Slashdot Mirror

• See my earlier embedded post
• Also this.
• A "patent" previously granted that turns out to be invalid due to prior art? Bad faith/incompetence (both the examiner, and its supervisor for keeping incompetent personel on the job at tax payers' expense)
• Monkeys... er, 'examiners' at the USPTO rubber-stamping "patents" to meet quotas (which only got 'fixed' very recently, in terms of speed of tech)? Again bad faith/incompetence/ill will
• Monke....'examiners' not understanding and/or not questioning validity of obfuscated "patent" description and still approving said "patents".... say it with me: bad faith/incompetence
• USPTO knowing there's a problem with patent trolls but not doing anything about it (including but not limited to the above listed).... bad faith, especially considering this causes the opposite of their mandate to 'promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...' (how the hell can anyone innovate when they're getting sued by patent trolls?)

And of course there's the USPTO pretending it's never their fault ("oh, we're so overworked!"), and those that make excuses for them, that all are part of the problem and instead of rectifying the situation, by whatever means will get us there (have Congress & the Government do it? Don't make me puke!)

I did a brief trademark search, and only found this:

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/...

Which seems to be a coworking space: http://www.themakersspace.com/...

I'd stick to calling it "maker" space, singular, and go for it. Make sure there is no way someone might confuse your efforts with theirs.

Use in commerce matters too.

From: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/def...

Is federal registration of my mark required?
No. In the United States, parties are not required to register their marks to obtain protectable rights.
You can establish “common law” rights in a mark based solely on use of the mark in commerce,
without a registration. However, owning a federal trademark registration on the Principal Register
provides a number of significant advantages over common law rights alone, including:
  A legal presumption of your ownership of the mark and your exclusive right to use the mark
nationwide on or in connection with the goods/services listed in the registration (whereas a
state registration only provides rights within the borders of that one state, and common law
rights exist only for the specific area where the mark is used);
  Public notice of your claim of ownership of the mark;
  Listing in the USPTO’s online databases;
10
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
  The ability to record the U.S. registration with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service
to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods;
  The right to use the federal registration symbol “®
”;
  The ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court; and
  The use of the U.S. registration as a basis to obtain registration in foreign countries

I stand corrected. Mod parent up. Mod me down if you like.

US patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8981261.PN.&OS=PN/8981261&RS=PN/8981261

With each of the embodiments discussed, the system 10 is deployed to attenuate the energy of an advancing shockwave 24 form an explosion 22 by creating a second fluid medium 30 that differs from the first fluid medium 26, which may be ambient air, positioned so that it interacts with the shockwave. As shown in FIG. 10, as the shockwave contacts the interface 90 between the first fluid medium 26 and the second fluid medium 30, the difference in refractive index reflects a fraction of the incoming energy toward the explosion 22, as indicated by arrows A. This partial reflection occurs a second time as the shockwave passes through the second fluid medium 30 and contacts the interface 92 between the second medium and the ambient 26 as it exits the second medium. All gradients or discontinuities in the medium provide a reflection point for the incoming shockwave 24. For example, if the second medium 30 is non-uniform, reflection will occur at each of many places within the medium.

As shown in FIG. 11, shockwaves 24 obey Fermat's theory of least time and therefore an effective refractive index for the shockwave can be defined that is inversely proportional to the shock speed. The properties or composition of the second medium 30 are chosen such that the effective refractive index of the second medium 30 differs from the first medium 26 in at least one of temperature, molecular weight and composition. As the shockwave passes into or out of the second medium 30, the difference in effective refractive index refracts the wave, as shown by lines B, diverting it and defocusing it away from the protected asset 18. In the disclosed embodiments, the second medium 30 is created such that the shockwave travels faster in the second medium 30 than in the first medium 26, so the refractive index of the second medium is less than that of the first medium. Further, the second medium is created to have a convex shape and therefore acts as a divergent lens, so that the energy of the shockwave 24 spreads out, as shown by lines C, so its intensity drops as it approaches the protected asset 18.

