Id have said legalese instead of legal argument, to continue the alliteration ... and to point out the fact that the filing does not appear to actually contain an argument.
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.
in a cooler filled with ice (actually those freezable packets of ice). they let me through. since everything was frozen. I didnt have any liquids. Security theater at its finest.
I guess I should clarify, Im a guy, didnt get my chest groped, had the inner part of my leg felt, and had to lift up my shirt so the guy could check around the inner part of my belt loops.
I assume there was some heightened state of security this past weekend.
A guy in my row commented to me that he would have gotten pissed if it had been him.
there is a point to be made claiming that the research is biased, as the lead researcher has a large stake in a company that produces competing products that do not leech estrogenic compounds.
"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 mean ... it's texas we are talking about here.
all of a sudden the mindset will become, well, if a foreign company came up with it, of course it was obvious.
just saying.
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.
re: the article's title
as much as he is crazy
I traveled with ice cream...
Re: happened to me at midway friday afternoon
happened to me at midway friday afternoon
A guy in my row commented to me that he would have gotten pissed if it had been him.
I dont know if I believe this one
cue class action lawsuit 10 years from now
as much as I think plastics are dangerous
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
doublespeak
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.
although his second article is down, he had an initial posting
http://thomashawk.com/2010/12/miamis-world-erotic-art-museum-fraudulently-uses-the-dmca-to-take -down-items-in-their-collection-from-the-web.html
the analogous scenario
wired had an interesting piece a while back
I think my favorite stat from the blog was
actually they just got trolled really hard,
the correct info about star trek is here, http://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/e0d13/newspaper_issues_star_trek_correction_makes_more/c149z1 r and other comments on that thread are relevant.
Re: Is your summary 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. "
hooray soundbites
do you really think an east texas jury will rule with a foreign company?
all of a sudden the mindset will become, well, if a foreign company came up with it, of course it was obvious.
just saying.
Re:
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/
Hasn't it been said from the start
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.
More comments from slacker525600 >>
slacker525600’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt