Re: Curiouser and Curiouser
Actually they were found to be not inventive (the obviousness test)
Since there is no objective test for obviousness, it becomes a matter for the lawyers to hash out.
9 posts • joined 25 Nov 2016
The abstract is irrelevant. It's refined after search and not after exam whereas the claims are refined as part of the exam process.
(In essence, the abstract is a very brief precis of what they want to patent, and the claims are an in depth list of what they have actually patented)
Basing an entire article on the abstract is just lazy journalism
So, yesterday you published an article which basically rubbished BT for not looking forwards enough, for using older technology and not investing in new technology quickly enough.
Today you publish an article which basically rubbishes the government for looking too far forwards, for wanting to use new technology and planning to invest in that new technology early on.
...can you not see the problem with these two articles side by side?
So your definitions of "utilising" and "hand-held" are somewhat broader than the general advice given to UK police, and incorporates any use of any device which could at some point be hand-held, and does not require the device in question to be in the hand at the point of use? That's a bit suspect, I'm afraid.
If you were actually a police officer you'd be aware that the law in the UK allows for someone to take or make a phone call by pushing a button on their mobile phone, so long as they aren't distracted by it. That law has been widely interpreted to allow someone to use voice control on their phone if it is supported by the phone or the hands-free system (whichever one they are using). Although I'm not aware of any relevant case law about someone pressing a button to unlock their phone in order to allow them to make a call / voice control music / etc, the general legal principle is well established - so I wouldn't see any issue with arguing that the act of pushing a single button on a mobile phone to activate the voice control system did not contravene the relevant portions of the Act.
Best of luck if "you" or an actual police officer tries to take this to court, though!
>Please tell me you're in an autonomous Uber.
You appear to have the impression that it's illegal to use a mobile phone in the car. It isn't. It's illegal to use a *hand-held* mobile phone in the car. Mounted on a cradle, left on the dashboard, sat in a pocket and controlled by your shiny watch - all of these are legal.
As an example, my Moto Z sits on the dashboard connected to the car stereo. If I want to listen to music I reach out and gently caress the fingerprint sensor (which I can do without looking at the phone), then say "OK Google, play Bon Jovi". And it does.
Perfectly legal and doesn't require looking at the phone or driving in an autonomous vehicle.
To my mind down to a simple question - was he told he needed to disclose it or not?
The article states that he asked whether a criminal record check was required, not whether or not any convictions needed to be disclosed.
If the company asked for all convictions to be disclosed and he decided not to do that then it should be treated in exactly the same way as any other lie in an application form - disciplinary and, if you're on probation, probably immediate firing.
If the company hadn't asked for all convictions to be disclosed and left him with the impression that no criminal record check would be performed then I don't think the firing was reasonable.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020