Slashdot Mirror

- Mycroft

this search at the USPTO, and found:

Searching 1996-2001...


Results of Search in 1996-2001 db for:
AN/"intel corporation": 3598 patents.
Hits 1 through 50 out of 3598

and wondered how I would find the time to burn both ends of that candle.

Trademarks, unlike copyrights, must be defended vigorously or they are lost.

Yes, but also unlike copyrights, trademarks are only valid in one field. For example, take the case of the trademark on Linux (TM) laundry detergent. The different classes for which trademarks are defined are on the USPTO's web site.

--

Trademarks, unlike copyrights, must be defended vigorously or they are lost.

Yes, but also unlike copyrights, trademarks are only valid in one field. For example, take the case of the trademark on Linux (TM) laundry detergent. The different classes for which trademarks are defined are on the USPTO's web site.

--

Trademarks, unlike copyrights, must be defended vigorously or they are lost.

Yes, but also unlike copyrights, trademarks are only valid in one field. For example, take the case of the trademark on Linux (TM) laundry detergent. The different classes for which trademarks are defined are on the USPTO's web site.

--

Of course, if you actually work in a lab about half of the apparatus you use is very likely to be patented even if your lab coat isn't. The material might be this or this, unless you work with radioactive material, in which case it's likely to be this It might have been washed using this.

You can console yourself further that you're writing with this... the point being, if you start looking for patents you realise just how many of them there are. And there probably is one on a lab coat... somewhere. There certainly was one on your fly (zip fastener- US Patent 5, 791, 023)

Patenting lab coats was yesterday's job ;-)

Of course, if you actually work in a lab about half of the apparatus you use is very likely to be patented even if your lab coat isn't. The material might be this or this, unless you work with radioactive material, in which case it's likely to be this It might have been washed using this.

You can console yourself further that you're writing with this... the point being, if you start looking for patents you realise just how many of them there are. And there probably is one on a lab coat... somewhere. There certainly was one on your fly (zip fastener- US Patent 5, 791, 023)

Patenting lab coats was yesterday's job ;-)

they started going downhill. September 30, 1997 - they tried to trademake the phrase SUCK IT DOWN.

Effective June 8th, 1995, the term of plant and utility patents is 20 years from the date of filing. Patents filed prior to June 8th 1995 last the longer of 17 years from the date of issue, or 20 years from the date of filing.

KIllustrator does sound like a KDE version (or clone) of Illustrator. Since it is neither, the name is bad for non-legal reasons too. For example, would you call a KDE solitare name kgcc even if you could?

That being said, I don't think "Illustrator" should have been granted as a trademark. I don't like single, English, normally spelled and capitialized words to be eligible for a trademark monopoly. However the United States Patent and Trademark Office is the one that granted it and thus is at fault for doing so. A company can ask for anything, it is the USPTO job to deny bad requests.

I really didn't like the demands for money and destruction of software, and found asking for the list of people who downloaded it to be somewhat chilling. Were they planning on confiscating it (and everything else nearby) from people's homes by force?!

I am glad things ended okay.

I went to TESS and did a boolean search for basic: WINDOWS, owner: MICROSOFT, and got serial 74212523 (WINDOWS NT) and 74090419 (WINDOWS) that had something like 'operating environments for computers' in their Goods and Services field. Note that marks are always officially recorded in capital letters, but they can be "stylized" into the more common Windows form.

All the more reason why this prototype system will never be chosen for mass production. Advanced (read "complicated, expensive") technology is almost always chosen over simpler, inexpensive designs in military contracting.

Here's a picture of the device (requires some strange plugin) and Here's the description of the device in question.

The same mark can be registered by multiple organizations, as long as the trademarks are for different industries. Eg. if you make "Barney" spoons, you'd be in trouble. But if you made "Barney" motor oil, you'd be okay.
--

Well, not really (this is the American trademark, not the German one, but it does at least show that Adobe has trademarked the word "illustrator" in the US): http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=q7 17af.2.11

A little trademark search for the word "Illustrator".

