Well yeah. but it’d be great for occassional use, like a night of clubbing til dawn before having to go to work.
If my ‘sleep’ pills do well, I’ll come out with another line called ‘laid’ (now that’ll really solve a lot of hassle).
Brian
I saw something a few years ago on the military developing just such a drug.
They already use amphetamines (carefully prescribed) to keep USAF pilots alert on long missions. I think they said they could go for two or three days without real sleep.
You can see the full patent by going through the search at www.uspto.gov
Patent # 6266651
So, these guys have been working on online auctions since at least 1995. Yep, looks like EBay is screwed.
Independent claims:
[quote]Therefore, I claim:
- A computer-implemented two-tiered electronic auction system comprising:
a data repository storing information corresponding to an inventory of one or more available items;
a first-tier providing a first participant access to the inventory of one or more items in the data repository, the inventory being offered to the first participant under a first pricing scheme; and
a second-tier providing a second participant, different from the first participant, access to the inventory of one or more items in the data repository, the inventory being offered to the second participant under a second pricing scheme different from the first pricing scheme.[/quote]
[quote]A computer-implemented method of facilitating commercial transactions by providing a two-tiered electronic auction, the method comprising:
maintaining a first-tier electronic auction at a computer system, the first electronic auction comprising items offered to consumer participants under a retail pricing scheme;
maintaining a second-tier electronic auction at the computer system, the second electronic auction comprising items offered to dealer participants under a wholesale pricing scheme; and
linking the first-tier and second-tier electronic auctions through a data repository having data records that represent items concurrently available in both of the first-tier and second-tier electronic auctions.
[/quote]
[quote]A method for facilitating electronic commerce using an electronic auction system having at least a wholesale tier and a retail tier, the method comprising:
presenting for auction an item description stored in a database operationally coupled to the electronic auction system, the presentation of the item including a current retail bid amount;
receiving a wholesale bid from at least one wholesale-tier participant; and
selectively displacing the current retail bid amount if the received wholesale bid increased by a predetermined amount is greater than the current retail bid.
[/quote]
[quote]A system for facilitating electronic commerce transactions among participants in an electronic auction using a data packet network, the system comprising:
a first data storage location for storing information relating to an item for auction, the stored information indicating at least one of a retail price term for a retail-tier participant and a wholesale price term for a wholesale-tier participant;
a second data storage location for storing a user identification identifying a participant as either a retail-tier participant or a wholesale-tier participant; and
a display process for selectively displaying, depending on the user identification stored in the second data storage location, at least one of the retail price term to retail-tier participants and the wholesale price term to wholesale-tier participants.
- A two-tiered auction system comprising:
a retail tier in which a bid on an item from a retail auction participant is evaluated based on an amount of the bid received from the retail auction participant;
a wholesale tier in which a bid on the item from a wholesale auction participant is evaluated based on an amount of the bid received from the wholesale auction participant increased by a predetermined amount; and
a process for differentiating retail auction participants from wholesale auction participants.
- A method of conducting two-tiered auctions comprising treating received bids differently depending on whether the participant from whom a bid is received is a retail participant or a wholesale participant.
[/quote]
Yes, you can buy an invention outright, or license it. There is nothing wrong with this. One thing that many companies do is cross-license. If the Kerberos people had patented their product, Microsoft’s little game of “we made a change to the protocol and you can’t do anything about it” would have resulted in Microsoft paying the legal fees and patent application fees for the Open Source movement for the next generation.
If we could somehow medically eliminate the need for sleep, we’d have 18 hour work days. And I’d kill myself.
You gotta love software patents. Here is a nifty article on the newest patent application from M$.
