Slashdot Mirror

Note that the US is not directly involved in any of the major patent holdings. IBM is not really a US company anymore. They are "international". To a great extent they are getting out of the US. A few year ago they stopped listing their employment by country, because they wanted to hide what they were doing. So if there is ever a situation where US interests collide with IBM economic interests then the US will get the short end of the stick.

This is what happens when you let everything get privatized, including basic research. You end up with no stake in the future.

This is the sort of thing someone would say who hasn't surveyed the actual patents. Many of these patents come from US & Chinese universities. Tell me, if University of Chicago holds this patent, would you restate your position? Don't forget about the Bayh–Dole Act ... a lot of those universities happen to receive money from -- guess who?

And another thing, when the state itself controls companies and decides where cities are built and who gets contracts then of course they're in control of all the research and deeply imbedded in the patents. They're also the ones doing the corporate espionage for said companies ... would you prefer the USA be like that?

That would be good, because it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement.

Whether I call it copying without permission or you call it copyright infringement (which, by the way, is far worse than stealing, because it is stealing and optionally redistributing), it does not matter. In any case, you pay $0 for a digital product where the owner of the product is selling it for a price greater than $0. So you get something for nothing, which is usually a crime when related to commercial products.

And my original post was about paying $0 for intellectual property, not what term you call that: theft or copyright infringement.

Therefore it is okay and legal to pay $0 for intellectual property.

No more than murder not being called "life theft" makes it legal to murder someone.

Let's not play with words, then. Copyright infringement is "IP theft," by definition, with worse-than-theft penalties if you redistribute it to others.
Copyright infringement leads to loss of revenue to the content owner, therefore it is a form of theft.

So, according to you, copyright infringement is a lesser crime than theft, or is not a crime at all? Either way, without using the word theft, according to you and your buddy, not paying for IP is okay, since the owner is not being deprived anything he originally had.

Here's what the uspto has to say about it:

Indeed, according to the World Customs Organization, more than $600 billion in pirated and counterfeited goods will flood the world market in 2005. Making sure that your publicationâ(TM)s property is not among these counterfeit goods is critical. ...
In order to protect yourself from IP theft, itâ(TM)s important to know the basics about your rights. For writers, editors and publishers, this means taking a look at the basics of copyright: what it is, what it protects, and how to secure it. ...
Copyright is a form of protection provided by U.S. law to the authors of "original works of authorship" fixed in any tangible medium of expression. ...
  If the copyright owner prevails in an infringement claim, the available remedies include preliminary and permanent injunctions (court orders to stop current or prevent future infringements), impounding, and destroying the infringing articles.

All Patents have a useful life and depending on when these were submitted most should be getting close to end of life of nearly there over the next few years.
That's the silver bullet as it were for patents, there's a built in life expectancy much like Replicants.

http://www.uspto.gov/inventors...

You're fully correct about the legal doctrine, but in reality there's a non-zero chance that it will cost you a very large number of dollars to defend a patent lawsuit filed by a future assignee who convinces the judge that even the "clearer statement" (1) wasn't so clear and/or (2) didn't apply to your particular use.

There's actually a simple way that Tesla could make this binding -- formally disclaim the rest of the term of the patents at the Patent Office.

37 C.F.R. 1.321 Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers.
(a) A patentee owning the whole or any sectional interest in a patent may disclaim any complete claim or claims in a patent. In like manner any patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted. Such disclaimer is binding upon the grantee and its successors or assigns. A notice of the disclaimer is published in the Official Gazette and attached to the printed copies of the specification.

It will be interesting to see if they actually go that far.

Tesla Patents

He says "Our technology" and "All our patent", so presumably they're meaning every single one of the 169 patents they currently hold, except maybe the 8 design patents.

This is so relevant to this issue. A persons brain is a memory storage and state storage system. Anything inside of it can be tapped. What you see, hear, think, feel, emotions, memories, dreams, passcodes, certificates, birthdates, addresses, email addresses, names, and more.

Nothing can be kept secret. This is one thing I and thousands of others have been puppeting for decades because the government has had long-range versions of this since the 1970s. In the 1960s the first neuron duplicators were invented and used during MKULTRA and other government weapons development projects (there are several lawsuits over their use and torture that occurred, see http://www.mindjustice.org/ "Magnetic Integrated Neuron Duplicator" article).

