81–90 of 510 posts
Reminds me of this cartoon: https://dilbert.com/strip/2006-05-06
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the specific idea: The idea is not unique, and really low hanging fruit for a mass site.
At the time, I could not find a single social media site that was using link-rewriting to make affiliate money. Blogs and fan sites for niche products had been using this to make money for a while, social media sites had not yet tried it. The close proximity with the announcement and my interview is what really bothered me. I have a strong feeling (but cannot prove) that someone I interviewed with took the idea and r…
On a certain level, it makes sense. Google wants to patent it to cover their bases and make sure no one else does the same thing and blocks them . It's a rational move in a shitty game.
"Rational move". Think about that for a second. Morally wrong doesn't really reach anyone's mind these days.
It could just be people independently working on the same things, as is common in technology.
For the purpose of a patent, that doesn't help. "Independent creation" is a valid defense for copyright, but not for patents. Something cannot be patented if prior art exists before the filing of the patent. It doesn't matter if you knew about it. Even if you can prove that the prior art is not something you were aware of at the time you filed for a patent, your patent is invalid. That's how patents are supposed to w…
Friend of mine is an engineer with a law degree that works on patents. What he said was not obvious doesn't really catch what's going on. He said a patent is really a set of answers to a set of questions. The answers are usually obvious when you know what the questions are, but what questions are and why they are significant isn't obvious. That's where the work is.
Regina Dugan is a former head of DARPA as well as ATAP. She has an impressive resume. Why would she do something like this? For a not particularly important patent, LED popup books? It seems bizarre. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_E._Dugan
>> She has an impressive resume. >> Why would she do something like $badthing? Am I the only one wondering why anyone would think a person's resume should be any kind of predictor of good or bad behaviour?
In fact, one way to get an impressive resume is to railroad others and use people as stepping stones to your way to the top.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the author is a she.
True, but I didn't see that she identified herself, or her gender, in the article. So what's a commenter to do? That's an honest question. Mangle to use "they"? Use some genderless pronoun that'll piss off x% of readers?
Anyway, "they" is probably the correct way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Rational move". Think about that for a second. Morally wrong doesn't really reach anyone's mind these days.
Morals don't count for a whole lot if a patent trolls are also players in the game.
And google of all companies have the resources to swat away patent lawsuits with so much prior art.
On a certain level, it makes sense. Google wants to patent it to cover their bases and make sure no one else does the same thing and blocks them . It's a rational move in a shitty game.
"Rational move". Think about that for a second. Morally wrong doesn't really reach anyone's mind these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but I didn't see that she identified herself, or her gender, in the article. So what's a commenter to do? That's an honest question. Mangle to use "they"? Use some genderless pronoun that'll piss off x% of readers?
> Mangle to use "they"? Mangle? "They" is perfectly fine to use in this situation, it's not mangling at all.