unavoidable

Sounds like you have all this backwards. If the rumours are true, it's TSMC with all the power in this situation, not Intel. TSMC selling their services to the highest bidder because they have the best tech is the free market at work. It's the opposite of anti-competitive. Intel is the one going to pay up (to TSMC) for their mistakes. Incidentally, AMD outsourcing its fab came with inherent risks, one of which is this.

I see this kind of argument come up a lot when talking about copyrights and patents. This is not how that works.

If someone creates a derivative work (e.g. crazy colors), that new person does own the copyright in the new "crazy colors" version, but they don't own the copyright to the black and white version. However, the new crazy colors version contains the rights of both the old and the new author, so that in order to publish the crazy color version, they would have to obtain a licence to the original version or else be infringing.

In short, the new version has two rights, owned by two different people, not one.

For every story about Pokemon cards there's 20 stories about Beanie Babies collecting dust in the attic...

DNA is spaghetti code... but it all works somehow.

On the other hand he would have hated the economics of webcomics... shameless promotion, social media, merchandising, patreoning, ads, etc...

Judging by the temperature of sibling HN comments and the degree of Canada-bashing from US-based individuals, it does indeed seem like there is a difference in degree of individualist mindset.

Surprisingly few people are actually trying to answer this question on this thread. The answer is straightforward: you either structure your organization so that there are enough overlapping responsibilities to account for parental leaves (e.g. good business practice of not making a fragile organization), or you hire a temporary employee explicitly on a 1 year "parental leave" contract.

The labour market is quite good, and there is no shortage of qualified individuals for almost all positions (CFO, specialists included). Often, a good temp ends up getting another position at the same company after doing the 1-year contract. There is also a small cottage industry of successful individuals who basically take such jobs.

Maybe hard to accept for some, but the world doesn't end when people go on leave to have kids.

It also turns out that most people (that I know) are quite happy to buy into this particular social contract. There is a tacit understanding that you might have to pick up the slack a bit for someone else, but one day you might need the same in return - borrowing against the future is another way to think about it.

Source: Canadian, have worked in organizations and involved in hiring policies where this is successful.

Most employees don't really care what the global mission of the company or their strategic interests are. It's whether you can get a decent paycheck with some stability while having a semblance of control and balance. The more you work the more this becomes true.

Another problem with reality: most wall-floor angles are not exactly 90 degrees! Anyone who has tried to build custom cabinetry and shelving can attest to this.

OT, but, Jefferson appears to have anticipated fake news and the thirst for eyeballs.

>To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, “by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.” Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.

Geoff Hinton has deep roots with the rival University of Toronto and the surrounding ecosystem. His role and influence undoubtedly played a large part in this decision.

In fact, the patent system comes close. If what you contributed was inventive and new, you get a patent on that slice of what you invented. For someone to commercialize the whole thing, they may need to pay both parties (essentially both parties who had a part to play in the "discovery" will be paid for their work). In many cases like this, the parties have to cross-license each other (pay each other or license each other for their respective patents).

That is actually what the article says.

"An appeals board of the patent office ruled that the gene-editing inventions claimed by the two institutions were separate and do not overlap."

"Ultimately, companies wanting to apply Crispr for use in medicine, agriculture or other fields might need licenses from both the Broad Institute and the University of California, a lawyer for the university said. ..."

Potentially related is the centrifugal effect - the Earth bulges at the equator slightly because of spin. Logically, melted ice would tend to cause water to "rise" more at the equators (further from the ice caps) than near the poles.

The fact that he bothered to learn is somehow a bad thing?

I agree that articles like this usually suck for pictures. But in this case the video attached actually provides a great summary and a good deal of close ups.

Source? The whole article basically argues against this view. What is your evidence to say AOA only contributes 10%?

Having a patent doesn't grant you the right to use it (for example if someone else owns a patent for a similar technology you still have to make sure you aren't infringing that one). Defensive patenting only means that you have your own patents to assert against someone else who might potentially sue you.

Most entrepreneurs have a reality distortion field that they sometimes fall victim to, otherwise they wouldn't be doing something as risky (and irrational) as starting a business.

You can file a registration for copyright, which gives you certain presumptions and advantages in court (e.g. it serves as a presumption of ownership, which would be important in these kinds of cases). It also might serve as "notice" for potential infringers so that you can get higher damages.

Yes, but if your rocket is smaller and nimbler because you only designed it to go to an altitude of 100km, isn't it easier to land?

The example doesn't really change.

> "The code was broken" instead of "You broke the code" serves the same function.

Passive voice is one of those things that really irks people for some reason, mostly because their grammar school teacher taught them so. It has a lot of legitimate uses, but the knee-jerk reaction it invokes in people is bizarre.

For instance, there are many cases where one would want to de-emphasize the subject, or cases where the tone should be "passive" in the sense opposite from "aggressive". If you are arguing with someone because you think they are wrong but don't want to put blame, you may want to say "It was wrong to do that" instead of "You were wrong to do that".

Another use of passive voice is for a certain dark style and more mysterious tone. A good example of this is "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times..."

The real holding (the dispositive part) is this: "Because Summy Co. never acquired the rights to the Happy Birthday lyrics, Defendants, as Summy Co.'s purported successors-in-interest, do not own a valid copyright in the Happy Birthday lyrics".

And to be somewhat pedantic (an occupational hazard of being a lawyer), the judge didn't hold that the copyright was invalid per se, only that Warner can't prove that they own the copyright. I doubt anyone else would be able to prove in 2015 that they own the copyright to Happy Birthday, but the possibility is open.

Sorry, but I'm going to be "that guy", because someone is inevitably going to say "you can't patent that!", and there is generally a lot of misinformation about patents on HN. That particular document is a published patent application, and not a granted patent. You can tell on Google Patents in the field on the right that says: "Publication type: Application".

Moreover, using USPTO Pair[0], you can check the status of such patents, and it turns out that this one has been abandoned since 2011 for failure to respond to the Patent Examiner. So no, there is no patent on this (at least, not the one you pointed to).

[0] Publicly available database by USPTO: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair

Yet at my law school, there was an unspoken rule in our criminal law classes that the exams would never have a fact pattern invoking sexual assault, for the obvious reasons. Perhaps the truth is always more nuanced than what is being said here.

That comment was about compiling from source, which requires much more memory than the actual program.

For some reason, there is a popular misconception (even among some linguists!) that "Canada" is some kind of unified linguistic zone, or that somehow it is "close enough" (maybe people are just lazy). Whereas English diversity in the US has been studied to very fine level of detail, Canada remains mostly a blob on most maps[0].

Of course, anyone who lives, say, in urban Ontario will immediately notice the differences in accent of someone from B.C. or Alberta, though that seems to just "sound Canadian" to other listeners.

[0] See e.g. http://aschmann.net/AmEng/

> monthly rates for a bed start at $1,000

This is the truly insane part.

Likely, this is a standard term in their inventor assignment contract. When bsenftner signed it, the patent applications were probably not public yet (there is an 18 month period between filing and publication in which the application remains "secret"), and during that period it makes sense to have a non-disclosure term.

As for the current owner being a front... if it is, it's not a very good one (real patent troll companies are much better at it, using shell corporations in various jurisdictions, each tied to a single or a small number of patent families).

Come on guys. Like all patents, the owner must be disclosed to the USPTO. A quick Google search turns up Flixor as the original owner, and "Big Tent Entertainment, LLC" as the current owner of some of the recent patents in this family. A further search of their website indicates it licenses various media technology to companies including "Concept One, Nintendo, Fifth Sun, Parragon Publishing, Harry Abrams, Kids Station, Merch Source and more".