Legge

joined 2 years ago
[–] Legge@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks lol I have some parent law background and was happy for a chance to use it here for this

[–] Legge@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

I'll do my best :)

Nintendo is suing palworld for patent infringement, meaning it thinks palworld is infringing (using without permission) one of Nintendo's patents.

These parents went through the application process and the Japanese patent office decided they were valid (basically that they were new and inventive).

Now, though, the validity of 2 of the 3 Nintendo parents are having their validity questioned.

A pending Nintendo application (not yet a patent) is, at the moment, considered to not be patentable because it lacks the new and inventive part that is required of a patent. This was discovered because a third party told the patent office about something that existed in some sort of publication before the Nintendo application was started (basically). This earlier-existing thing is called prior art. Prior art is sort of like a quasi-patent in the sense that new applications' new and inventive determination is based on basically all previously existing stuff. Just because Nintendo didn't disclose it and just because the patent office itself didn't discover this prior art doesn't mean it does not still operate to block the new application's new and inventive idea.

Now Nintendo has to demonstrate to the patent office that its new application is actually different from the prior art or that the prior art should, for some reason, not actually qualify as prior art. If it is successful, it can become an actual patent (assuming all the other stuff it needs is correct).

This all matters because this new application stems from existing Nintendo patents. This means basically that Nintendo patented something extensive that can be broken into smaller parts that are also patentable. This is confusing but it's sort of like if you designed a 3-in-1 hot coffee, espresso, cold brew machine (on paper). It was so unique that if you separated the espresso part of it it was still new and inventive over everything else in existence, which makes it patentable. As well, if you separated the cold brew part, it was also new and inventive (therefore patentable).

This new application is like the cold brew part of the example above. The espresso part was already found to be new and inventive (now a patent) but the discovery of this third-party prior art is not only blocking the new and inventiveness of the cold brew part (new application), but also of the entire 3-in-1 machine (already a patent). This could happen, for example, if someone in India invented the 3-in-1 machine but the Japanese patent office didn't know about it and Nintendo didn't know about it when Nintendo first tried to patent its 3-in-1 machine with the Japanese office. Now, the India machine has been brought to japan's attention during this new application and it could lead to the office reconsidering the validity of Nintendo's 3-in-1 machine altogether.

Hope this helps! I tried to make it easy enough to follow with a more imaginable example but the whole thing is still pretty abstract and confusing.

[–] Legge@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Cottage cheese, granola, and a little bit of jelly/ jam/ preserves (and coffee of course). Right now I'm using blueberry. It keeps me from being hungry for a few hours, which is good enough for me

[–] Legge@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Thanks for this! I think it's the clearest visualization explanation I've ever heard for i

[–] Legge@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The white lotus. I didn't like season 3's theme as much as the first 2's but I still like to listen

[–] Legge@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

There are age requirements for federal government positions and none of them are 40. President is 35, senator is 30, and house rep is 25.

[–] Legge@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Definitely some greed. One grocery store here charges 50% more than the other just because (imagine: it's a Kroger owned store). Neither store is a discount or lower-end store either. Ridiculous.

And coincidentally (or no really coincidentally at all), OP's pic looks like a Kroger owned store too based on the price tag and the inconvenience sticker. Shocker that they'd charge that price 🙄

[–] Legge@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

$5/dozen for the average brand near Chicago (in Indiana), and $8/dozen i think for the more expensive brand

[–] Legge@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Neither I believe it's Hamilton County, the (comparatively) rich suburb of Indianapolis.

[–] Legge@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sure, but I think the point is that raising minimum wage didn't cause that. Inflation (read: corporate greed) really harmed grocery, food, etc. prices, especially during the pandemic. It truly became a game of how much can we raise these prices until people consider not paying for it

[–] Legge@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That if you weren't part of "our" religion (my family's religion, Catholic), you were basically living your life wrong and were an awful person. When I went to college I met people who believed different things, including in nothing, and I realized they were not, in fact, terrible, almost subhuman, people. I quickly changed for the better and that's one of the best things to ever happen to me. It's amazing how accepting you can be when you just accept people for who they are

[–] Legge@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's right: usually. Sometimes no. Or sometimes the volume of water only slowly drains away (like some rivers move extremely slowly and it's almost as if it's not moving at all). If it takes 3 days for the water in the normally filled river to move 1 mile, even if it takes 2 days with the flooded valley to drain instead of 3, that's still 2 days of floods.

Imagine you drop a bunched up shirt onto the floor. If you look, you'll see that there are lower spots surrounded on all sides of high spots. Terrain irl is not so different from that in spots. Hope this helps explain :)

view more: next ›