Next up came the department of defense and a subcontractor had an employee named Robert Malech who invented and fully patented a radar system that could read and alter the electromagnetic fields of the brain from aware, allowing remote EEG maps to be created and also EEG heterodyning, ie the beaming of a complex waveform into the brain whch then modulates the radar signals and incorporates the information. The patent is 3,951,134, "Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves". According by DOD/CIA/US DOJ whistleblowers like Mark Phillips and Dr. Robert Duncan, one who worked in MKULTRA and the later designed high tech surveillance systems for the government .. The capabilities were fully retro-fitted into all radar and satellite systems by 1976. Patent link: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... (note it mentions it can be used for remote diagnosis, and can be deployed in convention military radar systems).

Today the government uses their weapons of mass confusion and surveillance and destruction to target people, covertly communicate with operatives mind to mind, and to extract everything a person knows without them even knowing.

Some people call it NSA Remote Neural Monitoring and Electronic Brain Link and it works by using NSA radar systems to remotely read brainwaves, where they're then transmitted back to DOD computers, decoded, stored, and analyzed. Then a signal can be sent two-way by instructing their radar systems to send signals to a targets brain or nerves or other body parts. This technology for the additional computer and optic backbone transmit system is patented, in US 6,011,991, "Communication system and method including brain wave analysis and/or use of brain activity ".. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

According to big time US Department of Defense whistleblowers there is no known protective mechanisms available in the consumer realm. The technology simply cannot be blocked or stopped from working because the signals hop over all frequencies ranging from low level radio waves up to terahertz, infrared, and high frequency light waves. The whistleblower Dr. Robert Duncan indicates this is a global system deployed in all ground-based phased array antenna, to which the United States has dozens pointed over the United States, and all satellites, to which the NSA and NRO have at least 32 pointed right at earths surface.

The system consumes 1.4 terabytes to monitor all individuals and they keep fragments and bits and pieces of our memories and thoughts stored in their systems, and they can hone into any target they wish at will.

The US military also uses the system to commit secret covert acts of torture and psychic warfare on their own citizens with this weapon. Learn more @ http:

This is so relevant to this issue. A persons brain is a memory storage and state storage system. Anything inside of it can be tapped. What you see, hear, think, feel, emotions, memories, dreams, passcodes, certificates, birthdates, addresses, email addresses, names, and more.

Nothing can be kept secret. This is one thing I and thousands of others have been puppeting for decades because the government has had long-range versions of this since the 1970s. In the 1960s the first neuron duplicators were invented and used during MKULTRA and other government weapons development projects (there are several lawsuits over their use and torture that occurred, see http://www.mindjustice.org/ "Magnetic Integrated Neuron Duplicator" article).

Next up came the department of defense and a subcontractor had an employee named Robert Malech who invented and fully patented a radar system that could read and alter the electromagnetic fields of the brain from aware, allowing remote EEG maps to be created and also EEG heterodyning, ie the beaming of a complex waveform into the brain whch then modulates the radar signals and incorporates the information. The patent is 3,951,134, "Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves". According by DOD/CIA/US DOJ whistleblowers like Mark Phillips and Dr. Robert Duncan, one who worked in MKULTRA and the later designed high tech surveillance systems for the government .. The capabilities were fully retro-fitted into all radar and satellite systems by 1976. Patent link: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... (note it mentions it can be used for remote diagnosis, and can be deployed in convention military radar systems).

Today the government uses their weapons of mass confusion and surveillance and destruction to target people, covertly communicate with operatives mind to mind, and to extract everything a person knows without them even knowing.

Some people call it NSA Remote Neural Monitoring and Electronic Brain Link and it works by using NSA radar systems to remotely read brainwaves, where they're then transmitted back to DOD computers, decoded, stored, and analyzed. Then a signal can be sent two-way by instructing their radar systems to send signals to a targets brain or nerves or other body parts. This technology for the additional computer and optic backbone transmit system is patented, in US 6,011,991, "Communication system and method including brain wave analysis and/or use of brain activity ".. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

According to big time US Department of Defense whistleblowers there is no known protective mechanisms available in the consumer realm. The technology simply cannot be blocked or stopped from working because the signals hop over all frequencies ranging from low level radio waves up to terahertz, infrared, and high frequency light waves. The whistleblower Dr. Robert Duncan indicates this is a global system deployed in all ground-based phased array antenna, to which the United States has dozens pointed over the United States, and all satellites, to which the NSA and NRO have at least 32 pointed right at earths surface.

