Re: Aren't UK laws optional these days ?
There is a difference between a regulation and a directive. A directive can also have direct binding effect on a UK court (as a shield not a sword - google it).
Regulations have direct effect.
63 posts • joined 21 Jul 2011
I do not have two degrees: I took the foundation exams (all of them) after a year in the profession and passed them first time. The QM course (and others that are considered equivalent to the foundations) is not taken by everyone: my firm (and others) favour the foundation exam route. I personally don't think the QM course is a great substitute for the foundations and learning on the job (but people have a tendency to defend what they did as 'correct' so I am probably biased).
People with a postgraduate law qualification are very much in the minority in my firm (of 50 plus attorneys). Doctorates are much more common (virtually required for biotech).
I don't know of any UK patent attorneys who started with law. Quite a few trademark attorneys go this route though.
Few things wrong I'm afraid. No need for a law degree, and the EP exams are actually easier than the UK patent attorney exams (which are closed book, and horrible). No such thing as an EU patent attorney: it's EPA (European Patent Attorney).
Agree that the USPTO is a shower of sh*t compared to the EPO.
source: I am EPA, CPA (plus CEng, MIMechE)
Not quite sure what you mean by "caught issuing classified patents". The relevant statute is s22 UK Patents Act 1979, and it states that if a patent application includes information that might be prejudicial to national security, it should not be published. It will not grant until after the order is lifted.
You can read more http://www.ipo.gov.uk/downloads/practice-manual.pdf under section 22 if you really want to understand how it works.
If you do a cleanroom implementation, and come up with the same idea, a patent should stop you. The whole point of a patent is that it's a monopoly right. Infringement does not require copying.
It's always been possible to get a patent on a method.. It's actually quite hard to draw a clear line to exclude software, considering that in our modern world, most inventions are likely to at least involve software.
If you tried to communicate by pulling or twisting a metal rod, the signal would propagate at the speed of sound through the rod. Twisting would be a shear wave, and pulling a longitudinal wave - they would have a different speed of propagation (S-waves and P-waves). It would be very slow compared to light speed, and would take lots longer than 4 years.
For steel, the longitudinal wave speed is ~ 6000m/s, and the shear wave speed ~3200m/s.
4 light years / (6000 m/s) ~ 200 000 years
UK only is indeed very cheap, and great value. You can wait for up to a year from your first filing before you make a decision about where else to file, and if you go for a European patent, there are several countries that only require translation of the claims into the other two official EPO languages (DE, FR). Take a look here for info: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/london-agreement/key-points.html. There are of course relatively high application costs for a European patent.
Your patent attorney will be able to advise you further.
I like the Nexus 10 a lot, but it's not better than the iPad4 in every single way. I'm teetering on the fence about which I'd get (if only I was rich enough). The GPU in the iPad4 is far more powerful, and there is (for now) much greater maturity and diversity of apps for the iPad. The biggest problems I'd have with the iPad are iOS and iTunes, both of which seem noddy and restrictive (probably because I've now got used to Android).
I think quite at least some of the benchmarks are cut in half by using Chrome. For example, in Sunspider with the Nexus 10 Chrome gets roughly 1350ms, and Boat is more like 775ms (Dolphin is somewhere in the 800s). It's certainly subjectively much faster and more responsive using other browsers too (on both Nexus 7 and Nexus 10).
Not in the tablet space they haven't. Until the Nexus 7 came along, there wasn't really anything significantly cheaper that was any good (IMO). And Apple are still in the lead when it comes to GPU performance, by some margin (have a gander at the andandtech benchmarks). I think the Nexus 10 is faster (and better, because of flash) for browsing, but only if you don't use Chrome.
I actually don't like the metal back of the iPad. Picking it up when it's cold is not a nice experience, and if you've got dry hands it's kind of slippery. And heavy. I've always thought the iPad3 is a bit on the heavy side (since there is not a lot in the weight, I'd probably feel the same about the Nexus 10, but I've never held one). One of the reasons I got a Nexus 7 - much nicer in the hand (IMO).
The difference in pixels is largely down to the aspect ratio, and the fact they've picked a standard resolution WQXGA (2560x1600), a common res. for big screens.
I think I prefer Android to iOS, but your points in relation to the maturity of the app store and the usefulness of shops are good ones. The screen aspect ratio is another question of personal preference.
There's no mention of it in the article, but I've found (on my Nexus 7) that Chrome sucks as a browser. Boat and Dolphin are much quicker, and this really shows on the Nexus 10. Sunspider score with Boat is quicker than the iPad4, but waay worse when using Chrome. This agrees with my subjective experience of using the browsers. Chrome is unresponsive.
A brief second with google shows other people reporting similar speed. Three seem to be the pick of the bunch for rolling our HSPA+42
In my location three is much faster than EE.
Arguably this just happened, in the form of the Nexus 4. Costs £279 unlocked for a 16gb version, processor is on a par with that of iPhone 5 (quad-core snapdragon s4). Screen is a proper IPS LCD and is around 720 in the small direction (and is 4.7 inches diag.). Plus it will get OS updates from google.
Probably wont play nicely with outlook/exchange activesync out of the box though, so if that's a factor it might be out. Unless you are OK with Touchdown or similar.
For the more casual player, end game content just isn't an issue. Life is too short to grind away at end game content, and making a continuous chunk of my time available for a raid is not something I'm prepared to do. I want to be able to stop for a cuppa/go to bed when I need to.
For me, the vast majority of my time would be spent on the main game content (before the end game content). It took me at least three months of playing WoW to level a single character to around 60, at which point I stopped playing because it's just too expensive to justify a monthly subscription if you are a casual gamer. Not to mention the fact that everyone else I played with seemed to have levelled way faster, because they put more time in.
