greensoap

Pretty sure the office said the arrange of the book was itself protectable but the individual images were not.

https://www.onmanorama.com/news/world/2023/02/23/comic-book-...

I recommend Backuppc for these requirements. Pooling, no sw install required, uses rsync and dedupes across clients and uses client side hashing to avoid sending files already in the pool.

https://backuppc.github.io/backuppc/index.html

Does the "you only see what you subscribe to" increase the echo chamber of the web. Would it led to "here are more thoughts that you already agree with" which means people won't have a chance to see the other side of a coin?

Federal Courts don't usually grant a subpoena. Notably, the notice of third-party subpoeonas from this case wasn't even filed in the case.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64436614/federal-trade-...

Rather a lawyer that is admitted to the case uses his power as a representative to serve a subpoena. These are usually NOT reviewed by the judge or court first. The person receiving a subpoena can ask the court to quash the subpoena (basically void or modify the subpoena) if they believe the subpoena is inappropriate, unduly burdensome, or whatever else.

I mean you would really have to go back to 2015 or 2017 and look at how many people were taking 5 or 7 year arms.

Lot is for patent holders to commit their patents to the group and everyone gets a license.

Rpx is probably the closest thing. They will try to kill a patent if it is being used against their members. But they don’t cover the cost of litigation.

There are also patent pools where everyone pools their money to buy a certain patent.

There may be some insurance you can seek out. But I don’t know if anyone in the space that is using that type of thing

Slight correction on your first point.

There is no requirement that one looks for prior art. 37 CFR 1.56 requires that an applicant disclose pertinent prior art that is already known to the applicant or his lawyer and disclose prior art that the applicant becomes aware of during the application process.

Yes, they can. That was the focus of the RadioLab update on the Alpha Gal pigs. The person that loved meat before getting the allergy had moved on to a non-meat life. And when the company started marketing alpha gal safe meat, that person was the inspiration and the person was not happy about it.

I'm not going to comment on the substance of the application, I have no idea.

I just wanted to point out that A1 at the end of this document means this is JUST a published application.

One would need to find each "GRANTED" application that claims priority to this application to find any patents. Then one would need to read the claims on each patent to really know what it covers.

The WO at the beginning means it was filed with WIPO first, which is not any particular country. WIPO is the World Intellectual Property Organization. This is an application process that makes it simpler to go to multiple countries, but every country has its own process (the EU countries have more synergy in the process and their own EP process).

> So if you have a widget and it matches claim 1-8 but does not match claim 9, it does not match.

This is not correct. If you infringe claim 1 then you infringe claim 1. Whether or not you also infringe claim 9 doesn't matter.

Assuming Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, claim 9 includes all the limitations of claim 1. So claim 1 is A+B+C.... Claim 9 is 1 + D = A+B+C+D. So if you infringe 9 because you have A+B+C+D then you also, by definition, infringe claim 1 because you have A+B+C.

Also, you can write a claim that has ORs applied. But the drafter has to be really careful with how it is done and it is not the norm.

I transferred all of my liquid capital out of RH this morning. I'm putting it back in Fidelity. I can live without the fancy interface; I cannot trust RH with my money or my business. And I didn't have that much there but once my positions are liquid I will be deleting RH.

There is some thought that Bots are pumping NOK on WSB... who knows

Can anyone tell me what the symptoms of this would be?

Yup --- in most of the south bay Sonic is leading AT&T for its fiber.

Is there a reason I shouldn't leave this address in a blackhole?

It was listed in the text and full analysis.

Heather Meeker, a great legal mind in the open source world, helped create this license: https://commonsclause.com/

You might consider whether it serves your intended goals.

Please don't encourage or suggest the use of CC anything for code. It just wasn't designed for code and creates huge ambiguities on the rights you intended.

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Common...

As stated on the Creative Commons website (licensed under CC-BY):

Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software? We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses listed as free by the Free Software Foundation and listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative.

Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do not contain specific terms about the distribution of source code, which is often important to ensuring the free reuse and modifiability of software. Many software licenses also address patent rights, which are important to software but may not be applicable to other copyrightable works. Additionally, our licenses are currently not compatible with the major software licenses, so it would be difficult to integrate CC-licensed work with other free software. Existing software licenses were designed specifically for use with software and offer a similar set of rights to the Creative Commons licenses.

Version 4.0 of CC’s Attribution-ShareAlike (BY-SA) license is one-way compatible with the GNU General Public License version 3.0 (GPLv3). This compatibility mechanism is designed for situations in which content is integrated into software code in a way that makes it difficult or impossible to distinguish the two. There are special considerations required before using this compatibility mechanism. Read more about it here.

None.

The application was rejected by the USPTO. And the applicant Abandoned the application. It will never become a patent.

This is a non-story. The application was filed by someone who willingly spent their money. The USPTO rejected it. And now its on the front of Hackernews.

Nobody else has submitted their comments yet. The submission window is set to close today.

These were mostly submitted somewhat automatically via the EFF

No; the real life equivalent would be the the kid in class sitting between you and your friend opening the note and telling class what you said.

You asked the kid in class to pass the note. He did so freely. You assumed he wouldn't open the note, but guess what... he totally opened that note. And now he wants to profit off the information.

KyPass 4 works. Costs $7, but I was fine with that.

That's been litigated already. If I recall, the drinking age is tied to a state receiving federal money for its highways. And the Court has blessed the power of the federal government to condition the receipt of monies on the state enacting certain restrictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...

Plus, it doesn't seem like America is politically interested in lowering the drinking age.

In other words, don't enable touch id or face unlock.

The encryption technique sounds like convergent encryption.

Convergent encryption is a fairly standard way storing encrypted data that might duplicate across users. It allows for deduping of data while in an encrypted state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_encryption

Patent attorney? Me too. Have you read the malpractice case in California that basically says that you can't be found to have practiced malpractice for violating the RAP because its too convoluted?

Still doesn't remove the ambiguity of whether the consent is real consent. Look at the Louis CK cases, those women "consented" but only because they felt unable not to consent.

This was the default rule for most of the frontier states. The east coast states (early states) adopted a default rule of no trespassing while the frontier states had such huge expanses of land privately owned that no trespassing as the default was impractical. Instead, the default was trespassing was allowed unless otherwise posted (hence the plethora of no trespassing signs in the Western states).

I don't really understand the article.

The article suggests they are advocating for a blanket law. Are they saying that anytime an accident happens involving a car and a bike where the driver was at fault it should be a criminal prosecution? Is that the type of society we want? Do we expect accidents to never happen and want to criminalize anything less than perfection?

We have manslaughter laws that allow for criminal penalties when a person's negligence rises to a level of criminality. Accidents happen. Accidents that result in terrible injury and death are tragic. But humans aren't perfect; we get distracted--by things other than cell phones. Not every accident is criminal in nature; and for that we have a civil system that--while focused on monetary compensation--is simply the best we've come up with beyond demanding blood satisfaction.

I guess I wish I understood the debate better.

William Sylem from Russian River. Golden Eye from Anderson Valley. I think they both stack up very well though I will admit they are a bit less earthy than a typical Burgundy.