The system consumes 1.4 terabytes to monitor all individuals and they keep fragments and bits and pieces of our memories and thoughts stored in their systems, and they can hone into any target they wish at will.

The US military also uses the system to commit secret covert acts of torture and psychic warfare on their own citizens with this weapon. Learn more @ http:

This is the trademark: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85785006&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

It's for the Pi symbol followed by a period. Literally. "The mark consists of the pi mathematical symbol followed by a period." So if I had a shirt that said "I like Pi." (using the symbol for Pi), my shirt would be in violation of his trademark. Furthermore, he might try claiming that just showing Pi by itself would be "confusingly similar." Not that he'd be successful, but he could threaten lawsuits which might make others back down due to an inability to fight a legal battle.

He's also filed for the common Internet "I Love" shorthand: I <3 http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85481027&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

As he doesn't currently seem to be USING these trademarks at all, he should automatically lose all rights to them.

This is the trademark: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85785006&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

It's for the Pi symbol followed by a period. Literally. "The mark consists of the pi mathematical symbol followed by a period." So if I had a shirt that said "I like Pi." (using the symbol for Pi), my shirt would be in violation of his trademark. Furthermore, he might try claiming that just showing Pi by itself would be "confusingly similar." Not that he'd be successful, but he could threaten lawsuits which might make others back down due to an inability to fight a legal battle.

He's also filed for the common Internet "I Love" shorthand: I <3 http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85481027&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

As he doesn't currently seem to be USING these trademarks at all, he should automatically lose all rights to them.

Also see:

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNum...

The summary REALLY needs to also link to:

TMEP Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure April 2014
1202.17(b) Reviewing Marks Containing Symbols
http://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/det...

Also see:

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNum...

The summary REALLY needs to also link to:

TMEP Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure April 2014
1202.17(b) Reviewing Marks Containing Symbols
http://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/det...

https://tsdrapi.uspto.gov/ts/c...

Patents were intended to promote competition and a viable public domain

[citation needed]. Per the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts

and from the USPTO, "To foster innovation and competitiveness...", saying nothing about the public domain. In fact, I'd argue that a state-of-the-art public domain is actually bad for innovation, because there is little incentive to advance beyond the good-enough level of what's public.

From the perspective of competition, what exactly is the prize for competing? With weak patents, a company that does its own research and actually innovates has nothing to gain except a few months' lead to market, but a large investment being risked for it. Is that any better for the beloved "little guys", who can't afford to lose that investment to a bigger company with a better marketing department?

When rent seeking companies succeed, they are taking away from the public. I think that gets forgotten sometimes. :(

Along with the actual definition of "rent-seeking". Rent-seeking is when one spends wealth on lobbying to increase their share of some limited resource, without creating anything of value in return. The closest the term comes to patents is when a patent troll buys patents to increase its chances of winning a lawsuit, but even that's a stretch, because the purchase isn't lobbying. Patents do create value by incentivizing R&D, so they are economically different.

Err, there is some truth in that in a roundabout way. Though some of those facts are backwards. I don't have the stats handy unfortunately, and no time to dig them up. But as I understand it (grain of salt, IANAPPAY: I am not a practicing patent attorney yet):

>Almost no utility patent is granted straight away—it takes a series of office actions == non-final rejections, under 35 USC 101, 102, 103, 112, etc. There are often quite a few office actions before a patent gets issued, if it gets issued at all.

>The patent examiner's job not to get patents out to hungry corps, it's to make sure a patent should validly issue over the prior art (and meets other reqs like WD, best mode, etc.). You could say that makes it the examiner's job to help companies craft the right language for their claims, but only in the sense that they tell the applicant, "No, you can't claim 'Widget A doing X' because that's in the prior art."

>It is then the applicant's job to rewrite the claim to say, "OK examiner, how about, 'Widget A with limitation B doing X.'" This office action rewriting process goes on (and on, and on, have you ever heard a patent attorney complain about all the rejections they get?). This is probably the tweaking process you're talking about, and that's how it is supposed to work. The alternative would be for applicants to spend a bunch of time and money drafting a patent app and then when the PTO doesn't like it, say, "Start over, and write it better this time."

>IIRC, patent examiners get brownie points for issuing office actions. Yes, they are backlogged, but the Guidance from above is not to just let crappo patents issue because they have too much to do. See the latest, very strict, guidance on bio/DNA stuff post-Myriad, that will probably get smacked down in the Federal Circuit for being too strict.

