|
StarMagician posted:Do the Supremes have anywhere close to the degree of technical expertise they would need to write a decision that would accomplish this? You could find literally tens of thousands of practitioners that could testify that the current level of disclosure in patents forces undue experimentation; which hopefully would lead them to the right place. Really, a big part of the problem here is cultural and I'm not sure how to fix that. If the patent office thought there really was a problem with the current software patent landscape they have so much leeway that they could start issuing rejections based on insufficient disclosure; and the amount of disclosure most people want to see in software patents would almost assuredly force more descriptive claims plus start bringing into play restriction practices [i.e. 1 invention/patent]. The problem is the patent office doesn't have a problem with the current level of disclosure or amount of detail in which inventions are described in the claims*; and the culture of the office means that getting examiners to actually apply these standards (which completely would break the factory-line-like path patents take from application to approval) would be shocking. The patent office also needs to find a way to hire better people. When I worked there as an examiner I was straight out of college and the large majority of my coworkers started straight out of college as well. Now that I have many years of experience working in the field, I can say that there is absolutely no way that someone straight out of college has the background to determine what is and is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art; and the huge majority do not have enough experience to determine what is a necessary level of disclosure. Considering applications are made on a prima facie basis, unless you fix the cultural issues, the system will always be a trainwreck. *I don't think I can stress how big of a problem this is. Under the reasoning that the claims are all that matters in court to determine patentability; examiners are trained to pretty much ignore everything except what is claimed. The first thing an examiner will do when reading a patent is to read the claims s.t. what is disclosed does not bias one to what is claimed; and getting to the point where one can issue actions based solely on the abstract and claims is encouraged. The problem is while the claims are what the lawyers care about; the description is what the practitioner cares about. Chuu fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Dec 7, 2013 |
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 10:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:In patent software, the situation generally is that ideas are trivial to implement once described: the issue is coming up with the idea in the first place. I would argue that for most software patents this is not the case. The idea is the easy part, the implementation is the hard part. This really goes back to the burden of undue experimentation. Chuu fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You can write the headers in a different sequence. If it was this trivial to get around copyright law, this case wouldn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Those were whole intact files copied, but the 37 APIs at question were copied and put into various other android APIs. The source code was verbatim copied over. The trial documents say that everywhere. What? No. From ORDER RE COPYRIGHTABILITY OF CERTAIN REPLICATED ELEMENTS OF THE JAVA APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACE (pdf warning) on pg.3 lines 12-15: quote:Significantly, all agreed that Google had not literally copied the software but had instead come up with its own implementations of the 37 API packages. Oracle’s central claim, rather, was that Google had replicated the structure, sequence and organization of the overall code for the 37 API packages.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
I think the fundamental problem here is that current IP law just don't work in a world where all I need to do to create significant new inventions is type words. It's incredibly hard to argue that an API isn't covered by copyright law; but if this was enforced computing as we know it couldn't exist.
Chuu fucked around with this message at 06:41 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And even after this decision, may still be perfectly fine. The decision was that APIs are copyrightable, not that you can't reimplement them for interoperability reasons. That question is still open. Isn't the whole point of this lawsuit to answer that question? The claim isn't that google copied java's implementation; just the API.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is just wrong. Any plausible mathematical system contains a finite set of axioms which will produce a countable number of results from those axioms. Just wanted to point out this statement is hilariously wrong. One of the most basic sets of axioms are the Peano Axioms which formalize arithmetic. One of the most important results from these axioms is the generation of the Natural Numbers by repeated application of the successor axiom. By definition, the set of Natural Numbers is uncountable. Chuu fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:The natural numbers is definitely countable, are you using non-standard definitions of these terms? (edit: literally the first sentence on Wikipedia: "In mathematics, the natural numbers are those used for counting") From the wikipedia definition of a Countable Set: In mathematics, a countable set is a set with the same cardinality (number of elements) as some subset of the set of natural numbers. Chuu fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess it's time to go to sleep.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
duz posted:Cutting a baby in half so both mothers can claim it turns messy really fast if neither gives in. This isn't even remotely what that case was about.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Yeah, it frustrates me to no end that we have to walk some stupid line where execution doesn't damage the participants and yet is guaranteed NOT to be quick and painless for the condemned. Is this actually a thing? Not from a social perspective, but in terms of statute.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Designing a good API is very hard, and in my experience, in fact it's usually much harder to design a good, clean, and performant API than it is to implement it. I don't like some of the really nasty implications that fall out of the fact APIs are copyrightable -- but I find it very hard to argue against the fact that if this two sentence creative work hosted on somethingawfuldotcom is worthy of copyright, an API I spend considerably more time designing is not. EDIT : Had a response to Munkeymon here, but really, if your position is so far off the radar that Richard Stallman look like a radical conservative it's not really worth arguing about. Chuu fucked around with this message at 10:18 on May 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:Copyright cares nothing for the quality or length of the work in question, so "it's harder to make good, so it should be protected" is a bit besides the point. My hamster/vampire fanfic is two pages and terrible by any reasonable standard and was dead easy to write, but in terms of copyright its worth sits side by side with Lord of the Rings. Yeah, I think I was veering off the point there. In the end, at least the way I understand it, the only real test for copyright is "is it an original work?" I can't find any line of argument where I could answer "no" for an API.