Cheap Cialis Blogger | Search results for "ibm"

Wikipedia defines the human brain as "the anterior most part of the central nervous system in humans as well as the primary control center for the peripheral nervous system." I would like to preface the rest of this post by pointing out that from a philosophical view, the human brain cannot be directly compared to a computer. Since the brain does not function like a computer, only analogies can be made. Simply put, computers are linear information processors (they process one task at a time, but in rapid succession) and the human brain is by no means linear. Although it does process information, their can be many independent processes occurring at any given moment in the brain. Even if quantum computing is considered, the human brain is still very different in function and means. The best article I read regarding the philosophy of comparison was What kind of computer is the brain? For the comparisons being made in this research, an analogous comparison was assumed. The human brain is scientifically accepted as the most powerful computing device on the planet. Even the greatest computers to ever be built only equate to approximately 1/30th of the brain's capability. In technical terms, IBM's "Deep Blue" was capable of 3 Million MIPS (million instructions per second) whereas the human brain is estimated at approximately 100 million MIPS (that's 100 million, million (or 100 trillian) instructions per second ). More than just raw processing power, in order for "programs" to run, memory is also needed. The human brain consists of about 100 trillian synapse, which are the connectors for the neurons in the brain. Each synapse is capable of being in a number of different states through the use of molecular adjustments within the synapse. If each synapse is capable of being in 7 different states (hypothetically speaking), then this would equate to about 100 million megabytes, or a little over 95 terabytes, of stored data. In the computer world, available memory has always correlated with processing speed. Simply put, even the fastest processors can be limited by how much memory is available. Slightly more technically put: "The ratio of memory to speed has remained constant during computing history. The earliest electronic computers had a few thousand bytes of memory and could do a few thousand calculations per second. Medium computers of 1980 had a million bytes of memory and did a million calculations per second. Supercomputers in 1990 did a billion calculations per second and had a billion bytes of memory. The latest, greatest supercomputers can do a trillion calculations per second and can have a trillion bytes of memory." The quote above is taken from an article by Hans Moravec of the Carnegie Mellon University Robotics Institute. In his article, he speaks in depth about the comparison of computers to the human brain and compares the computational power of some of the most advanced robots to that of the common housefly. He also extrapolates from technology advances in the past, that man-made computers will not equal the capabilities of the human brain until approximately 2030. Additional Reading: Atlas of the Human Brain Wikipedia: The Human Brain The Human Brain Project Thanks to Free1978 from TLEC comments for inspiring this research. - oo7surge

Tags: brain, human, computer, memory, million

At the IBM site (http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-microhist.html), one can find an interesting statement that Bell Labs did not get patents on the transistor. Although prior art by Lilienfeld did stop some applications of Bell Labs from going forward, both Bardeen/Brattain and Shockley did get patents, which were licensed to many companies, including TI and the predecessor of Sony. At all relevant times, Bell Labs, Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley knew, understood, and foresaw applications for the transistor beyond a use in hearing aids. The relevant text at ibm.com states: -->Independent contemporaneous (and not so contemporaneous) discovery would remain a recurring theme in electronics. So it was with the invention of the vacuum tube -- invented by Fleming, who was investigating the Effect named for and discovered by Edison; it was refined four years later by de Forest (but is now rumored to have been invented 20 years prior by Tesla). So it was with the transistor: Shockley, Brattain and Bardeen were awarded the Nobel Prize for turning de Forest's triode into a solid state device -- but they were not awarded a patent, because of 20-year-prior art by Lilienfeld. So it was with the integrated circuit (or IC) for which Jack Kilby was awarded a Nobel Prize, but which was contemporaneously developed by Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor (who got the patent). And so it was, indeed, with the microprocessor. **The issued patents of Bardeen/Brattain and Shockley cite to the earlier work of Lilienfeld, which was considered by the USPTO in its decision to grant patents to the Bell Labs workers. **The patent application of Kilby of TI preceded the application of Noyce of Fairchild. Further, embodiments of TI may have been seen by Fairchild workers PRIOR to the Fairchild application. However, the Fairchild application (which prevailed in an interference proceeding) was more descriptive of the IC as it came to be. **Fleming's knowledge of the Edison Effect arose through work Fleming did on behalf of Edison's company. Knowledge of the "Edison effect" preceded Edison's discovery, although Edison did get a US patent employing the Edison effect. Fleming patented the diode (valve) to use as a detector for spark-gap radio transmissions, and it was a commercial failure because it was inferior to then-existent solid state devices (eg, cat whisker). Generic Viagra cheap cialis Cheap Viagra generic cialis