Unfortunately this is true, as you can see here. Adobe has a trademark on the dictionary word "illustrator". This reminds me of a story I heard from a friend of mine who lives in Ireland: apparently the show "Who wants to be millionaire?" could not air there under this name because the national lottery holds a trademark on the word millionaire. Call it sad, call it insane, but this is IP crazed world we live in.

You missed PC Illustrator.

http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=7r 1noi.2.20

filed before Adobe's

No it isn't. That's why when Adobe filed their trademark, they got the whole phrase:

http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=7r 1noi.2.19
not just the word mark 'Illustrator'. They knew that they would not get it. You can't defend what you don't have.

On this one Adobe can go fuck themselves...

ser# 74731075: "ILLUSTRATOR", for Adobe Systems Incorporated.

ser# 73210166: "ILLUSTRATOR", for Illustrator Pen Products, Inc.

ser# 73657866: "ADOBE ILLUSTRATOR", for Adobe Systems Incorporated.
--

Most know already the Patent system needs an overhaul, and they recently sought comments on how it should go about the changes [1 2 3] Instead of everyone being so critical of the PTO, maybe some could all get together here, start a thread on it for a day or two, then forward the highest rated submissions to them, instead of just complaining about the same things over and over.

Why doesn't Hemos, Taco, or someone else start something similar to when they ask for questions for some interview. Who wouldn't like to have their name associated with changes to the patenting system. Sure you could bitch and moan about how messed up it is, yet when they asked the public, whose only input is negativity, it's not going to get better any time soon.

My two cents/sense on it all.

I'm saying GAIM's creators should have foreseen that AOL would try to protect its trademark, and should not have used a name that incorporates "AIM" in a way that might make some people think it is a product related to AIM.

From http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/bas ic_facts.html Trademark rights arise from either (1) actual use of the mark, or (2) the filing of a proper application to register a mark in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) stating that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce regulated by the U.S. Congress. (See below, under "Types of Applications," for a discussion of what is meant by the terms commerce and use in commerce.) Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a mark, nor is it required to begin use of a mark. However, federal registration can secure benefits beyond the rights acquired by merely using a mark. For example, the owner of a federal registration is presumed to be the owner of the mark for the goods and services specified in the registration, and to be entitled to use the mark nationwide.

Is "MP3" trademarked?

Go to TESS and look for trademark serial numbers 78063353 (automobiles and parts, registered to Mazda), 75634171 (clothing), 74126256 (air compressor microcontroller), and 78023779 (a top level domain). MP3+ is 76172490. MP3PRO is 76185872. MP3 CAT (no connection to cuecat) is 75723781 and 75722814. Note that in the registration for the official MP3 Logo (75856706), Thomson makes no claim to "MP3" apart from the logo.

If not, the scope is there to use a confusingly similar name to refer to Ogg Vorbis.

However, the "MP" in MP3 refers to the standardization of it in a Motion Picture codec from MPEG. (The video portion of MPEG is largely JPEG-like with motion compensation at the 16x16 pixel tile level.) The first popular version of MPEG used MPEG layer 2 ("MP2") audio (at 256 kbps, it sounds like a 160 kbps MP3). Because OggVorbis is not an MPEG standard, it shouldn't be called MPEG. The MPEG LA might have something to say in that regard.

In my opinion this is a disaster for the patent system. The idea of patents is that the government grants a 20 year monopoly in return for a full disclosure of the invention. So why would the government do this when they seem so opposed to monopolies? The benefits of full disclosure outweigh the 20 year cost: advancing research, allowing others to compete after the 20 year period, encouraging investment in expensive R&D for eg medicines. Without these benefits, the inventor would pursue the invention (if at all) as a trade secret, which has some legal protection but does not advance society in any way. Coca-Cola, for instance, has been protected for over 100 years by going down the trade-secret route.