In addition, the second medium 30 may absorb some shock energy as the shock travels through it. Factors contributing to the absorption of energy include energy retained in the molecules of the second medium itself (e.g., enhanced rotational energy, excited molecular bonds, excited electrons, molecular decomposition, and ionization) and shock energy converted to electromagnetic energy through blackbody emission from hot particles or photon emission from de-exciting various excited states.

A further mechanism for attenuating the energy density of the shockwave 24 is momentum exchange. If the second medium 30 is moving relative to the first medium 26, then it will exchange momentum with the shockwave 24. The result is a combination of reflection, slowing, and redirection of the shockwave. Any or all of the foregoing mechanisms may operate in a given embodiment. The composition, temperature, speed and location of the second medium 30 may be chosen or created to create any one or all of the aforementioned mechanisms.

So, it's not necessarily lasers that generate the plasma, and the protection comes mainly from the plasma having a different refractive index than the air through which the shock wave has propagated.

My comment that this serves as a "counter-wave" is in the patent but only as a "it might also do this" thing, not as the main thing.

Countering a shock wave with a generate

It's U.S. Patent 8,981,261, issued Mar. 17, 2015. It is an "actual patent."

No, they aren't. (See part II, perpetual motion machines lack utility.) So you are partly wrong and partly right. You absolutely do not need a working prototype to get a patent. Many, many patents are issued without a prototype. But there is a specific basis for rejecting perpetual motion machines. (And yes, I am an actual, honest-to-goodness patent attorney, so I am not just making stuff up. I have filed many applications without a working prototype, and have turned away inventors when they have brought me what amounted to perpetual motion machines.)

not only the public, but this would indicate ( I'm not smart enough to pass judgement ) the USPTO http://tsdr.uspto.gov/document...

look a bit and they wanted the PTO to think it's a huge thing

You mean like this?

Disney has copyrighted Snow White, a character that existed before even Walt Disney himself!

Oh, and spot price is for 24-karat gold, each ounce of which makes 1-1/3rd an ounce of 18-karat gold. So... does one of these watches weigh 10 ounces?

Even better, the speculation is that Apple's gold watch is only technically 18-karat.
Why technically? Because the definition for 18-karat is that gold must make up 75% of the alloy's mass.

Apple patented a... not-alloy... that uses ceramic instead of metal. (PDF)
Since ceramic is significantly lighter by volume, Apple can use less gold and still meet the 75% gold-by-mass standard.

TLDR: Not all gold is created equal.

I think HT actually came from Motorola's designation for their hand-held transceivers, e.g. HT-100. And "Handie-Talkie" is the term that Motorola used, check old product literature.

Motorola trademarked the term (in different forms) in 1948 and 1960.

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/...

The patents:

- 7,334,720
- 7,942,317
- 8,033,458
- 8,061,598
- 8,118,221
- 8,336,772.

The patents:

- 7,334,720
- 7,942,317
- 8,033,458
- 8,061,598
- 8,118,221
- 8,336,772.

The patents:

- 7,334,720
- 7,942,317
- 8,033,458
- 8,061,598
- 8,118,221
- 8,336,772.

The patents:

- 7,334,720
- 7,942,317
- 8,033,458
- 8,061,598
- 8,118,221
- 8,336,772.

The patents:

- 7,334,720
- 7,942,317
- 8,033,458
- 8,061,598
- 8,118,221
- 8,336,772.

The patents:

- 7,334,720
- 7,942,317
- 8,033,458
- 8,061,598
- 8,118,221
- 8,336,772.

IANAL but that's not what I understood from what my patent attorney described.

You probably need a doctorate to be able to read this but USPTO defines Prior Art Machiavellicaly.

A slightly more consumable description is here.

You mean like these?

http://www.vuzix.com/consumer/ (I have one of these.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Or any of these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Hell even the Virtual Boy infringes on this, just looking at the patent abstract United States Patent 8,957,835 : http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

Nice captcha: varyings

U.S. patents already have such maintenance fees, just not with the exponential escalation you propose. An analogous maintenance fee for copyrights would have to be worded very carefully to pass muster under the Berne Convention's prohibition on formalities. One suggestion (the Public Domain Enhancement Act proposal from 2003) structured it as a property tax. Another would apply the maintenance fees only to exclusive rights beyond the Berne minimum, such as term extensions, anti-circumvention "protection", and criminal penalties for infringement.