Tags: transistor, patent, labs, bell, shockley

The Procter & Gamble –Aubrey Blumsohnn saga has officially turned into tragicomedy to the 7 th aptitude. For you may be read, Blumsohn was performing research being P & G regarding its osteoporosis drug Actonel. To knock off a bull narration short, Blumsohn formed that P & G’s information investigation strongly arised to differ from reality. Until Blumsohn attempted to accomplish near indoctrination people, he nearly lost his slavery. But disturbance not, the poorly past results analyses resulted betwixt distinct scientific presentations together with a notification within the Journal of Bone along with Mineral Audit that has yet to be retracted. So the accepted scientific directory likewise seems to paint an unrealistically favorable input of P & G’s Actonel. Latest Lump: Dr. Blumsohn has decided to furnish the memorandums of some of the real cabinet analyses, (i.e., cabinet not, um, creatively analyzed, by Procter & Gamble) so this the scientific again medical communities may become familiarized with what attains to be the real tale of Actonel rather than the PR currently posing since the staple scientific notebook. Blumsohn sent in a brief summary of a study (an abstract) in hopes of presenting it at the International Bone and Mineral Society (IBMS) Meeting. This study is a reanalysis of the aforementioned P & G data, and it paints a picture that is not nearly as positive for Actonel. The abstract contains a statement stating: “Study funded by Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals.” This is true; P & G funded the study from which all the data came from, so indeed, it is appropriate to indicate such, even though, as we’ll see shortly, P & G wanted nothing to do with Blumsohn’s subsequent analyses. Enter Dr. Purple: Procter and Gamble found out that the aforementioned abstract had been submitted for presentation. A man named Dr. Christopher Purple at P & G then contacted the IBMS and asked to have the mention of P & G’s sponsorship removed from Blumsohn’s abstract. Mind you, Dr. Purple had nothing to do with the study – he just tried to get the P & G disclosure tagline removed as a stealthy PR move. The IBMS people then replied to Dr. Purple that the P & G line would indeed be removed. Unfortunately for Dr. Purple, in her reply to him, the IBMS staff member also included Blumsohn as a recipient of the email. Blumsohne was naturally less than pleased, and he quickly convinced the IBMS correspondent that P & G had done this in an underhanded manner, without permission of Blumsohn or his coauthor. The P & G disclosure tagline was then re-added to the abstract. Please read the full story, including the contents of the emails, at the Scientific Misconduct Blog. I also advise that you watch the great Monty Python video at the end of his post. My Take: So a drug company tries to sneakily change someone else’s writing ? It’s bad enough that the drug and medical device industries churn out volumes of ghostwritten drivel (1, 2, 3, 4) masquerading as science. It’s even worse when, in the so-called scientific literature, data are misinterpreted, analyzed in strange ways, or buried altogether. Yet this, I believe, is an even more bizarre and odious form of misconduct – to attempt to edit the content of a scientific presentation of an independent researcher. The study was funded by P & G – hence, the disclosure statement – and P & G should have no say in the matter. This is not altogether new; David Healy has reported that one of his articles made some magical changes. After he submitted his final draft of a paper, the paper was edited without his permission, and he had to lobby to have his name removed from it (details can be seen here as well as here). Perhaps I’ll email the good Dr. Purple and see if he has an opinion he’d like to share on the matter. cialis Cheap Viagra viagra buy cilais

