micks56

They should have found a recent law grad that is unemployed. That guy would work for free to make his name on a big case.

Any competent law grad who passed the bar can answer motions, reply with his own, and get this case on the court docket 2 years out to buy these guys some time.

I would have taken the case for free.

A corporation is considered a person, and that person is separate and distinct from its employees, officers, and directors.

So for the corporation to appear pro se, it must actually appear in court, but there is no way for a corporation to do that because it really isn't a person.

So any officer arguing on behalf of the corporation is actually engaging in the unlawful practice of law without a license by representing the "person" corporation.

Your (a) is the common public policy reason given why lawyers need to be licensed. I offer no opinion on its wisdom.

Regarding (b), to get a new trial it is more difficult. You need to prove dereliction of duty (every state varies here) by the attorney AND that the errors caused you to lose and you would have won otherwise. Very difficult standard to meet. This rule protects lawyers greatly, to the detriment of their clients.

That isn't how I read the opinion. How would you describe the claimed novelty?

From the first line of the opinion, "We granted certiorari to determine whether a process for curing synthetic rubber which includes in several of its steps the use of a mathematical formula and a programmed digital computer is patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).

Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion, said it right there we are talking about "formula + computer."

Claim 1 of the patent itself reads, "1. A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision molded compounds with the aid of a digital computer, comprising..." Diehr at Footnote 5. The formula is the Arrenius equation (everyone already did this), and then Diehr added a computer for continuous monitoring, calculating, and output (the novelty).

Diehr themselves claimed in their arguments that their novelty to is "the continuous measuring of the temperature inside the mold cavity, the feeding of this information to a digital computer which constantly recalculates the cure time, and the signaling by the computer to open the press..." Diehr at 178-179.

EDIT: You edited your previous comment to include the same line as me. It seems as though we actually agree on what was novel here.

The novelty was using a computer to do this, which no one had done before. Prior to this invention, curing rubber was done manually.

Also, from my understanding an infinitely configurable computer and general-purpose computer aren't the same thing. Infinitely configurable means a new machine every time new software is installed, which would allow the invention to fall within the patent statutes. A general-purpose computer is not a new machine, has already been invented, and therefore trying to patent an "algorithm + GPC" would mean a patent on the algorithm, which is outside patent protection.

In Benson and Flook, the claimed inventions were on algorithms and NOT tied to a machine.

In Diehr, the inventor claimed "algorithm + machine" where machine was a computer. The Court looks at a computer as an infinitely configurable machine, with each new software algorithm creating a new invention.

That is the distinction that the courts make between Benson/Flook and Diehr, which has allowed "software" patents to exist.

You are probably right.

Learning how to organize a team of people with varying skills and abilities to come together, set a plan, execute on it repeatedly, and then repeat that day in and day out over 4 years through countless types of adversity and unexpected events while living in close quarters and changing as people over time has no value on the job.

/sarcasm

Not everyone can be on the 12 person, premier D-I basketball team. However, I am unaware of any university that doesn't allow pickup games or club teams by all people.

No one in this entire thread has advocated disproportionate funding for sports. No one. Not once. So that argument is just grasping at something that doesn't exist.

Yes, soft skills + the other skills can be learned with running, quiz bowl, hiking, etc., but not everyone wants to do those things. Why should a swimmer be denied enjoyment because his favorite activity involves physical activity?

I am not denying that clubs get the short end of the straw regarding funding. I was on both sides of the table, playing on large teams and being in small clubs. Once again, no one is advocating this.

Please, I never insinuated that. burgerbrain said sports have no intellectual value and don't belong on campus.

I gave a concrete example of how they did help. That is all.

There is a lot of athlete-hating in this thread.

In college I took a course called "Physics of Alpine Skiing." A manufacturing engineering professor taught the course. He was a big ski racer in his younger days. While searching for a college major, and generally just drifting along, a mentor at his school explained to him that skiing is machining. This got the professor interested in manufacturing engineering. The professor ended up having a successful collegiate ski race career AND an inspired academic career. College graduate became PhD graduate and eventually a tenured full professor at a major engineering research university.

The professor's interest in skiing gave him direction for his life's work. Professor performs manufacturing and machining research, using his intuition and experience from the slopes and applies it in his labs.

This professor is a campus favorite, inspiring many in his courses, and often advises senior design projects that deal with winter sports technologies, which gives those students skills that are valuable in the workplace.

Without a ski race program this person would not have even been in college. He would have been skiing and skiing only. The US would not have had a competent manufacturing researcher and professor.