You haven't read the MMO patent, or any of the other child like patents, have you. Patents like those are very non-specific to the point were they couldn't be used to build the system they claim to have invented.

Even then I think they usually think that the rights to Snow White are owned by Disney.

In some cases, Disney has acquired exclusive rights under trademark law to sell toys based on adaptations of public domain works. For example, Disney owns PINOCCHIO® in the "dolls" category, despite the fact that copyright in Carlo Collodi's The Adventures of Pinocchio expired in 1940 and would have expired in 1960 even under today's extended copyright terms.

Manual of Patent Examining Practice section 2111.03 Transitional phrases

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offic...

The actually do have 2 trademark registratons. You can search here.

If the patent officer recognize it as useless, they will reject the patent.

For example, something like "COCA-COLA" is so famous that Coke's lawyers will have no trouble making a prima facie case for dilution if the mark is used for any other product.

Wrong. are numerous registered marks that are "COCA-COLA" that are not from the Coca-Cola company.

Your link doesn't work. And a search on TESS for "coca-cola" as the full mark and "NOT Coca-Cola Company" as the applicant returns one hit, an abandoned application by a pro se "sovereign citizen": "Harvey W. Wiley DBA We The People INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 900 Georgia Ave Chattanooga TENNESSEE 37402". Searching for "coca-cola" in the description of the mark with "NOT Coca-Cola Company" as the applicant returns one hit, a design for an author's business card that uses the same red color as Coke: "The color(s) coca-cola red is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a coca-cola red kneeling fisherman." But it's also abandoned.

Finally, searching for "coca-cola" anywhere in the application, but NOT the Coca-Cola Company as the applicant turns up a pile of applications... from people with addresses at "Coca-cola Plaza" or "Coca-cola Park" in various cities - i.e. tenants in Coke's industrial parks. Is that what you searched for and thought you found?

None of which this tablet system falls under other since this isn't "downloadable computer software".

Any software that can be copied and installed over a network is "downloadable".Groupon's hardware product is a case for an iPad and I'll bet you their software is installed on those iPads over a network.

Groupon is applying for trademarks in a broad array of areas, such as "contact management software used to organize and retrieve customer contact information; electronic commerce and transaction application software that allows users to engage in electronic business transactions via a global computer network; printer software for operating printers and printing". GNOME links to the complete list here. It's a genuine problem.

Trademarks are usually valid within a specific field of use.

Yes, and the mark's specified goods and services don't overlap with this PoS system.

But the more famous the mark becomes, the broader the judge will construe exclusivity.

GNOME isn't that famous.

For example, something like "COCA-COLA" is so famous that Coke's lawyers will have no trouble making a prima facie case for dilution if the mark is used for any other product.

Wrong. are numerous registered marks that are "COCA-COLA" that are not from the Coca-Cola company.

Mozilla had to rename Firebird to Firefox even though database software and web browser software aren't exactly the same field.

But the actual registered goods and services for the mark could have overlapped.

But whether the "GNOME" mark applies to useful computer software in general or to GUI frameworks in particular is for a judge to decide after the GNOME project's counsel presents its case.

This isn't a GUI framework. It's a tablet PoS system. It does not fall under any of GNOME's registered goods and services.

In order to keep operating costs low it'll actually be a cartoon-laden frontend that serves up material from an existing source.

Review your citation:
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?D...

That is a specific system.

Furthermore, just citing a bad patient doesn't mean that it will be sustained in court.

Show me a bad patient sustained in court. And then I'll just point out flaws in the legal system. I'll point out that murderers at let go all the time by bad juries etc and yet we both agree murder should be illegal.

Your move.

