You are mistaken in believing I have little experience with software engineers. Quite the contrary. My clients while I was in private practice, and my client while I was in corporate practice, were (and still are) at the leading edge of software development in highly esoteric arts.
I have to say that I don't believe you. I spend a lot of time with software engineers. A lot. None of them agree with you.
Just this week, on our podcast, we had a patent attorney and a software coder, both of whom agreed that they never once found a patent useful in such a way.
I think you're exaggerating to make you believe your position. But you're wrong. Software patents are simply not useful in disclosing anything.
Last I heard it is freedom of speech idiot. Henley can damn well think, say and feel whatever he wants.
Indeed. Just as it is our "freedom of speech" to respond, criticize and critique his speech. And it is your freedom of speech to demonstrate your own ignorance as well.
Isn't America great?
Acting as if you know anything about whats really going on makes you look ridiculous.
I agree. Might want to take a look in the mirror, sparky.
Why don't you find something more constructive to do like finding the balls or tits to fight for something you believe in like Henley is instead of jerking off all day on the internet because you've never had a real date. Go tell mommy to find your pacifier and change your diaper, you are soaking wet......
So you insist we have no idea what we're talking about, yet make no constructive suggestion, nor explain any factual error in our statement, and conclude with an immature insult.
Patent specifications are simply one more technical publication that require rolling up one's sleeves and studying them for content and comprehension.
I think you miss my point. Perhaps it's because you have little experience with software engineers in particular. But, for most, the issue is never the technical challenge. There is no technical challenge. As one recently noted to me, you can make anything you want in software, it's just a question of if it's worth the effort.
They don't learn anything from patent applications at all.
The suggestion that it's because they're just not putting in the hard work to read the claims and understand them is laughably wrong. You've just had little to no contact with actual software engineers it seems.
One of the founding principles underlying IP law is the encouragement of sharing knowledge via widespread dissemination of technical information in the useful arts and original works of authorship in the sciences.
If we used that as the basis of judging the patent system, we should pretty quickly conclude that the vast majority of patents failed to meet that bar. If you talked to engineers, most of them recognize that patents are completely useless for disseminating technical information. They do not do that. Rather, they disseminate a lawyer's vision of what they might later be able to sue over.
Tech douches talking about the music business. Funny.
Make you a deal: we'll stop talking about the music business when you stop pretending that you understand how tech and the online ad industry works? Because, seriously, if you think we don't get the music biz, your total misunderstanding of tech is much worse.
Re: "So, now the questions is if the White House will actually listen to the cybersecurity experts at NIST "
Uh, you remember how NIST is the group that has been compromised by the NSA on a multitude of levels?
FWIW, NIST appears to have undergone something of a radical shift in response to the NSA stuff. It has come out strongly against the NSA's activities on that one and since then has been pretty regularly standing up for good encryption practices. I think it got religion in a good way.
I do know -- and explained that in the first paragraph. But it doesn't change the fact that there are things that are *typically* views associated with Anonymous -- and this move doesn't seem to fit well with what Anonymous has done historically.
How exactly would you fix the DMCA so that this wouldn't likely happen with ContentID, Mike?
I didn't say this problem wouldn't happen if the DMCA changed. Just that if the DMCA were fixed that it *could* allow the rules of ContentID to work better.
For example, if the DMCA were switched to notice-and-notice instead of notice-and-takedown, not only would it better serve the First Amendment, but it would enable ContentID to be set up similarly, such that identified videos could first lead to a notice, allowing the uploader to respond to the notice within a certain time frame, before the video was taken down. As such you'd avoid situations like the above.
Went to buy this because it could be a neat way to keep tabs on my place. The "all sales final" terms of purchase killed that for me.
It's pretty typical on "daily deal" type offerings to make it final sale, because of the greatly discounted price. That's often part of the deal. You're taking some amount of risk in it not being returnable, but the discount is pretty high from the list price.
FWIW, if you buy it and it's not what you're looking for, I imagine you could probably sell it on eBay or somewhere for a decent amount, so the downside risk probably isn't that high. But, that said, if a no-return policy is really a deal breaker, this probably isn't the right deal for you.