When you look at the cost of GW2, and the amount of content it has, it seems like a great proposition for the more casual gamer. It solves a number of problems with the WoW model for me. I just want to have a chat with my brother while mucking about smashing monsters once in a while.
Very tempted (all I have to do now is tear him away from his new panda - he's more dedicated).
Zafiras - awful things (the first generation at least). The 1.8 petrol gave terrible fuel economy and it drove like a dog. The ride quality was awful. I've had a few as hire cars, and they were among the worst. Only beaten out by a Chevy Matiz which appeared to have brakes made of chocolate. The Focus 1.6 auto is also in my top five worst cars ro drive too - utterly and totally gutless, thanks to a shit 4 speed auto and very little power.
The point being that you appear to think you know about the OP's ISP options than he does. You've either been looking in Mystic Meg's crystal ball, or you are assuming that the OP is a fool.
Judging by your downvotes, it seems that most people have made the judgement that your assumptions are not well founded.
Doubtful - a half competent patent attorney would advise claims covering both left and right handed chiralities. To do otherwise would be to deny the patentee a fair scope of protection for their invention. Not much point in holding a patent that can easily be designed around.
Have you perhaps considered that the two aims are not incompatible?
The patent system is intended to both reward innovation by allowing exclusivity for a limited time, and to ensure that innovations are made available by requiring a disclosure that enables others to work the invention after the end of the limited time.
How is this different from a patent that protects a pharmaceutical product?
Company X spends a load of money developing a technology to meet a medical need. They get a patent on it after a due process of examination so no-one can take a short cut, copy their work and undercut them.
Company Y comes along, copies Company X's product (possibly improving it into the bargain), and markets it at a much reduced price.
Company X sues company Y for infringement. Company Y is free to argue that the patent is invalid as a counterclaim.
If the patent is valid, then company Y f*cked up. If it's not inventive, company Y will win in court anyway.
Seems like the system is working as it should to me, unless you just want to chuck patents out of the window. Good luck with maintaining Western economies in the face of the ensuing flood of cheap knock-offs from China/India etc. Our "knowledge economies" are predicated on the ability to protect IP. If there were no-such protections, a company like Foxconn could cut out the middleman and just start flogging iPads directly.
Try defining "knock off android". If you mean Kindle Fire, then I don't think that they make people buy iPads. If you really mean "knock off" as in Chinese brand that no-one's ever heard of, then I think these are mostly bought (outside China) by enthusiasts who are likely to root them.
So I think you are wrong on both counts.
Android tablets are not selling well because they are still playing catch up to the iPad. The iPad is perceived to have better apps, the price is similar, and the performance of an iPad has always had the edge. It's taken this long for tabs like the Transformer Prime to catch up with the iPad 2, and the new iPad trumps that on screen specs.
The Android tabs are on a faster design cycle, and they will get the new SoCs first, so I don't think it will take all that long for them to get parity on the hardware. The tricky bit seems to be overcoming the perception (or reality) that apps are better on the iPad.
Not convinced that Android is doomed on tablet. Agreed, the apps aren't up to where the iPad apps are, but that first mover advantage. The situation was similar for smartphones, and Android soon caught up.
The development of apps for Android tablets has been slow because of the small market, and resulting imbalance between the effort and reward for coding/porting an app for Android tabs. One way to fix this is to flood the market with good, cheap tablets (perhaps selling at cost or subsidising). This would increase the marketplace for tablet apps, and push the balance for developers more in favour of developing for Android.
Guess what Google's next move is? If they get the Google Nexus/Memo 370T right, I think things will look up for the Android tablet ecosystem relatively quickly. I'd buy a £150-£200 Android tab that had a decent spec. I can't justify £400 on an iPad (with fixed storage capacity and built in obsolescence, even if it is better. I could get a (half) decent laptop for that to replace my rather decrepit XPS 2 (which incidentally has a decent screen at 1900x1200, which seems wierdly impossible to find these days).
I can see the argument, but I don't agree. A corroded, twisted ball of mess is more interesting because it once formed part of these missions, but that doesn't mean I think it's worthwhile to recover it.
Lots of people seem to agree that it is worthwhile, so perhaps I'm in the minority (on this website).
Having said that I love the space exhibits at the National Air and Space Museum - especially the LM they've got there and command module (and I think one of the very early US manned satellites). They were really pushing it.
I've been there, and seen it. It's actually one complete engine, and a quarter cutaway, with mirrors arranged to show the array of five.
I'm sure the real Saturn V, with real engines, looks more impressive, but they also exist on dry land, so I can't see why it's worth recovering this one.
Having said that, it's his money - he can do what he likes with it. I suppose when you are that wealthy, you get to indulge your more frivolous inclinations. I can't help thinking there are better ways to spend the dosh (unless he's already got a bevy of beautiful ladies on tap).
You can't spend the same money twice. Choosing to spend a few million quid means that you can't spend that particular few million quid on something else, so to that extent, they appear to be mutually exclusive.
Of course, you could argue that investing a few million quid in something that gives a return potentially enables everyone to be better off in the long term, but I think that's a very hard argument to make for something that appears to be so totally pointless. The National Air and Space Museum already has a display with an F1 engine and a load of mirrors as I recall. Pretty impressive. I can't see that it would be more interesting to look at an engine that had hit the sea it high speed and then been left to corrode for n number of years.
Sounds a lot like the smart cut process that is currently used by SOItech to make thin SOI wafers.
The ion implant results in stress at the depth the ions end up in the lattice after implantation. The wafer can then be split along the stressed zone to give a thin slice. In the smart cut process you stick wafer A, with a stressed buried slice, to wafer B, which is coated with oxide. Pull, and a slice of wafer A ends up on the (now buried) oxide of wafer B. Silicon on Insultor (SOI).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020