Multiple hits for a TM search on "Whisper Systems", none of which turn up Moxie Marlinspike. Apparently it's both a renovation company in Seattle, a radio rental service (WTF?), a financial transaction system and many, many more dead ones.

tmsearch.uspto.gov

From their patent. Page 6 shows the magnetic configuration. It combines all the problems of a magnetic mirror with all the same problems of a polywell.

Based on the lead inventor he name drops in the video, "Tom McGuire," I found a few recent fusion-related patent applications (filed this year). I couldn't find any issued fusion patents for Lockheed or McGuire.

20140301519
20140301518
20140301517

They are related to a raft of 2013 provisionals, which helps explain why Lockheed was talking publicly about this tech for the first time in the above 2013 YouTube video.

Based on the lead inventor he name drops in the video, "Tom McGuire," I found a few recent fusion-related patent applications (filed this year). I couldn't find any issued fusion patents for Lockheed or McGuire.

20140301519
20140301518
20140301517

They are related to a raft of 2013 provisionals, which helps explain why Lockheed was talking publicly about this tech for the first time in the above 2013 YouTube video.

Based on the lead inventor he name drops in the video, "Tom McGuire," I found a few recent fusion-related patent applications (filed this year). I couldn't find any issued fusion patents for Lockheed or McGuire.

20140301519
20140301518
20140301517

They are related to a raft of 2013 provisionals, which helps explain why Lockheed was talking publicly about this tech for the first time in the above 2013 YouTube video.

According to the patent application the holes are indeed 20-60 micrometers.

That article is written as if that crowd invented running using force control. Of course you use force control. Everybody in the field knows that by now. I patented that 20 years ago. The Scout II robot at McGill, developed by Prof. Martin Buehler, used that approach. Buehler went on to become the designer of BigDog, but never got much public credit for it and quit to work for iRobot.

The key to legged running in non-trivial situations is careful management of ground traction. Traction is first priority, then balance, then foot placement. Historically, everybody worried about foot placement first, but that turns out to be backwards. As soon as you get off flat surfaces with good traction, traction control dominates.

The next unsolved problem in that area is not going fast. It's starting, stopping, and turning fast. Most of the legged robots accelerate very slowly, and don't make abrupt high-speed turns. Big Dog starts by trotting in place, then extending the gait out. Starting fast, stopping fast, and turning fast are all facets of the same problem. You have to take one stride using completely different control algorithms than you use for normal locomotion. That's all I'm going to say about this for now.

Holographic surveillance w/ satellites and radar being going on for some time. w/ full city, home, body, brain, object scans, so nothing is secret or hideable.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5859609.PN.&OS=PN/5859609&RS=PN/5859609
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5455590
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5557283

then they map out our brains and thoughts using these patents & technologies, from 1974 on ward, doing the it from the same multi-functional satellites and radar from ground, sea, and space based interferometers. http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html#patents..

http://www.obamasweapon.com/

Holographic surveillance w/ satellites and radar being going on for some time. w/ full city, home, body, brain, object scans, so nothing is secret or hideable.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5859609.PN.&OS=PN/5859609&RS=PN/5859609
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5455590
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5557283

then they map out our brains and thoughts using these patents & technologies, from 1974 on ward, doing the it from the same multi-functional satellites and radar from ground, sea, and space based interferometers. http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html#patents..

http://www.obamasweapon.com/

Holographic surveillance w/ satellites and radar being going on for some time. w/ full city, home, body, brain, object scans, so nothing is secret or hideable.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5859609.PN.&OS=PN/5859609&RS=PN/5859609
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5455590
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5557283

then they map out our brains and thoughts using these patents & technologies, from 1974 on ward, doing the it from the same multi-functional satellites and radar from ground, sea, and space based interferometers. http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html#patents..

http://www.obamasweapon.com/

Well, this page says there are actually about 300,000 patents across 3 categories, plus an additional 150,000 to "foreign residents". So that's about 450,000.

Also, the applications for patents is about double those numbers.

Factor that by 8,000 patent examiners, and they each both approve and disapprove just over one per week.

It's a pretty clear infringement.

No, it's not, according to the USPTO. It passed their examination for similarity within classification. A key point is that Twitter did not have an image service at the time the Twitpic application was filed. So, under trademark rules, Twitter was in a different business. Twitter has filed an opposition, and the schedule for a trial before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board was set.