This seems to show benefit from sports programs. No?

> No one is saying athletics have no place in university.

burgerbrain seems to be saying this, which is what I responded to.

> When those subjects which tie into academics better than athletics.

Tie in differently, not better. There are many ways to learn and many lessons to be learned. Drama, debate, music, newspaper, and sports, among others, are all different paths to learn those lessons.

I am not justifying the large amounts of money spent on sports programs. What I am saying is that sports do educate people and provide an important opportunity for students in many ways. Saying "nothing is learned while playing sports" is false.

Should we also cancel the drama program, debate team, musical ensembles, and school newspaper?

Not every lesson or piece of information can be learned from a book or in a classroom. Good luck getting soft skills there.

Real learning occurs while playing sports. Soft skills, discipline, teamwork, personal fitness, and long-time dedication are just a few areas where sports help the whole person.

Not all states recognize the doctor-patient privilege. For example, Massachusetts does not.

And attorney-client privilege is not absolute.

I have no idea where Arizona sits on either of those issues.

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct (with each state adopting their own, perhaps different rules) allow a lawyer to disclose confidential client information to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. MRPC 1.6(b)(1).

So the lawyer may have kept his confidence, but may have had the option to disclose.

Unfortunately, not the steel trap that Bill was looking for.

Are you sure?

Fenway Park and Gillette Stadium show post-tax prices.

Who knows, but your question doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. I could see this speech being given on the House floor...

"Terrorists are known to use surveillance-detection devices. As a result the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to monitor and intercept terrorist activity is obstructed and the American people are in imminent danger.

To protect Americans from terrorism, this new bill would require all vehicles, cell phones, computers, and appliances to contain various types of monitoring devices. These devices will be remotely turned on for monitoring when police believe terrorist activity is taking place.

The benefit of this law is that every device will have the monitoring equipment, thereby rendering detection equipment useless. The terrorists will not know if it is on, and therefore will not know to alter their activities when they are being monitored.

Law abiding Americans have nothing to worry about with this new law. The monitoring equipment will only be turned on with proper government safeguards.

As we all know, if you are not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.

I am pleased to cast my vote for the "Saving America for Our Children Act" and urge my colleagues to do the same."

No, and this is important.

1. I am not an attorney. I am not your attorney.

2. I am not giving out legal advice, and nothing that I have said is even considered legal advice.

3. I have no idea what the law is in your jurisdiction because I do not know what jurisdiction you live in, and I most likely do not even know the law in your jurisdiction. There may be statutes specifically proscribing the conduct you describe. You need to research that yourself.

4. Nothing I wrote implies a person won't be charged with placing devices on police vehicles. I only commented on laws pertaining to police placing GPS devices on cars in open driveways in California through August 25, 2010.

The standard for what can be lawfully seen is not written assuming the view of a 6' tall male. A person can lay down on the sidewalk, an area he can freely occupy, and gain a whole new vision of a person's property, including under a vehicle.

I can lay down on a sidewalk so as to achieve a better viewing angle through someone's window to see a poster on a ceiling inside of a house and still not fail the cases that I cited.

As I said in my other posts, I don't agree with the law, but that is the law.

I agree that this is area of concern for privacy. Right now the general standard on what police can use for technology is that they can use the same technology that is readily available to the general public. It isn't an unlimited-means standard.

Thermo-imaging equipment to detect marijuana growers is not readily available, so it cannot be used.

Telephoto lenses can be bought by anyone, so they can be used.

GPS is readily available, so it can be used.

The standard certainly is a moving target. I don't agree with its wisdom, but that is the law as it stands.

Your last sentence is very loaded.

1. This case wasn't a ruling, nor is it a lack of ruling. It was an instance of a court refusing to re-litigate existing law. That means that it already ruled and does not feel that the law should be changed. Nothing happened here. No new powers can be created by not ruling. By definition nothing happens when refusing to hear a case.

2. Second reason no new powers were created: The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 9th Circuit has interpreted GPS to not be an unreasonable search and seizure. Therefore the restriction on government never existed because the Constitution does not protect people against reasonable searches. The police power to install GPS devices on cars was not abolished when the 4th Amendment went into effect 220 years ago. No new powers because the power existed 220 years ago.

According to the courts, private property does not have an absolute REP. Your definition of REP is not one used by any US court.

Good luck with trespassing claims. Criminal trespass elements are not met, so no luck there. You probably don't have a civil trespass claim, either. Civil trespass is intentionally entering the property of another without justification to do so. The court just affirmed that placing GPS on a car is legal justification to enter the property. So you would lose on the trespass claim.