[quote=“beatnikmao”]You gotta love software patents. Here is a nifty article on the newest patent application from M$.
theinquirer.net/?article=18015[/quote]
I know this topic had just about died, but there was more interesting news today on software patents:
braingia.org/webnotes/index. … &tb=1&pb=1
and here’s an older one…
edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiap … lia.wheel/
regards,
Robert
The energy density of solar power is too low. Maybe you could hover for a few seconds after charging up for a few weeks, but the battery weight would likely kill it.[/quote]If you were using jets or propellors to create lift, that would be true. But if you used spinning superconductors to make a Podkletnov Gravitational-Shield (it would need more refining, it only produces a 2% reduction in weight of an object placed above it at the moment) it could work
They already have it. It’s called Modafinil and is marketed under the name Provigil. They market as a cure for those with narcolepsy (fall asleep in the middle of the day for no reason), but it reportedly can be used to replace sleep. They haven’t solved the main side effects of long-term insomnia though, namely paranoia and hallucinations.
I remember back in the 1960s (see how old I am?) when there was talk of putting nuclear powerplants in everybody’s basement, or nuclear powered cars. Well, it didn’t happen, and still isn’t likely. However, the possibility of a nuclear powerplant in every community has gotten a major boost from “pebble bed reactors”. Slashdot had a story last week about China’s plans to build hundreds of these things:
science.slashdot.org/article.pl? … 26&tid=134
Hmm…sounds a bit like Mao’s idea during the Great Leap Forward to build a steel mill in everybody’s back yard. Anyway, some more more links about pebble bed reactors…
eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/p … e_bed.html
web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/pebble.html
Like it or not, the future may be nuclear. Especially since oil is running out. (Now this ought to stir up some controversy).
regards,
Robert
I remember back in the 1960s (see how old I am?) when there was talk of putting nuclear powerplants in everybody’s basement, or nuclear powered cars. Well, it didn’t happen, and still isn’t likely. However, the possibility of a nuclear powerplant in every community has gotten a major boost from “pebble bed reactors”. Slashdot had a story last week about China’s plans to build hundreds of these things:
science.slashdot.org/article.pl? … 26&tid=134
Hmm…sounds a bit like Mao’s idea during the Great Leap Forward to build a steel mill in everybody’s back yard. Anyway, some more more links about pebble bed reactors…
eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/p … e_bed.html
web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/pebble.html
Like it or not, the future may be nuclear. Especially since oil is running out. (Now this ought to stir up some controversy).
regards,
Robert
[quote=“robert_storey”][quote=“MaPoSquid”]Robert, I have now read the article, and the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
[/quote]
Whatever. Maybe this one’s better:
By the way, you mentioned “drug patents” as being a very good thing. You might be interested to know that Richard M. Stallman (guess you’ve heard of him) said the same thing - he said it was just exactly the opposite situation of software patents, because to create a drug you had to spend years and millions of dollars for research and development. Compare that to patenting “Paying with a credit card online” (U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319).
peace,
Robert[/quote]
Yes, the problem with US patent law is that it is now possible to patent “business models”, not just "mathematical alogrithms. Both are scarry. One of the historical foundations of patent law has been an invention that brings new light to the natural world … mostly things that are unique to physics and chemistry. Airplanes based on Bernoulli’s Principle is one example. However, today’s corporate robber barrons would want to patent Bernouli’s Principle altogether … i.e. we have a patent on pressure differentials … or we have a patent on human flight. There is no difference between this extreme and what is being done today in the software and business model realm.
They will start to use biological basis for computer memory, because nerve tissue is much faster and can support more interconnections. You’ll be able to plug straight into the computer - no need to type or look at a screen again.
Then someone will start writing viruses for people’s brains…
I was going to make some sort of clever reply, but I forgot what it was after I hit “Reply.” 
Microsoft wins ‘tabbed browsing’ patent
I thought this was a joke at first but apparently it’s real. 
[quote=“Spack”]Microsoft wins ‘tabbed browsing’ patent
I thought this was a joke at first but apparently it’s real. [/quote]
Spack, “tabbed browsing” is different from keyboard navigation through links. Edit: sorry, that’s the mistake of the “journalist” who wrote the headline for the article. . . .
Wow, that’s gotta be one of the most ridiculous patents I’ve seen yet. Right up there with the shotgun silencer that “worked” by opening and closing very rapidly to let all the shot out of the muzzle, but trapping the gas.