Twitter was afraid that Twitpic might win.

Bezos "on a computer" http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacg...

Bezos on the ocean [http://mashable.com/2013/03/20/jeff-bezos-nasa-apollo-11-engines/]

Elon on the ocean http://www.ibtimes.com/spacex-...

The beast of Tenagra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...

Elon, his sales (sic) unfurled http://www.teslamotors.com/blo...

If you'd like to be one of those vigilant patriots, there's a good chance that we'll pick up hiring again this fall.

But what would be the point? As far as I can tell, USPTO policy is ultimately set by campaign contributors.

If you'd like to be one of those vigilant patriots, there's a good chance that we'll pick up hiring again this fall.

The first person to come up with an idea always has a monoploy until someone figures out how to copy it

Not anymore according to the USPTO (see http://www.uspto.gov/aia_imple... for more info).

The point about being overburdened is a good one. By this count those 8300 examiners have an average of 2 to 3 work days to make a determination on 600,000 applications per year. A number which includes design patents and various patents which might not require as much time. Maybe/hopefully each patent is reviewed by more than one person. But with 8300 examiners it seems you could have small teams of examiners encompassing the relevant engineering, scientific, design and legal disciplines getting a small batch of patents to examine each week. If the patent office were well managed and engineers appropriately skilled then it seems like a pretty manageable workload as long as the work gets routed quickly to the correct examiners based on perceived relevance of skills to subject matter.

They earn at the top of federal pay scale, with the highest taking home $148,000 a year.

That's not even the salary of a manager at Google (and don't even talk about benefits -- free food is amazing) -- and this is the highest of salaries. For a lawyer (law school is will run you over $100K by itself). Can you imagine why they may not have the best and brightest? With the new patent office opening in San Jose, why would anyone actually want to work for the USPO who has any amount of talent?

I'm skeptical since there doesn't seem to be an actual patent application

If he filed a provisional application, then it would not be searchable or published yet. You will have to wait until either he wants to convert it to a patent or the time to file non-provisional is expired. If the time is expired, the information in the application will disappeare -- http://www.uspto.gov/patents/r... for more info.

BS.

There are many many patents with extensions ... for example .. just randomly typing patent numbers you can find many .. for example US patent# 7349837. It's patent term was extended by 715 days. Just look up that patent in the uspto website and then click on images to see the pages .. you will see halfway down that it says "Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 715 days."

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?D...

Before you accuse me of cherry picking .. try typing searching random patent numbers on the USPTO website above 7,000,000 and below i guess 8,500,000. It wont take you long to find ones that have had their patent terms arbitrarily extended. Especially ones for stuff like communications, images, video etc.

Yes, they have, but (i) that's not arbitrary, and (ii) has nothing to do with either 35 USC 135 or 35 USC 156. Patent term extension under 35 USC 154 is extensions due to the applicant due to delay by the patent office - when the US changed from 17 years from issue to 20 years from filing, it was with the understanding that it takes about 3 years to get a patent, so the term was roughly the same. When the backlog at the patent office increased, applications were sitting in the queue for years before being picked up, and it wasn't fair to an inventor to have the patent office sit around for five or six years before finally getting around to examining and allowing the application, and then say "gosh, sorry, you only get 14 or 15 years, because we were slow. That's bureaucracy for you, eh?"

Those delays are specifically due to patent office delay. No one can "push for delays" like you said. And those other statutes simply don't apply to patent term extension.

BS.

There are many many patents with extensions ... for example .. just randomly typing patent numbers you can find many .. for example US patent# 7349837. It's patent term was extended by 715 days. Just look up that patent in the uspto website and then click on images to see the pages .. you will see halfway down that it says "Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 715 days."

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?D...

Before you accuse me of cherry picking .. try typing searching random patent numbers on the USPTO website above 7,000,000 and below i guess 8,500,000. It wont take you long to find ones that have had their patent terms arbitrarily extended. Especially ones for stuff like communications, images, video etc.