Screw you, fortune cookie
Comics backlog
Okay, I’m already behind and its only day three. I know, bad Nick. Updates soon, I just haven’t actually been home enough to scan and write. I’m hanging my head in shame now.
100 Comics in 100 Days – Day 1
Recently GraveyardMall, an online seller of various and sundry cheap things, had a great deal: for $10 (+$6 s/h), you could get 50 random D.C. comics. Which of course meant that I could get 100 for $26, and boy, did I…
So, in order to make sure I can actually keep some sort of fresh material, I’m going to try to blog one comic per day for as long as it takes (math majors, you’ll note that the correct answer here is 100 days, but I expect you to show your work). So, without further ado:
Comic 1: Legend of the Shield, Vol. 1, Iss. 2, August 1991
Legend of the Shield, Vol. 1, Iss. 1 cover
Most patent stories suck
Just about every week, I see a “big” story about new patent that is going to be the end of the world. “Apple patents web browsing” or “Amazon patents using mouse” or “Microsoft patents breathing in and out as method for converting oxygen to carbon dioxide.” Okay, the first two are made up.
There’s a couple huge issues that pop up repeatedly. One, that you’ll see me bitch about most, is when people start flipping out about a patent application. I can file a patent application right now that claims “Using a computer to find pornography.” If I happen to be incorporated in Delaware, I can bet that some blog out there is going to flip out that I’ve now “patented online porn.” No, an application is not a patent, that patent is (probably) not going to get allowed, and it (probably) won’t stand up in court.
Equally disturbing, but rare, is when a reporter/blogger/drunk-homeless-guy finds an issued patent, reads it, writes about what it covers, and never once mentions the claims. All patents have a specification and at least one drawing, which help give background and body and context to the invention. These do NOT, however, describe the boundaries of what is patented. For that, we must turn to the claims.
A better way to deal with patent applications, or with patent specifications, is this: Amazon’s new patent could make returns harder. In the article, Josh Lowensohn looks to the patent as an indication of possible business practices. But wait, my more careful readers cry, if the specification doesn’t actually describe the boundaries of the system, why would the company be putting details of its planned systems in there? There’s several reasons:
1) Companies are cheap and lawyers are lazy. If you are going to launch a whole new system that will result in a number of patents, it is cost-effective and easier to write one large specification and reuse it for each patent, even if they only claim small parts thereof.
2) Patent applications may try to claim very broad inventions, which would require broad descriptions of the system in the specification. Throughout prosecution, patents usually get winnowed down to claiming less and less, and the eventual claims may be ridiculously narrow (after all, even if you’re limiting your patent to only cover your particular products, at least you can use it to stop generic copies).
I’m not saying either is the case for the patent discussed in the article, because I purposely avoided reading the patent until after I wrote that section. So, that explains why it’s a good idea to look to patent applications and specifications for possible business avenues that a company might take. My only real (and small) beef with the write-up linked above, and it may have nothing to do with the author, but the headline is inaccurate. The patent cannot make returns harder. Hell, the system described in the patent may not even make returns harder, but the patent could only make copying the claimed system harder. It’s like saying “Michael Bay destroys battleships; declares war on United States.” Well, no, it’s not really like that at all, but I’m having trouble getting the ire up here. So, for fuck’s sake Michael Bay, stop destroying battleships.
Just for fun, and in case I start seeing “Amazon patents video camera” stories, let’s look at a claim:
1. A method, comprising:
picking a plurality of finished inventory items from an inventory stock storage area of finished inventory items in an order fulfillment center to fulfill an order from a customer,
wherein the plurality of finished inventory items for the order include at least one of: a book, a food item, a bottle of wine, flowers, or jewelry
sorting out from among other picked finished inventory items, the plurality of finished inventory items for the order, including the at least one book, food item, bottle of wine, flowers, or jewelry;
subsequent to said picking and said sorting, capturing one or more images of the plurality of finished inventory items for the order, wherein the captured one or more images show a plurality of the finished inventory items for the order in or being placed into a final shipping container for shipment prior to the final shipping container being sealed for shipment, wherein: each one of the finished inventory items for the order is individually visible in the captured one or more images; and the captured one or more images are captured within the order fulfillment center prior to the final shipping container being loaded onto a carrier for shipping;
associating the captured one or more images with the order; and
making available to the customer associated with the order an electronic notification that the order has been processed, wherein the electronic notification references one or more images for the order, including one or more of the captured one or more images.
The emphasis here is mine. Without any comment on the scope of the claim, because god knows I don’t want to even hint at an insinuation of advice in a blog post, I will point out that the patent only covers systems that perform each and every step of that claim. (N.B. There are other claims in the patent of varying scope, do not assume the claim above is the broadest.) Now, I’m going to start my stopwatch for the next overblown “IBM patents yo’ momma jokes” story. Over/under: April 5th (one week).
Cherry blossom update
Took some time to spend with my appended family, including the most adorable 2 year old girl ever. But, here’s the photo you get. Hope it doesn’t disappoint too much.
Parasols
Something I’ve never heard before
There are no reported elevator outages in the metro system. Wtg WMATA!
The 11th Circuit cocks up email
[[UPDATE 3/17/2010: What follows is mostly a rant at what I perceived as deception on the part of the court. They made up a rule, claimed it was supported by other cases, and they were wrong/inaccurate/lazy/deceptive/horribly-misquoted-by-whoever-types-their-opinions. While what follows is, in my opinion, an accurate criticism of the use of cases in supporting their e-mail privacy decision, over at Volokh, Orin Kerr put up a very good and less bitchy post with substantive reasons in favor of finding the other way. Because the court essentially gets to make up their own law in a vacuum, disproving the court's logic and proving a different outcome is better are distinct efforts, and the latter is perhaps more useful in the long run. I recommend reading Kerr's piece.]]
Last week, on March 11, the Eleventh Circuit handed down its opinion in Rehberg v. Paulk et al., No. 09-11897. The case revolves around some of the most unconscionable abuses of authority by a prosecutor of which I’m aware (granted, not my area of expertise). You have a district attorney, and his office’s investigator, throwing around subpoenas and indicting a man in order to punish him for criticizing a particular hospital (to which the D.A. and investigator have “political ties”). They indicted him three times, each case being dismissed (in one instance, the DA told the court prior to trial that he was going to dismiss the case, then proceeded to prosecute the man in question). The man finally sues back, alleging a number of violations, including allegations that the two men violated his Fourth Amendment rights (that’s the one that says the government can’t violate your privacy unless it has, among other things, probable cause) by subpoenaing his ISP in order to read his emails. The Eleventh Circuit responded by essentially stripping e-mails of any privacy concerns whatsoever… But I’ve gotten ahead of myself.
JD Hayworth is crazy
JD Hayworth, who we last saw losing his job (but refusing to concede) in 2006 after he was linked to the Jack Abramoff scandal, is taking the natural next step for any disgraced Republican: running for even higher office. Hayworth is challenging John McCain for his Senate seat, up this year. Running as a challenger from the right, Hayworth has to make sure that every knows he’s not going to take any of the homosexual nonsense:
“You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage — now get this — it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy’ … Now how dangerous is that? I mean, I don’t mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point — I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It’s just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support.”
(via Politics Daily). Brace yourselves for the Shyamalan twist, kids: Hayworth is a moron.