would be an understatement to say that people have strong opinions on patents. But as Techdirt pointed out, there is a growing consensus that some software patents do not work - James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer wrote a whole book, "The failure of patents" how bad things are there, and what happens in this area rather than elsewhere.

One of the main problems is that software patents are mainly patents on mathematical algorithms - sets of instructions to perform a calculation. As has long been a principle that can not be patented or mathematical formulas laws of nature, there is a tension here: if the software is just math, why should be able to patent it? New Scientist an interesting article in the notification of the American Mathematical Society in April 2013, in which David A. Edwards offers a radical way to solve this puzzle (pdf)

At present, only the things that are made by man is patentable. Therefore, the courts have allowed new forms of bacteria that have been designed to have useful properties by recombinant DNA techniques to be patented, but does not allow patenting bacteria as if it happens naturally even if newly discovered. This is the basis of the non-patentability of computer programs. Are algorithms, which are essentially mathematical formulas, which - as we know - are "eternal" and discovered by man and not created by him. This argument, to say the least, is philosophically controversial, leading to our current unfortunate policy. From an economic point of view, there is no justification for the distinction between discovery and invention, and would be in favor of completely abandoning restrictions apply to be on what can be patented. We should be able to patent something previously known to man.

In particular, it is considered can

mathematics patent, and thus the software

One of their arguments is that it would encourage people to make new discoveries. But this assumes mathematicians do not try to do it now for the glory, the recognition of his colleagues and land, but no evidence to suggest that. The same argument is sometimes made in favor of software patents - which stimulate the production of more software. But this ignores the fact that the computer industry has thrived for decades before the introduction of software patents, and companies like Microsoft have become highly profitable companies without them.

Indeed, in 1991, Bill Gates, famous aware of problems that software patents create for the industry and your business:

In a memo to his senior executives, Bill Gates wrote: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. "Worried that" some large company patent some obvious thing "and use the patent to" take as much of our profits as they want doors. "

This is, of course, is exactly what has happened since the introduction of software patents, which leads to the following situation:


In the smartphone industry alone, according to an analysis from the University of Stanford, as much as 20 billion dollars have been spent on litigation of patents and patent purchases in both last year - the equivalent of eight missions to Mars Rover. Last year, for the first time, the burden of Apple and Google in the trial of patent and patent unusually large purchases of dollars exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public records. Since patents allow you to control the commercial applications of their discovery or invention to the patent owner, the patenting of mathematical formulas, laws of nature and natural phenomena would have no negative effect in the pure science.
Find best price for : --Federal----Madey----Gates----Bill--

Find best price for : --Lockheed----Martin--

Two years ago, he wrote about the case called Rakofsky v. Internet. The details are too many to go, so I suggest reading this message, but the brief summary that Joseph Rakofsky, a recent graduate of Touro Law School, somehow entered a defense if a person charged with murder. The case was not going well, with the judge ordering the defendant several times if he was happy with the representation of Rakofsky. After an alleged "communication failure", the accused left the judge no longer felt comfortable with Rakofsky - and the judge declared a mistrial. As part of this, the judge also stated his belief that Rakofsky was not qualified to be in the position I was in:

I was surprised that someone wants to represent a person in a case of involuntary homicide case that had never tried before and a local lawyer Mr. Grigsby was complicit in this.

appeared in court he had. . . theories of defense there, but [Rakofsky had]

breach of these theories. It was clear to the Court that there was ... not a good understanding of the legal principles and legal procedure of what was allowed and what was not acceptable

they did, I believe, to the detriment of Mr. Deaner. "

Another concern is that the investigator hired by Rakofsky in the case revealed to the court an email Rakofsky Rakofsky in which he said:

I) Please tip Leigh (old) to admit

a), the two lawyers said he had seen the shootout

b), two lawyers said the government has not provided information about [the] growth.

later Rakofsky refused to approve a bond for the payment of the researcher, leading the researcher to ask the court that he was "finished, without compensation .. . based on his refusal to follow a request by email to Mr. Rakofsky ... requiring him to try to "trick" a witness to change his testimony. "

After this, Rakofsky, curiously, seemed

celebrate

sentence in a post on his Facebook account, suggesting that he was happy with the results. This publication led to more mockery in online environments.

Again, this has been widely reported, even here on Techdirt. However, we reported mainly in the fact that after many people talking about it and mocks Rakofsky (with some questioning the claims on their website), Rakofsky seemed continue almost all those who have written about and the case - that a group of bloggers, but the Washington Post (who made the initial report) and the American Bar Association (not kidding) whose blog has written about the history too.

At that time, we said that the story would be very interesting to follow. That was two years ago. Six months later, Rakofsky filed an amended complaint that incredibly long, among other things, we tried to add to the application, with a large number of complaints (including some who were not). Of course, once again, referring to the level of experience of the Rakofsky competition and the judicial system, the motion to file amended complaint which had subsequently be removed because it was presented as a stay unless you instead of this presentation. It took a while, but eventually advanced cases - and have not yet been officially added to the application, which I certainly hope it continues, because we continued to report events objectively, while providing statements of opinion, is generally not going to end well. And indeed, to this day, the Rakofsky case is wrong.