So what's the problem with publishing applications before they are granted? Simply that if the application is not granted, there is then no possibility of protection as a trade secret - it's public knowledge. So what then? Simply put, inventors won't try to patent inventions, but will keep them as trade secrets. Imagine what the world would be like today if some of the life-changing inventions of our times were mystery black boxes, with no possibility for development apart from by the inventor. If the transistor was a trade secret, we'd all be using AT&T 1MHz computers today. Is that something we really want? The patent system isn't really there for 1 click-ordering, it's about the cure for cancer and HIV, quantum computing, and transport systems that defy our current understading of physics. Can't we live with Amazon's stupidity for those?

If you have problems with that just go to http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and search on American Telephone and Speech Coding for 1988.

I can give you over a thousand examples, with the help of our f[r]iendly patent office (my tax dollars at work). Just go to http://www.uspto.gov/, look under the green Patent Grants area, follow the Advanced Search link, and search on "compiler and optimization". Doing this today, I got 1,261 patents, but some of them don't apply here.

Er, that is to say, I got 1,261 search results each representing a patent. I don't have 1,261 patents myself. :-)

Careful about Buddy - AOL already owns that... (sort of).

BTW, one can search for trademarks here.

Quite a few universities, and even some public libraries, already do. See here.

Well, the patent disc prices are low enough that there can't be too many discs in the set.

Go download the free, unlimited time viewer AlternaTIFF and install it.

Then go to the USPTO and search out your patent.

With the AlternaTIFF plug-in installed, you can click on the "Images" button and view each page (as well as print each page).

There are tiff plug-ins available for purchase that will let you print the whole patent, not just one page at a time. For example, the Black Ice Viewers have a free one (which I don't think you can print from) and a $39 one.

Granted, the US Patent and Trademark office is presently quite searchable, and these searches are for free. But if they could not be available for no cost, the model they should follow is that of the United States' Federal Court's Public Access to Court Records (PACER) system. Note this is an explicit congestion notification impaired link, so shut TCP ECN off if you wish to go there.

The PACER system charges for searches and retreival of court documents. The rate is presently seven cents per "page" (about 50 lines of monospaced text, more or less), or sixty cents per minute if you dial an 800 number with a modem. Most Federal Courts are online and searchable.

Given the large amount of work that goes into putting huge amounts of data online like patents and court records, a minor fee likely is approriate for accessing these records. As long as it isn't prohibitive to the common person, paying on the order of micropayments for access to data is not such a bad idea.

Folks, this is for corporate legal offices, and does not bode well for the struggling entrepreneur or the academic researcher. The speed and versatility of Delphion is like giving the lumber corporations bulldozers and chainsaws while the natives still just have spears. Delphion raises the bar of information availability, but is priced out of the range of those who are most likely to invent the compelling inventions rather than the incremental turf-protecting legal instruments.

Patent Information Users Group

IP Australia

US Patent & Trademark Office (UPSTO)

European Patent Office

for a few

sorry, incorrect link. Here is the correct link at U.S. patent office

The USPTO has a patent search here. It is free, and offers patent grants, "full-text since 1976, full-page images since 1790", and pending applications, "published since 15 March 2001".

You have to pay for quality copies, but you always had to do this at IBM. Could someone please post and explain why this service of the goverment is so lacking? Or do people not know about it?

You can search through patent info at the U.S. patent office

But as a public office, it seems reasonable to me that the USPTO be required to make their patent files, well .. public, actually.

So reasonable that they've already done it. See www.uspto.gov for a searchable index.

I don't understand....
You can search for and read patents online at http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm
Where's the problem ?
Admittedly they do charge for the nicely formatted PDF or paper versions, but it's not that bad...

Now, if that was patented technology, then why were he specs on the web for all to see???