Tags: blumsohn, dr, scientific, purple, study

AP reported that Apple Computer filed a trade secret lawsuit on Jan. 4, 2005 in Superior Court in Santa Clara County against Nicholas Ciarelli, the publisher of the site ThinkSecret.com and a 19 year old Harvard University student. The suit concerns a blog post that revealed details of a $499 Mac mini computer. California has adopted a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. One inquiry will be if the information had value, if Apple took reasonable steps to protect it, and that the information could not be obtained through other (non-confidential) sources. Ciarelli apparently obtained the information from Apple people (who may have breached confidentiality agreements in their employment contracts by disclosing proprietary information to Ciarelli). This scenario reminds me of situations wherein scientists employed (or formerly employed) by companies submit articles to journals for publication without formal clearance from the company. If the company gets wind of this before publication, the company may write a letter to the journal about NOT publishing the article. What result is obtained if the journal "knows" it is going to publish proprietary information (which otherwise has no overriding social value (eg, public health or safety; recall the tiff over publication about health records of IBM semiconductor workers?))? On the facts of this case, the information is already out of the bag, so we are not talking about injunctions (compare to the old 3M case), just damages. Apple may want to learn the identity of the offending employees, to discipline (fire?) them. Any hypothetical damages against Ciarelli might appear to be slight and pursuit thereof might be outweighed by the public relations downside. Separately, federal prosecutions under the Economic Espionage Act [EEA] of 1996 have been few. Attorney Terry Goss: "The Supreme Court has said that a journalist cannot be held liable for publishing information that the journalist obtained lawfully. Think Secret has not used any improper newsgathering techniques. We will be filing a motion asking the Court to dismiss this case immediately on First Amendment grounds under a California statute which weeds out meritless claims that threaten First Amendment rights." [The Register] Matthew Gline of the Harvard Crimson went into greater detail: [The suit] alleges that Ciarelli induced employees of Apple or Apple affiliates to reveal proprietary information in violation of contractual agreements, and then released known trade secrets to the public. These employees are also targeted by the lawsuit, though their names are not yet known: Apple hopes to compel Think Secret to release the details of its communication with its sources so that the company can ascertain their identities and seeks damages from Think Secret directly for publishing its findings. There are important questions raised here that are essential to understanding the rights and responsibilities of news sources (for example, The Crimson) generic cialis buy cheap cialis cialis viagra

