throwawaykf

7 ms·

1.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
That article sounds like it supports a corrollary of rayiner's theory, that men are sick of having to "earn it". The article certainly seems to support that it is indeed women who control sex, and anytime they "settle fo
2.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Relevant (from 2010): "Detecting Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Activity in Second Life and World of Warcraft", Angela S M Irwin, Jill Slay - University of South Australia http://ro.ecu.edu.au/icr/5&
3.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Heh, I'm surprised there have been no New Yorkers yet chiming in to say "good riddance". Most New Yorkers -- in my experience -- seem to share the sentiment that there are too many tourists already.
4.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Oh boy, that paper is a huge exercise in setting up a strawman and knocking it down. Lemley has done some good work, but this is not it. 1. He goes on and on about "patent theory", and it's worlds apart from how patent system
5.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
My problem with that book is that the authors start it with a lie [1], and changed to different lies when being called out on it [2]. They also made some misrepresentations of how software and open source works. Just from that, it was diffi
6.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Did someone say "research" and "patents" in the same sentence? :-) I was going to rifle through my vast collection of references to studies about patents, but I just came across a pretty good review of the research of ec
7.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
> ... and said "I represent a concerned group of local small business people and programmers, and software patents are destroying our ability to make a living and causing us to lose jobs", that software patents would have been
8.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Glad to finally see someone who looks at the other side of things as well! I generally avoid IPWatchDog for the same reason reasons as Groklaw: too shrill, snarky and narrow-minded. > Judges apparently think that you just tell the compu
9.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Same thing happened at the ITC last year (except I'm not sure if an ITC ruling can actually invalidate patents): http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/VFat-patent-could-be-... However TFA is being silly
10.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
I'll let alone the fact that your definition of "software patents" is flawed. Let me address your other points. > There are so many conclusive arguments against software patents that the result is overdetermined. Or, al
11.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
> The current state of the patent system is such that having been granted a patent legally supersedes in power the act of enabling technological advancement. That is to say that the power of the patent system has surpassed its social ju
12.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Hmm, genuinely curious, which part of my post sounded like a personal attack as opposed to an objection?
13.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
No, I work as a software engineer, but don't let that get you down from your moral high horse. But I have also worked for a small company that was ripped off by the big guys, almost went under, and could only fight back with patents. S
14.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Hmm, I understand, to varying degrees, pretty much everything that happens there, at least down to the logic gate level. Once it hits the physics or quantum level I'm lost. It might be because I have an EE background, but it's not
15.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Ahh, Bessen. Interesting that he cites his own "trolls cost $29B" study [1] without mentioning that it's been "called into question" [2, 3, 4] to put it diplomatically. It's not like he's unaware of critic
16.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
> For a group of people with highly specialized skills (who get underpaid when compared to lawyers and doctors)... Too broad a brush stroke there. The vast majority of software development does not require highly specialized skills and
17.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
I don't think, given his history of depression, that there's any easy rational explanation for his suicide.
18.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Hmm, wonder how much of their 80M settlement the MPAA will actually get... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/hotfile-settles-c...
19.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
> Where is the risky investment in research that patents are supposed to be making possible? Focusing on the "risky investment" part, the investment is not just monetary: I spent a full year of my grad research barking up the
20.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Here I go citing another Lemley paper. I'm afraid I may end up giving the impression that I agree wih him on things! "Are Universities Patent Trolls?", Mark Lemley, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
21.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Hmm, I didn't read his reply that way. Maybe you're just going off... half-cocked?
22.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Apologies for pointing out the flaws in your "taking non-rivalrous things causes no harm" argument. Oink!
23.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
>Many people could derive huge benefits (in the case of patented medicines, life!) if we hadn't artificially made the copies and drugs scarce. That's a very short term analysis. Again, drugs don't just drop from the sky.
24.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
> Laws don't keep people from taking tangible items, they only punish afterwards. So now all laws are "legal fiction"? > The only thing that stops someone from taking something tangible from you is your ability to st
25.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Well, are the claimants buying them a new football stadium? The Lemley paper I posted below certainly seems to indicate no great preference for plaintiffs over defendants.
26.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
US patent law counts as infringement making, selling, or using anything covered by the claims. NewEgg uses SSL with RC4 to secure their connections, the combination of which TQP contends, perform the steps covered by their claims.
27.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
I've read hundreds of patents over the past 7 years or so, so the first citation is simply my experience. You won't find, for example, a broad patent on something like bytecode like this one https://www.google.com/
28.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
> No, tangible items are inherently controllable because they are rivalrous and excludable. You missed my point. Tangible things are only as inherently controllable as the capacity of the owner to control them. Without "legal fic
29.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
You really have to read the claims to understand what the patent covers instead of trying to understand it from what is infringing. This patent has pretty easy-to-read claims. It essentially covers an encryption method where the encryption&
30.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Here's a much more detailed analysis with a lot more data and nuance: Mark Lemley, "Where to file your patent case" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1597919 EDT is not actually at the t

More ›