Of course that assumes it even sees the light of day in court. Civil claims take years to litigate and seeing that no actual monetary damage was done to the car the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages, perhaps $25 if he is lucky. Contrast that with thousands of dollars and many hours to litigate and this case is clearly a money losing proposition.

I am not saying I agree with it. This is just the current affairs in the US legal system.

Also, Fast Passes are RFID transponders. They are activated when you drive through the toll. No GPS is present. Don't forget that you explicitly consented to the placing of the device inside your car.

This is how you get a search warrant: A person makes an affidavit in front of a neutral and detached magistrate, who then determines that a reasonable person would conclude that it was more likely than not that incriminating evidence of the named items or persons would be found in the specifically named place to be searched.

Lots of legal buzzwords there. Each of those buzzwords adds overheard in obtaining a warrant. Police are happy to avoid that overheard whenever possible. That is the motivation to avoid obtaining search warrants. Plus, a privacy minded judge might deny you. With warrant-requirement-exceptions you don't run the risk of being denied a search. You just do it.

A search warrant is needed to inspect an area that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy for. If you don't have a REP, no warrant is needed.

To partake in life we expect people to walk on our property - mailman, paperboy, UPS guy, electric company. Because we freely allow access to our property to these things we cannot claim "privacy!!!!" when it involves the police.

The key here is that the device is on the car, not in it. Search warrant would be needed to put the GPS in the car, or put a microphone in the car. Outside of your car, no REP.

Regarding modification, the court is going to balance police needs and the modification. Placing a magnet to the underside of your car is not considered a substantial modification to the court. Sure, if the cops replaced your rear axle with a GPS equipped rear axl you probably have a good argument. But something as simple as a magnetic GPS on your quarter panel isn't going to get any sympathy from the judge.

This is currently the rule in a majority of US jurisdictions.

The 9th Circuit did not make a ruling. Rather, they declined to hear the case because California law is already on point and they do not wish to change the law.

I am displeased with the attorney writing the article for another reason. He wrote, "The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy." The Supreme Court articulated 4 factors to determine zone of privacy, and proximity to the home is only one of the four. United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987),

Curtliage does not mean area close to your house. It means the area that a person can readily see (sort of). If I can see your front door from the street, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there. If I can see your backyard when I fly over in a small airplane at a normal heigh, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986).

I am not saying that I agree with this. All I am saying is that this is the current law and it is not new.

Exactly.

Salesforce can defend two ways: 1) challenge the validity of the patent, or 2) prove that they don't infringe the patent.

Option 1 is harder. Patents are presumed valid. Defendant (Salesforce) has the burden of proof that the patent should be overturned. Salesforce will have to do that for each alleged infringing claim.

Option 2 is easier. Plaintiff (Microsoft) has the burden of proving infringement. Salesforce just needs to show that they aren't infringing claim 1 and then they also aren't infringing claims 2-9.

If claim 1 is tossed then subsequent claims based on claim 1, which will probably be many, are automatically tossed. Therefore claim 1 better be your best claim.

For example, in "Method and system for mapping between logical data and physical data," if Claim 1 is tossed, then claims 2-9 automatically go with it.

My network cable that handles all my data doesn't have gold plating or shielding because the cable as designed is sufficient to operate at Ethernet speeds, temperatures, humidity, etc.

If you want to operate a faster network, or one in a harsh environment, you will be using shielded cables with gold plates and more twists per inch.

Actually, I think that it takes the exact same amount of noise to flip a bit as it does to transmit a bit.

Through the principle of superposition, if you transmit a 0 with X watts, and I transmit a 1 with X watts, our combined signal will be somewhere in the middle, which can cause a bit flip.

I am not talking about voltage drop from end to end, which is a separate issue. I am talking about interference occurring adjacent to any point on the cable that you pick.

I think your understanding of cables is off.

All signals are analog. Every single one. (Actually, I take that back. With the exception of quantum computers, to date, all signals are analog).

A "digital" cable doesn't just work or not work. It is possible to receive spurious bit errors for many reasons. For example, you turn up the volume to your awesome surround sound speakers, which causes more current to flow through your speaker wires that happen to be running parallel to your horrible HDMI cable. The increased current causes interference in your low-power HDMI cable, causing bit errors in the transmission.

Are the colors 0026FF and 8026FF the same?

No, they are not. And the difference between blue (0026FF) and purple (8026FF) is a 1 bit error.

You will see an image, but not the image your DVD told your TV to display.

edit: This comment makes a lot less sense with the deleted comment removed.