First off, I think the open-source movement should immediately patent REAL “tabbed browsing”, wherein a single browser window can have multiple tabs for multiple pages. Microsoft still hasn’t figured out how to put that into IE, and for anyone who has used it, you’ll quickly get so used to it that you really hate using any browser that doesn’t have it, like IE. 
Second, here’s Microsoft’s first claim; their other independent claims all have the same defect that this does:
[quote]1. In a computer system having a video display, a keyboard device for providing a key input, a method of discovering each of a plurality of hyperlinks in a hypertext document, said input device having keys, comprising:
(a) displaying the hypertext document on the video display;
(b) organizing the plurality of the hyperlinks in the document into a sequence in an element list, wherein the sequence of the hyperlinks is based on the disposition of each hyperlink in the document, and wherein the element list comprises information describing a location of a next hyperlink and a type of the next hyperlink; and
© when a predefined key on the keyboard device is actuated, giving focus to the next hyperlink of the plurality of hyperlinks in the sequence.
[/quote]
Note that in (b), the element list has information on the type of the next hyperlink. So, no matter what, any browser that doesn’t store “type” information (what the heck is “type” information, anyway??) in its linked list of links on a page is going to be immune.
[quote=“MaPoSquid”][quote=“Spack”]Microsoft wins ‘tabbed browsing’ patent
I thought this was a joke at first but apparently it’s real. [/quote]
Spack, “tabbed browsing” is different from keyboard navigation through links.
[/quote]
I know. 
Yes, somebody on Slashdot mentioned that he just patented filing lawsuits against people as a business model. That way, if anybody sues him, he can counter-sue for patent infringement.
regards,
Robert
Yes, that’s one of the big problems. There are several litigation companies that do just that, a good example being PanIP. PanIP has no programmers working for it - just lawyers, who buy up bogus patents and file bogus lawsuits. They sue small companies (“low-hanging fruit”) who can’t afford the litigation fees. Here’s a couple of really good examples of what they do:
indianabusiness.com/articles/1202_C.html
informationweek.com/story/IWK20021020S0002/1
PanIP’s lawsuits are so bogus that they immediately backed down when some of the victims formed a defense fund and countersued…
Unfortunately, one such small victory won’t change the outcome of the war. The only thing that will change that is if software patents are made illegal - as they used to be.
regards,
Robert[/quote]
Then again, money isn’t everything:
tomshardware.com/hardnews/20 … 21119.html
[quote]Patent Office rejects Microsoft’s FAT patent
By Wolfgang Gruener, Senior Editor
September 30, 2004 - 12:11 EST
In the reexamination proceeding initiated earlier this year by the Public Patent Foundation, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected all of the claims of Microsoft’s patent on the FAT file system, which Microsoft describes as “the ubiquitous format used for interchange of media between computers, and, since the advent of inexpensive, removable flash memory, also between digital devices.”
Relying predominantly on evidence provided by PUBPAT when the reexamination was requested, the Patent Office made multiple rejections of the Redmond, WA based software giant’s patent. Microsoft has the opportunity to respond to the Patent Office’s rejection, but third party requests for reexamination, like the one filed by PUBPAT, are successful in having the subject patent either narrowed or completely revoked roughly 70 percent of the time. [/quote]
With thanks to scomargo for referring me to the article.
Except that it costs maybe US$50,000 to fight a bogus patent and have it revoked. Since Microsoft holds about 3000 software patents, that means for a mere US$150 million we can we can castrate Bill Gates’ patent portfolio. I’ll pass the collection plate at the next Linux club meeting.
Meanwhile…
Don’t know if you read Robert Cringely’s weekly column, but these last two (which dealt with Microsoft’s planned use of patents on USB standards to cripple Linux) were gems:
pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040916.html
pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040923.html
If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.
– Bill Gates, 1991
This was quoted by Fred Warshofsky in “The Patent Wars” of 1994. The text is from an internal memo written by Bill Gates to his staff. Part of has appeared in another Gates memos.
If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. … The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."