In a decision released Friday, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, shot basically every single Rakofsky claims and granted the motions to dismiss several defendants. The court details carefully the facts and then explain why they granted the motions to dismiss. The court rejected the request Rakofsky file a second amended according to the failure to file a claim complaint:

granting motion to amend the applicants would be useless because the allegations contained in the proposed second amended complaint

not sufficient to establish a cause of Action

, as will be seen later defendants' motions to dismiss. fire.

First, the court rejected the argument of competence. Not surprisingly, bloggers NY court emphasized that the State of New York had no jurisdiction over them, and the Court is not persuaded by several Rakofsky arguments to the contrary:



is quite clear that the defendants "in this document that work legal blogs and comments posted" on blogs that reside outside the country, in Canada, or even in the United States from Washington, DC and Florida to eastern Texas and California in the west, had virtually no useful activity or minimum contacts with that state. certainly was not helpful in this state activities that were primarily related to alleged statements s' defamatory as defendants did not write the allegedly defamatory statements in this state, nor towards our single state. statements were published on the Internet with potential access worldwide.


The Court rejected plaintiffs' The main argument against the defendants were "commercial benefits" of hyper-links to their websites to invoke the jurisdiction of long arms. This connection to New York if necessary, is too weak to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants outside the state. made clear, there are sufficient contacts with this state of "hale" in court several defendants who live thousands of miles away in other states to "relax" their right to free expression. While the exact words are not exactly identical, they are similar enough to transmit a report Rakofsky reasonable email and beans movement were inextricably linked to the litigation before the judge in the case Deaner Jackson. Although the "trick" email, Bean movement and Justice Jackson's comments do not represent Rakofsky in a positive light, and Rakofsky could ignore or interpret differently
Find best price for : --Judge----Marc----Rights----Civil----Deaner----Jackson----Rakofsky--

Three questions:

Why did it take so long for national newspapers admit they are wrong? Why the Daily Mail will take more time than most to say sorry? Why does not the existence of the Leveson inquiry curb their arrogant behavior?

answers below, but first consider the facts. On 16 September last year - while sitting Leveson - the Sunday People published an article on the actor Roger Moore entitled "I've had more women than James Bond"

The newspaper quoted Moore as the use of these words and also it was very strange because he gave an interview to the newspaper.

history of the People was taken by the great Fleet Street jackdaw, the Daily Mail, and repeated almost word for word.

Needless to say Moore also talked with the mail and paper, obviously, has not verified the accuracy of the story.

Moore did not use the services of the Complaints Commission of the Press to complain to the press, preferring to follow by lawyers.

The advantage he could get damages. The disadvantage. This is a slower process than the CPC

So it was only on January 20, four months after the publication of the article in question that people wear servile apology in which he admitted that he "told" that Moore had spoken . "our reporter about his private life" He continued:

"We now accept that Sir Roger has not given an interview to our reporter and make observations that have been reported in the title.

We apologize for the distress and embarrassment our article caused Sir Roger Moore and have agreed to pay damages and costs. "

But e repeater, a false story, resisted until late last night before apologizing for the error:

"An article in the September 17 (" I was more in love than 007 ') includes comments attributed to Sir Roger Moore for a Sunday newspaper about his private life. This document has accepted the report does not accurately reflect a conversation with Sir Roger Moore and not to make informed comments. We apologize for the distress and embarrassment caused. "

Note the weasel words:. "No conversation accurately reflects" What conversation? People have accepted that Moore gave an interview to the journalist. Note also mention of damages and the payment of expenses.

Why did it take so long for national newspapers admit they are wrong?

If lawyers are involved - that announces the probability of having to pay the money - it is inevitable that the paper will seek to minimize the cost. Legal negotiations over pay and good excuses formulation takes time, even if the applicant is the explosion of paper rights.

Find best price for : --Google----Moore----Roger----Leveson----Mail--

Your online profile can be a tool increasingly useful in the control of their image, but if you want to remove the 'online' and start over? Help the team news The Guardian investigate the removal process profile

To share your story with the goalkeeper mark.rice-Oxley contact@guardian.co. uk or owen. bowcott@guardian.co. uk

An increasing number of people claiming "right to be forgotten" online. - But removing your profile online on the Internet is not always easy as you might think

Find best price for : --Guardian--

multitone performance specialty impressive collection Musical Instruments has unveiled what is claimed to be the first 3D printed guitar available in the conducted U.S. market. Considered practically impossible to break (although we can not say the same for the light chains included), the style of Les Paul AWE-3DG bank also has a selector most interesting collection that open the door to otherwise hidden coil combinations up to 76 different analog tones ... Continue reading 3D printed guitar is incredible collection features 76 analog sounds


Section:
Music

• Tags:
• 3D printing, impressive musical instruments, guitar, instrument, No

Find best price for : --AweSome--