Tags: information, apple, secret, ciarelli, obtained

Interview with Ron E. Shulman at businessweek.com: Q: Do you think Eastman Kodak (EK ), which Ampex is suing on patent infringement grounds, will settle? A: Kodak is going to fight fiercely. If it has a future, it is in digital photography. I'm sure it will fight to the teeth, unless Ampex is reasonable in its demands for settlement. Q: How do you determine royalties for a judgment? A: The law lists a bunch of criteria for determining royalties. It is based on a "hypothetical deal" standard. In the electronics area, it's rare that you get more than a 10% royalty. Typically, it's 1% or 2% of sales. You should assume they are going after a royalty of 1% to 5%. But it depends on what you decide is the royalty base. Is it the whole price, or part of the price? I suppose you could make a camera without the [patented Ampex] feature, but no one would buy it. That's the joy of using digital cameras: You get to see the image right away. Royalties may also include what are known as "convoid" sales. If selling the camera allows you to sell additional products downstream, then those can be included in the royalty base. That will certainly be explored by the plaintiff. Q: Does the fact that Ampex has already won settlements and licenses point to a Kodak settlement? A: Ampex will try and rely on that. [The past settlement history] is pretty persuasive stuff. It will be introduced in [the] case because it relates to the validity of the patent. It is some evidence of commercial success. And commercial success would be evidence of nonobviousness. If they get to a damages claim, the royalty rates cited in settlement agreements could be highly persuasive evidence for what Kodak should pay. [LBE note: commercial success may be used to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.] Q: In Silicon Valley, how is Ampex viewed these days? A: Ampex is basically a research shop. Ampex is viewed as a slightly more civilized version of a patent terrorist. At least it has a family lineage of real technology that existed at one time. People respected Ampex. It did real stuff. [Now] what it is doing is no different from what other patent trolls do. Q: Is so-called patent trolling on the rise? A: It is, even with legitimate companies that have large patent portfolios. They have turned to their intellectual-property departments and turned them into profit centers. Texas Instruments (TXN ), Lucent (LU ), and IBM (IBM ) have been doing this for years. Plus, the damage awards are huge. [The practice] has grown more vigorously over the past 10 years. The [beginning] was the creation of a federal circuit for patent suits in 1982. Patents are a powerful economic weapon. People sue left and right. The outgrowth of that is patent holding companies. They're like venture funds. They go around holding people up for lots of money. Q: What is the cost to society? A: Most people suing didn't do any of the invention. Money isn't going to the inventors. There's no socially useful purpose. It's a waste of resources. Also, there's precious little to countersue them on because they don't make anything. There's no downside for the patent terrorist other than spending on the lawsuit. [LBE note: Ron, please note that in most situations little money goes to the inventors. Check out the patent awards procedure in places like IBM, Kodak, Exxon. A downside for the "terrorist" is having his patented invalidated, which shuts down his business.] Q: Is there any way to curtail the lawsuits? A: Not without legislation. That would be very difficult to do. Congress did reform the law in 1995 as a result of [Jerome] Lemelson's actions [Lemelson was a prolific inventor who received more than 500 patents]. He did nothing but file patent applications. He has the largest number of issued patents. He acquired patents in key areas of technology such as bar codes. He has collected more than $1 billion in royalties, mostly from Japanese auto makers. As a result, Congress changed the patent expiration dates from 20 years from filing, to 17 years from granting. Q: Who else could Ampex sue? A: The major digital photography companies will be targeted. Computer companies could be targeted. I can't say for sure since I haven't reviewed the patent. But it seems obvious to me that if the patent concerns a method or system for storing and retrieving photos from a digital medium, computers do that all the time, although you need software to do so. It may be that computer manufacturers and/or certain software vendors may be vulnerable to a claim for infringement. [Ampex] can go after Motorola (MOT ), Nokia (NOK ), Samsung and all those guys. It's hard to sell a phone that doesn't have a camera

Tags: patent, ampex, kodak, royalty, settlement

Of the IBM plan for application disclosure, Andrew Charlesworth of vnunet writes in an article titled IBM tackles US patent chaos : One aspect of IBM's new patent procedure will be to publish innovations online that it plans to patent six months before filing. If IBM is planning to disclose patent applications on the internet six months before filing patent applications at the USPTO, that would be remarkable. Don't think it's true, though. The article also states: Currently, the PTO publishes patent applications for two months, 18 months after they have been filed. IPBiz notes that one can find anything that one wants on the internet. The vnunet article includes: "The centrepiece of this policy, and our actions to support it, is based on the principles that patent quality is a responsibility of the applicant," said Dr John Kelly, senior vice president for technology and intellectual property at IBM. "These principles are as relevant in emerging regions of the world as they are in more mature economies. "IBM is holding itself to a higher standard than any law requires because it is urgent that patent quality is improved, to stimulate innovation and provide greater clarity for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights." For more on grant rates and patent quality, see 88 JPTOS 726. buy cilais cheap cialis Cheap Viagra cialis

Tags:

The KSR v. Teleflex case on obviousness in patent law has attracted a lot of attention. Many people think KSR v. Teleflex is the most significant case in patent law in recent years. The IBM brief (in favor of neither side) lays out the issue: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a claimed invention cannot be held "obvious," and thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. buy cheap cialis cialis Cheap Viagra generic cialis