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:Describing a thing is not making a thing. I can't really offer a proper response in the time I have, but I will say one of the reasons some love programming is describing a thing *is* making a thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:hell, examiners haven't even been given guidance on how to identify an abstract idea in the first place other than "if it looks like Bilski or Alice" It's been a long time since I've worked at the USPTO (almost 10 years?), are the internal publications public? As in, is there a website I can go and read about their internal guidance on how to apply Bilski or Alice? Someone at our company got their first Bilski rejection this year. Looking at their application, and comparing it to prior patents that have been approved, I would guess at least half of all software patents granted prior to Bilski fail the test -- assuming the examiner actually applied the test correctly.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
So with all the talk about Birthright Citizenship, the citizen clause of the 14th amendment has entered public debate again. People arguing against Jus Soli claim that a law preventing the granting of citizenship to the children of non-citizens is not incompatible with the 14th since when the 14th was passed there was no restriction on immigration, and thus no concept of an illegal/undocumented immigrant. A lot of people arguing against that interpretation are citing U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark as explicitly interpreting the 14th as explicitly establishing Jus Soli in the United States. The people arguing against Jus Soli note that Ark's parents were both U.S. Citizens so the ruling does not apply to their arguments. Who is right here? Also, are there any good examples of the SOTUS reading a constitutional amendment counter to what we would consider the plain english meaning due to to the specific legal body in effect when it was passed? Is there any chance the current court would be sympathetic to a reading that would allow restricting the practice of granting citizenship to all children born in the United States? Chuu fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Aug 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Sarcastic. I was thinking of keeping it up. But so many candidates jumped on this bandwagon, that it stopped being funny and got pretty worrying. I also find it deeply worrying, but I think there is a lot more support for this among the voters than people might think. I come from a family of immigrants, my parents both being from overseas, all who take very liberal positions on most issues -- and pretty much everyone in my family who immigrated here is completely for the position of denying citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. I know this isn't the politics thread, but I can't think of a faster way to completely destroy your support among latinos than come out against Jus Soli. You're literally telling a large portion of the people you are trying to court that they don't deserve to be citizens. Someone at the GOP headquarters is probably pulling their hair out over this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
This is the first time I've been elated to hear of someone's death, and I'm not sure what that says about me as a person.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I know this really isn't the thread for it but what's trending with the economy that is any worse than the barely above water bullshit we've been going through since 2008? Really the wrong thread, but to sum up, economies are inherently cyclical. There are a ton of signs right now that we're heading into a down trend (oil demand, China, etc.) and this is making economics especially worried because the normal reaction to an economic downturn by central banks is not avaliable since interest rates are still effectively zero due to the fallout from the financial crisis. The one thing that's changed very recently is that European banks are doing incredibly poorly right now, and there are tons of rumors that Deutsche Bank is on the brink of collapse. As in, at some points last week they were trading below their 2008 levels and they released a press release that's the equivalent of this. While everyone knows that letting a bank as big as Deutsche Bank go bust is 2008-levels-bad, the ECB might be prevented from doing anything drastic because of petty EU politics. Chuu fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
That is the best burn I've seen in my life. No contest.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Same argument could apply to heated steering wheels in cars. Seems kind of stupid, until you get to drive a car with one during winter. They were also so close to the real money idea. Sometime between when that was written and now pdeal-powered USB ports became a big accessory on high end bikes. Chuu fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Expand the hand cover to cover the entire body. Of course, with that much added weight you'll need a small engine to help propel along the.... I've noticed those lithium-battery powered jackets and vests are getting more and more popular with construction workers in the winter. I've wondered how these would work for normal folks, since being able to wear what looks like a light jacket during below-freezing weather and just carrying around a battery would be significantly more appealing to me than dealing with a huge winter jacket. V-- I get the joke, but I seriously wonder about these things. Chuu fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
duz posted:Who is going from Oracle to NoSQL and how can I make sure to not rely on them for anything important? Had a lot of  here, but not really the thread for it. I'll just say that their biggest long term worries would probably be there is little reason for anyone to use Oracle for new projects these days given their licensing model, how good their competitors have gotten at enterprise support, and the fact a lot of NoSQL databases are actually better fits for projects people would have just throw Oracle at 10+ years ago. Not having a licensing model compatible with lean development is also an issue even at Fortune 100 companies these days.That doesn't include how many firms are actively trying to move off of Oracle onto something like Postgres due to the ridiculous TCO of even the smallest Oracle setups. Or even MSSQL Server. Chuu fucked around with this message at 05:48 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Edited out more software stuff that probably belongs in a different thread.
