Their professional interaction is not what I find unnerving, but rather Florian's insistence that she reveal herself personally, as well as the rest of his general interaction with her. It puts off seriously creepy vibes. So maybe you are right. Maybe this isn't always about money to him, and is some other sort of obsession.
So it's ok for PJ to hide, but not for Florian? How did you draw that line?
This can be explained away with Cognitive bias, which is something we see a lot in these sorts of discussions. I find both protagonist in this case to be economic with facts.
I'm well aware that I'm as guilty of it as anyone.
No, that's just the abstract. Claim 1, for example, reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method for providing recurring delivery of products, the method comprising performing instructions under the control of a computer system for: receiving at the computer system a designation of a delivery slot and a recurring delivery list comprising one or more list items, each of the one or more list items identifying a p…
Dude... everything in that claim is what a milkman literally does. Literally! Especially if that milkman uses computers.
No, that's just the abstract. Claim 1, for example, reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method for providing recurring delivery of products, the method comprising performing instructions under the control of a computer system for: receiving at the computer system a designation of a delivery slot and a recurring delivery list comprising one or more list items, each of the one or more list items identifying a p…
Monthly standing orders in computer systems go back at least to the early 90s.
How does this patent get granted in light of prior art and obviousness?
It looks like a longish and important claim, but it still seems to me to describe trivial stuff that shouldn't be patentable to begin with. It's just a sequence which is pretty obvious to any clear-minded person once the business requirement is stated. It's one wildly broken patent system that grants patents on this kind of stuff.
it still seems to me to describe trivial stuff It is patent number 8,370,271. With numbers that large, it probably has to allow trivial stuff. I'm just glad that on November 2nd, 2029, society will be able to use a computer system to manage a list of items to be delivered. We have only to thank the brilliant minds at Amazon and the framers of our Constitution, otherwise such an important contribution to science and t…
That is provided patent terms won't be extended - to promote even more Useful Arts. Because, you know, there's never enough Useful Arts, and if patents help promoting them - why not extend them for longer terms? Look what is happening to copyrights - once Public Domain advancement line hits Mickey Mouse, it stops dead. Why patents shouldn't work this way too? After all, people seem to be fine living with this broken system and writing this kind of patents and pay millions to lawyers to sue each other over such un-trivial questions as who invented linked lists and who invented delivery schedules.
The big question is, how to solve it? How to improve the communication between programmers and lawyers? How to lessen the burden on the people that provide patents? How to involve the vote of the general public? Can there be a class of 'defending' patents instead of 'attacking' ones with which you can sue? Can there be specific IT judge educations?
I believe patents work by making the description impenetrable enough to make the examiner's eyes glaze over. So they approve the patent in self-defense, and don't notice that it's just a list of trivialities.
Do you believe this based on anything in particular?
I've just read all the claims and everything looks trivial once you realise that this is the basic specification for a repeating delivery system. Can you point to a single aspect of any of the claims that would reasonably be described as novel?
I believe patents work by making the description impenetrable enough to make the examiner's eyes glaze over. So they approve the patent in self-defense, and don't notice that it's just a list of trivialities.
Do you believe this based on anything in particular?
Also, wouldn't all those hundreds of "box of the month"-style subscription sites where you can pick a product to send and get it periodically be prior art?
I believe patents work by making the description impenetrable enough to make the examiner's eyes glaze over. So they approve the patent in self-defense, and don't notice that it's just a list of trivialities.
I don't know whether the examiner's eyes glaze over, but mine certainly do.
No, that's just the abstract. Claim 1, for example, reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method for providing recurring delivery of products, the method comprising performing instructions under the control of a computer system for: receiving at the computer system a designation of a delivery slot and a recurring delivery list comprising one or more list items, each of the one or more list items identifying a p…
It still doesn't sound very impressive if you translate it to plain English: A computer-implemented method for providing recurring delivery of products, the method comprising performing instructions under the control of a computer system for: Create a list on a computer. receiving at the computer system a designation of a delivery slot and a recurring delivery list comprising one or more list items, each of the one o…
Reminds me of one of the first computer systems ever used in business, back in the early 1950s:
"One of its early tasks was the elaboration of daily orders which were phoned in every afternoon by the shops and used to calculate the overnight production requirements, assembly instructions, delivery schedules, invoices, costings, and management reports"