Tags: cialis, teleflex, ksr, law, ibm

Jesse Drucker of the Wall Street Journal confirmed that the cite for the Turlington "Capone" article is Section 704(c) and Partnership Book-Tax Disparities, The Ceiling Rule and the Art of Tax Avoidance, 46 Inst. on Fed. Tax'n 26 (1988). No word from IBM on whether changes to the Merck Turlington-shell company approach are what IBM had in mind concerning patent reform. [IPBiz post 2102] generic cialis cheap cialis buy cilais Generic Viagra

Tags:

Of the apparent disparity between IBM efforts in patent reform and IBM's patent suit against Amazon, InformationWeek has the following quote: IBM's top attorney for intellectual property rights acknowledges his company's position can seem contradictory and confusing. "We've referred to our patent policy as apparent schizophrenia," David Kappos says. Yet he maintains that "on a deeper level, our actions are consistent." [Also -->] Tech vendors, IBM and Microsoft principal among them, are trying to change things they don't like about the patent process. In addition to giving away patents to the open source community, IBM wants all patent applications to be subject to public review. And it's urging Congress to do away with patents--including some of its own--based on so-called business methodologies that lack technical merit. But in suing Amazon, IBM promised to "aggressively defend" its intellectual property and hunt down other companies it thinks are using its IP without permission. IBM says it tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a licensing deal with Amazon for four years before filing suit. Amazon declined to comment. The Information Week article also contains the following: U.S. Patent And Trademark Office Proposes limiting to 10 the number of times patent applicants can request a re-examination of their applications and the number of individual patent claims contained in any single application IPBiz asks: is anyone awake at Information Week? Or have they joined with Science in dispensing pure glop about patent law (see 88 JPTOS 743)? Yes, there is a reference to Lerner: "There are some pathologies in the system that need to be dealt with," Harvard Business School professor Josh Lerner says. "Patents have become too powerful and too easy to get" for an economy that's increasingly information-based, Lerner says. Yes, Information Week does note the dichotomy with IBM: IBM's strategy is to be an IP benefactor to the tech industry when it's in IBM's interest, while staunchly defending its IP rights at other times. That's hardly reassuring to entrepreneurs and startups that risk a run-in with IBM as they develop new products. IBM holds about 40,000 patents worldwide for everything from how to display ads online to the creation of an Internet checkout system. IBM patents cover "most of, if not all, e-commerce," senior VP John Kelly told The Wall Street Journal last week. Yes, there is further confusion about the patent system: What's setting off alarms in some quarters is the fact that personalized recommendation systems are widely used, and they can be generated in a number of different ways. "These kind of lawsuits hurt our whole industry," says Mary Hodder, CEO of Dabble.com, an online video-sharing service. She thinks the patent process needs tightening to prevent what she considers a proliferation of nuisance suits. "Most of the patents they grant are really for simple and basic concepts and ideas, not complex and innovative processes, which is what they're supposed to be allowing ," Hodder says. Yes, there is mention of Rivette: Last year, IBM hired Boston Consulting Group patent expert Kevin Rivette as VP for intellectual property. Rivette is author of Rembrandts In The Attic (Harvard Business School Press, 1999), a primer on how companies can profit from their IP assets. Palmisano created a technology and intellectual property unit within IBM under senior VP Kelly, dedicated to finding new markets for the fruits of its research. There is discussion of the Peer-to-patent project: Other critics suggest the vendors' moves are aimed at cementing their advantages at a time when they face rising competition from startups. In an August essay, Harvard Law School professor and tech entrepreneur James Moore argued that the collaborative patent review process proposed by IBM, Microsoft, and others will result in fewer patents being issued because it will give examiners more ammunition to shoot down applications. "If fewer patents are issued, but existing patents are not revoked, IBM and Microsoft win because they already possess vast existing portfolios," Moore writes. IPBiz notes: It is already true that fewer patents are being issued. Further, the re-examination process is still around. ** See also http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/10/ibm-goes-after-amazon-nyt-mentions.html cialis buy cheap cialis viagra buy cilais

Tags: