herniatedeel

Quite the line: "a case of mordant laddish humor ramming slightly askew."

Big business isn't really monolithic when it comes to patents. Some large tech companies love patents (MSFT, e.g.), while others (Google, e.g.) seem to abhor them.

Also, the troll problem is a problem for big business, not a benefit to big business.

For what purpose? If it's for prior art, the prior at must have been publicly available, so a private LLM wouldn't work. Perhaps I'm missing your point, though.

Defensive patent pools exist, if that's what you're saying: Unified Patents, LOT network, and RPX are a few.

I get that fluoxetine, a relatively old SSRI is a dirty drug, but aren't newer serotonin modulators much cleaner? E.g., vilazodone, vortioxetine, and even old-fashioned Escitalopram (lexapro)?

My understanding is that escitalopram has pretty low binding affinity for other receptors than SERT.

This patent hasn't issued - it's just a publication.

I'd at least try the xyrem. I've tried it - didn't work for me (my sleep issues are caused by something else), but it's not as incapacitating as it's made out to sound.

Yes, the 2nd Circuit's decision is persuasive authority for other circuits. However, that's not what the article claims. The article claims that SCOTUS ruled when it, in fact, did not.

SCOTUS denied the petition for writ of certiorari, thereby leaving the 2nd Circuit's ruling in Google's favor intact.

However, the 2nd Circuit's ruling is not binding on any other federal circuits.

Also, as Enginerrd stated, the holding is not nearly as broad as the article makes it out to be.

The holding was:

1. Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google’s commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use.

2. Google’s provision of digitized copies to the libraries that supplied the books, on the understanding that the libraries will use the copies in a manner consistent with the copyright law, also does not constitute infringement.

Based on the above holding, I think the article's conclusion is a stretch for general training algorithms using copyrighted data because: (1) there would not be a library supplying the information to the training algorithm, (2) there would be no similar display of snippets, and (3) we do not know if a training algorithm would provide a market substitute for the copyrighted data.

One solution might be to set a sleep timer on your podcast app.

Both the patent and the finding of patent infringement are a bit more complicated than that.

In order for a finding of patent infringement, one or more claims of the patent must be infringed.

Claim 1 recites:

A multiple supply voltage device comprising:

a core network operative at a first supply voltage; and

a control network coupled to said core network wherein said control network is configured to transmit a control signal, said control network comprising: an up/down (up/down) detector configured to detect a power state of said core network;

processing circuitry coupled to said up/down detector and configured to generate said control signal based on said power state;

one or more feedback circuits coupled to said up/down detector, said one or more feedback circuits configured to provide feedback signals to adjust a current capacity of said up/down detector;

at least one first transistor coupled to a second supply voltage, the at least one more first transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered down and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered on;

at least one second transistor coupled in series with the at least one first transistor and coupled to said first supply voltage, the at least one second transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered on and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered down;

at least one third transistor coupled in series between the at least one first transistor and the at least one second transistor.