Isn't his point a valid one. As far as I am aware contract law is pretty clear that you cant unilaterally change the terms of a contract and the way websites do it nowadays they dont even give any form of notification. The boilerplate on most websites nowadays appear to me to be unenforceable and invalid contracts, and somebody needs to bring the issue to court. The last I remember reading about it, some judge claimed it was fine as long as there was a link to the terms somewhere you would see it while logging into the site and the hyperlink to the contract was a different color(maybe he said something about it being underlined). The methodology he is trying to use is silly and a waste of everybody's time, but if he is just trying to point out an issue with contracts on the internet I have to say I think he has a point.
"debunked talking points of the industry -- insisting that anyone watching a PPV event without paying represents lost revenue. Apparently all the studies that say this isn't the case don't matter, so long as someone who directly financially benefits from Hayes' actions tells him otherwise"
correction: so long as someone who thinks they will directly financially benefit ...
These seizures dont really accomplish anything as every site can go right back up with a different domain. And the seizures don't increase revenue because the sites in question take away from the customer base to begin with.
as noted above by other people their corrections were in fact massively flawed, but it is purely because the comments on the original article were more about screwing with the publication than fixing the errors.
I just read some of it, and your comment seems correct.
The update seems to provide case law examples for the first three rules as teaching points but (from what I have read) does not imply that the other four rules are invalidated. Just that there have been significant rulings on the issue since that have helped to clarify the first three rules.
"The first three groups correspond directly with three of the rationales identified in the 2007 KSR Guidelines. These rationales– combining prior art elements, substituting one known element for another, and obvious to try–have each been the subject of a significant number of post-KSR obviousness decisions."
"Office personnel may use this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update in conjunction with the 2007 KSR Guidelines (incorporated into MPEP §§ 2141 and 2143) to provide a more complete view of the state of the law of obviousness.
This 2010 KSR Guidelines Update provides a “teaching point” for each discussed case. The “teaching point” may be used to quickly determine the relevance of the discussed case, but should not be used as a substitute for reading the remainder of the discussion of the case in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update. "
I agree, but dont think a circle is always the best.
I would like to see a little spreadsheet of data instead of this mess.
Id also like to know if the chart was done freehand or with a program designed to draw graphs. because there is free software out there for this sort of thing... my first thought is http://www.graphviz.org/
that part of the reason some of the obvious irreconcilable differences have been left in so long is to gloss over the fact that the entire treaty is bad?
The anti counterfeiting trade agreement covers far more than its title implies.
Repeatedly telling somebody you are going to break their legs, and then rewarding them with a punch in the face is not a cause for thanks.