentive to do the work.

about a year ago
top

Taking the Battle Against Patent Trolls To the Public

sanchom Re:They're not trolls (107 comments)

Perhaps, but the question Zontar asked was how the clause provides justification for the current patent regime.

about a year ago
top

Taking the Battle Against Patent Trolls To the Public

sanchom Re:Software a special case (107 comments)

So, in other words, patenting an algorithm is as simple as adding "on a computer" after it, thus making it a process.

It's not that simple. In Gottschalk v. Benson, the US Supreme Court considered a method for binary conversion, and said: "The mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer, which means that if the judgment below is affirmed, the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself."

The idea is that the patent claim must "add “significantly more” to the basic principle, with the result that the claim covers significantly less." If the patent claim is co-extensive with an unpatentable algorithm, the claim is not eligible for patent.

What "significantly more" means, and what it means for an invention to be coextensive with an unpatentable abstract idea (mathematical formula, or algorithm) are points under contention at the CAFC right now. I expect this to reach the Supreme Court for clarification in the near future.

about a year ago
top

Taking the Battle Against Patent Trolls To the Public

sanchom Re:Just a thought (107 comments)

Then, how do I, as a poor inventor without the means to implement my invention, how would I be rewarded for revealing my invention to the world?

I would normally just sell the patent to an entity with the resources to actually develop the patent. If I can't transfer the patent, then I hold an exclusive right that I don't even have the resources to protect. I'll never cash in. I'd probably just keep the invention secret and not tell anyone.

However, if patents are transferable, like they are right now, I would have incentive to publish my invention in a patent in exchange for the exclusive right to make, sell, or use it. Then, I'd sell that right to somebody else who could bring it to market or have the legal resources to run a proper licencing scheme. I'd get rewarded for my invention. The public would get the knowledge of the invention. And the invention may be more likely to reach market.

about a year ago
top

Taking the Battle Against Patent Trolls To the Public

sanchom Re:They're not trolls (107 comments)

How do you know that "the only way a patent troll makes money is if someone willing to actually make the thing has the same idea"? Patents are published, so the person willing to implement the invention could have just read the published patent and decided they want to make it. That is one of the mechanisms that patents promote the progress of science and useful arts: the public gives the inventor an exclusive right (which they can assign or licence), and the inventor gives the public his/her knowledge. It's a trade.

about a year ago
top

Taking the Battle Against Patent Trolls To the Public

sanchom Re:Software a special case (107 comments)

You are correct, and that is exactly how software is patented. The algorithm itself not patentable.

The only things that are patentable are processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter.

People patent processes. People patent machines that run those processes. People patent manufactures that consist of computer-readable storage media containing instructions to run those processes.

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/11-1301.Opinion.5-8-2013.1.PDF for a good review of the case law leading to these strange constructions and the current disagreement at the CAFC regarding whether or not this is all just draftman's art trying to patent an unpatentable algorithm.

about a year ago
top

Taking the Battle Against Patent Trolls To the Public

sanchom Re:They're not trolls (107 comments)

Article 1 Section 8 "empowers Congress to determine the intellectual property regimes that, overall, in that body’s judgment, will serve the ends of the Clause." (Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. ____, and Eldred v. Ashcroft 537 U.S. at 222).

about a year ago
top

Taking the Battle Against Patent Trolls To the Public

sanchom Re:They're not trolls (107 comments)

The level of scrutiny that applies to patent legislation is the "rational basis" test. That is the lowest level of scrutiny that the Supreme Court applies. Basically, if the government can show that the legislation is rationally related to the purpose (promotion of the progress of the science and useful arts), it is within the scope of power enumerated in the constitution.

Article 1 Section 8 "empowers Congress to determine the intellectual property regimes that, overall, in that body’s judgment, will serve the ends of the Clause." (Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. ____, and Eldred v. Ashcroft 537 U.S. at 222).

Congress isn't required to keep its copyright and patent legislation within what *you* think promotes the progress of the science and useful arts.

about a year ago

Submissions

sanchom hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

sanchom has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?