I think a better question would be "Did they apply for their patents before the spec was published?" I honestly didn't pay enough attention in the early days of CDDB, but I'd guess that the publication of the spec pre-dates their patents. IANAL, but as patent law has been explained to me, you shouldn't be able to patent something that's been previously published. In fact, I know my company sometimes will publish papers to prevent our competitors from getting a patent on a piece of technology.

Patented material is by definition published, it just can't be used without the permission of the patent holder.

Did this change in the past few years? The USPTO web site says 20 years, although perhaps there are different expiration periods for different patents...?

The copyright industry? Puh-lease tell me this is just a poor choice of words rather than somebody's cockeyed view of the world.

I've used this term before. It refers to the entertainment industry in the sense that it controls popular culture with the iron fist of copyright. Why again does Disney still have a monopoly on Mickey Mouse?

largely spearheaded by (c), Inc.

"Copyright Inc." is not too far off base. There are companies whose sole purpose is to milk copyright for all it's worth, such as ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, and MPAA.

First :-) gets patented

No, :-(® is a trademark, not a patent. Right office, wrong monopoly. Trademark #75502288 on ":-(" applies only to "Printed matter namely, greeting cards, posters and art prints."

The copyright industry? Puh-lease tell me this is just a poor choice of words rather than somebody's cockeyed view of the world.

I've used this term before. It refers to the entertainment industry in the sense that it controls popular culture with the iron fist of copyright. Why again does Disney still have a monopoly on Mickey Mouse?

largely spearheaded by (c), Inc.

"Copyright Inc." is not too far off base. There are companies whose sole purpose is to milk copyright for all it's worth, such as ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, and MPAA.

First :-) gets patented

No, :-(® is a trademark, not a patent. Right office, wrong monopoly. Trademark #75502288 on ":-(" applies only to "Printed matter namely, greeting cards, posters and art prints."

"Oh, Lisa, that's a load of rich creamery butter." - Homer Simpson

Actually, I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) writing your own software would be OK under US patent law, provided you don't sell it.

/me heads off to www.uspto.gov

Actually, United States patent law includes language to the effect that to "make, use, or sell" an invention under a subsisting patent without permission of the patent owner is patent infringement. (Read More at USPTO.gov.)

Actually, I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) writing your own software would be OK under US patent law, provided you don't sell it.

/me heads off to www.uspto.gov

Actually, United States patent law includes language to the effect that to "make, use, or sell" an invention under a subsisting patent without permission of the patent owner is patent infringement. (Read More at USPTO.gov.)

The bigger question isn't media, but sof[t]ware. I already have a bunch of WordStar and old MacWrite/MacPaint files I can't open... will [we] actually be able to interpret and make use of it?

For older formats, you can always emulate the computer for which the viewer software was designed, or write a new viewer from the format documentation. For example, QuickTime 4 can open MacPaint files, and so can a short C program I wrote. Remember, if you want to archive something, make sure you have the format documentation (or the viewer software and the architecture documentation) so that future generations will be able to create a usable viewer. (IEEE and ISO standards are Good Things[0].)

About five years ago I still had an old floppy controller with an odd WD chip on it that could talk to it using OS-9.

So install Mac OS X (the successor to Mac OS 9) on your machine and read that floppy.

Oh, you were talking about that OS 9.

[0] GOOD THING is U.S. Trademark No. 75,516,347 registered to Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia LLC. (Look it up at TESS.)

Patents are public knowledge, etc. Patent applications are probably not, until the patent is granted.

Actually, Europe and (since recently) the US publish patent applications eighteen months after filing, giving potential infringers ample time to back out of the market.

Perhaps I misunderstand but, if the idea you mention fits the USPTO's definition of novel, a patent may have many of the features you seek. From uspto.gov: A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the Patent and Trademark Office. The term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions. You would probably want to get a patent lawyer, but that will probably cost much less money than your quote for the prototype.

As usually, the patent is also available at US Patent office