Chuu fucked around with this message at 15:32 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Look, what you're saying may be good law; I am not qualified to comments; but technically it's complete gibberish: structure and organization of things are part of the API. So you're the guy who just adds ever new function declaration at the end of the header, no matter where it would logically go.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The EFF isn't an uninformed group. They have valid reason to be concerned, and I know plenty of people in the devlopment world who are very concerned about this. These are people who regularly write and use APIs. I'm going to trust their interpretation over the courts or legals interpretation, and I'll trust the EFF I just wanted to point out, everyone uses APIs, but very few people write them. I am hugely biased here, but I think writing a clear, easy to use, and powerful API specification is usually significantly more difficult than implementing it. If you want an example from the Java world, look at Jodatime. For people who have to spend significant time having to deal with calendar math it was a revelation, and there is a reason the API has been ported to several other platforms. One of those is .NET (Nodatime) -- because whoever designed the .NET time APIs made some serious fundamental mistakes which make it almost unusable for serious Calendar applications. The fact DateTime.Kind was private before .NET 2.0 still blows my mind. I think the huge majority of people who have had to spend significant time designing APIs would find it a bit ridiculous to say their work didn't deserve copyright protection. Even insulting.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! -- do you program? I keep wondering this as I see your replies, because I keep seeing statements like this:Mr. Nice! posted:Not necessarily. They could have literally rebuilt the api in virtually identical function and been fine. and it makes me wonder if you actually have used an API before. Because "virtually identical" isn't good enough. If it's not identical in terms of signature, it's not going to work.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Is the idea that you could come up with the API structure by trial and error? Keep renaming function until the tests pass. It failed with your "open a file" function being called open? Try calling it open_file. Repeat ad nauseum and eventually you could duplicate the API. There are lots of ways to do this in a "clean room' fashion, depending on how pedantic the courts are. I mean, is just downloading the jvm and scraping the documentation programmatically considered reverse engineering? How about using just the documentation for the .class file layout which is not part of the API -- but would let you trivially extract the entire API sans documentation? It reminds me a lot of the Aereo case, which I'm surprised isn't brought up more. Trying to stick to the letter of the law to do something that is against the sprit of the law. The real problem here that irks so many people is the sprit of the law in this case is pretty much a 180 from how professional programmers wish it would work, and no technical workaround will fix that.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Edit: A bunch of people apparently don't realize Dual Licensing is a thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
duz posted:Remember, his nomination isn't being filibustered, the Judicial Committee is refusing to acknowledge that Obama has given them a nomination to consider. It has to get thru them before it can get a vote / be filibustered. If it goes to committee, is there any possibility the Democrats stop it at that point to give the nomination to Hillary instead of Obama?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:So, anyone else listening to the Opening Arguments podcast? Great multi-part series on the Trinity Lutheran case just wrapped up. I have a 20 hour roadtrip ahead of me. Is this a good podcast to add to the list? Any other good judicial podcasts?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
esquilax posted:The nuclear option is not amending the senate rules through the normal method. The presiding officer simply declares the filibuster is gone, then through some labyrinthine procedures it gets approved by a simple majority. From the article: quote:The nuclear option is a potential response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent. It reads like something straight out of a SovCit handbook. How to beat the system (tm) by using this secret legalese they don't want you to know about!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Given the people Trump is surrounding himself with I can't imagine his SCOTUS pick is going to be anything but a far right activist but if he did somehow lose it and re-nominate Garland, or picked someone closer to the center like him, I think that the white wing would turn on him pretty much immediately. Now that we got Trump as president with Bannon and Priebus whispering in his ear I feel like it's starting to get more important to distinguish far-right from alt-right. I'm not sure how ideologically consistent the alt-right is since they define themselves much more in terms of what they're against than what they're for; but outside of identity politics and related issues such as immigration their views seem to tend towards libertarianism, being against government prohibitions on anything including discrimination. A libertarian justice could thread the needle much easier since they already view equal protection laws with suspicion. I'm not sure where you'd fine one in the existing judiciary though. Chuu fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Nov 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Clarence Thomas: Chy Lung vs Freeman (1875) was wrongly decided, the federal government cannot decide immigration law, every state gets to make its own immigration decisions. Isn't this more of a reason the EO should be struck down than it shouldn't? As in, not only does the CBP not have the right detain people under the EO, the CBP doesn't have a constitutional basis to detain anyone under federal law, period? I'm not even how Executive Orders fit into our legal framework. When people are talking about "striking down" an Executive Order what exactly do they mean? Chuu fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Jan 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:On the other hand, the discriminatory animus for EP may wind up being provable, just because of how poorly disguised it was. I mean, this page is still up for heaven's sake. People who are competent in setting up a discriminatory law usually make it hard to prove- the standard's pretty high. In this case they were pretty drat explicit about their goals. I know this is the wrong thread, but having everyone scream that this law is a de-facto Muslim ban pretty much means the administration doesn't have to explicitly say it -- but reap all the rewards from their base that is a fan of the idea. Which means that if/when the courts strike it down it's the perfect lead into the narrative that courts are taking an activist position against the current administrating and need to be curtailed. I can't think of any way this ends well. Every endpoint is either an outright victory by getting a core policy implemented by fiat, or a banner to rally support for some unknown piece of legislation or executive order to highly curtail court power; pre-vetted with whoever their nominee will be.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm still really confused by DoJ assertions that the action in question is "unreviewable". Like, aren't they saying this to a judge(/s)? Where do they think this authority comes from? I think he just stuck his foot in his mouth while trying to split hairs, since everyone on that phone call was smart enough to know that was literally the worst possible answer to that question. He immedietly walks it backs in the next sentence, which I wish I could find a transcript for. A lot of his arguments revolved around trying to convince the judges that the EO should be judged only by its contents and not by the intent. A very large portion of both sides of the debate revolved around this debate; and I think he mentally was answering the "intent" question since I don't think anyone expected the debate to swing into Marbury vs. Madison territory. If anyone has a transcript, it would be great to link it. edit: I do want to point out the whole call is incredibly interesting, and it's only about an hour long. I strongly suggest loading it up instead of a podcast on your next commute. Based on my extensive legal knowledge coming from listening to the OA podcast and following the supreme court thread, the DOJ lawyer's arguments come off as incredibly week. It's also interesting how much time both sides spent addressing standing -- because I suspect the DOJ's arguments that Washington/Minnesota didn't have standing to bring the case, although weak, are stronger than the arguments that the EO is constitutional. Chuu fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/04/17-35105%20motion.pdf No, we're talking about the transcript of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPOFowWqFGU
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
I usually read the opinion before commenting, but how is this going to effect state laws that mandate certain districts must exist? For example, the infamous "horseshoe" congressional district in Chicago that exists because of a state requirement for a latino-majority district to exist that most latino politicians in the state are in favor for?
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:They tried to argue that this was how all loans operate, which is, well, completely not how every other loan repayment I've been involved in has worked. My mortgage doesn't do that. My car payments on five different vehicles have never done that. My loans prior to these guys buying them did not work like that. I'm actually genuinely confused here. Don't pretty much all loans operate this way? I've never seen a mortgage that doesn't. I'd rather use your mortgage example since it's the one I'm most familiar with. If you owe $1000 in July, and pay $2000 -- how is the money split up?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:
Wow, that is shady as hell. What's the history of this and how common is it now? I've never heard of loans structured this way before now, and I'm in the market for a mortgage. About your student loan, I feel like there is a great lawsuit here if they've changed the terms of your loan from paying down the principal to this. Not sure if it would quality under the FDCPA though, i.e. you would have your legal fees covered.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 00:07
|
|