>I don't know all the details of the prosecution process of TFA Amazon patent, but you can find out for yourself. A quick glance tells me there was at least one rejection and amendment to this patent.

Err, there is some truth in that in a roundabout way. Though some of those facts are backwards. I don't have the stats handy unfortunately, and no time to dig them up. But as I understand it (grain of salt, IANAPPAY: I am not a practicing patent attorney yet):

>Almost no utility patent is granted straight away—it takes a series of office actions == non-final rejections, under 35 USC 101, 102, 103, 112, etc. There are often quite a few office actions before a patent gets issued, if it gets issued at all.

>The patent examiner's job not to get patents out to hungry corps, it's to make sure a patent should validly issue over the prior art (and meets other reqs like WD, best mode, etc.). You could say that makes it the examiner's job to help companies craft the right language for their claims, but only in the sense that they tell the applicant, "No, you can't claim 'Widget A doing X' because that's in the prior art."

>It is then the applicant's job to rewrite the claim to say, "OK examiner, how about, 'Widget A with limitation B doing X.'" This office action rewriting process goes on (and on, and on, have you ever heard a patent attorney complain about all the rejections they get?). This is probably the tweaking process you're talking about, and that's how it is supposed to work. The alternative would be for applicants to spend a bunch of time and money drafting a patent app and then when the PTO doesn't like it, say, "Start over, and write it better this time."

>IIRC, patent examiners get brownie points for issuing office actions. Yes, they are backlogged, but the Guidance from above is not to just let crappo patents issue because they have too much to do. See the latest, very strict, guidance on bio/DNA stuff post-Myriad, that will probably get smacked down in the Federal Circuit for being too strict.

>I don't know all the details of the prosecution process of TFA Amazon patent, but you can find out for yourself. A quick glance tells me there was at least one rejection and amendment to this patent.

Prior art: infinity cove. Patent dismissed. End of story. Thanks for playing.

No decription of lighting.

Does not anticipate.

All limitations must be shown to be obvious.

Dismissal reversed upon appeal to the PTAB. Back to the examiner.

Don't tell me the rules of a game I play for a living, son. I know them better than you ever will.

Prior art: infinity cove. Patent dismissed. End of story. Thanks for playing.

No decription of lighting.

Does not anticipate.

All limitations must be shown to be obvious.

Dismissal reversed upon appeal to the PTAB. Back to the examiner.

Don't tell me the rules of a game I play for a living, son. I know them better than you ever will.

Well... you're referencing the wrong patent there, and should Apple be granted a patent on their 2008 application for a strikingly similar idea, then yes, quite clearly this DIY smartphone based HMD would violate their patent (if it was produced and sold by a company that could be sued). And quit you're belly aching, I had this exact idea in July 2007 within days of owning my first smartphone. Should the concept be perfected, so that it was universal to any smartphone, and sent to market, I expect they would sell amazingly well. Whomever holds the patent could make a handsome sum of money just for strealing my idea.

Good luck with that. Patents are really fucking expensive .

I've read interviews where patent clerks said precisely that. I'm not motivated enough to look for them, but it IS true.

No, it's not. And in fact, that post is the first hit on Google for that combination of words, making any such claim of a previous published interview suspect.

Furthermore, here's the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure". As noted in section 704.01:

After reading the specification and claims, the examiner searches the prior art.

No mention of "don't bother, because you can just assume that the company did the search." Sorry, you're simply incorrect, and your alleged interviews do not exist.

These are the same kind of idiots that seriously think apple patented a rounded rectangle,

US D690,300 S

1. The ornamental design for a portable display device, as shown and described.

It's easier to see all of the images from this link: http://www.google.com/patents/...

They filed a patent for a rectangular tablet with rounded corners on Sept 14, 2012, and were granted a 14 year patent term on Sept. 24, 2013. But don't let reality get in the way of the Dunning–Kruger effect. That would be silly.

Really? (and I say that as a genuine question, not some snarky reply)

I always thought you could "make your own" from patent filings, you just couldn't sell/trade/traffic/commercialize it. So if I wanted to construct a swing in my backyard and use it in a sideways motion (with or without the Tarzan yell), such as currently under patent http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... , I could do so without fear of repercussion, but I could not sell such a swing setup to others without violating the rights of the patent owner. Your definition of "use" would prevent such a project in my back yard.

Yes, you are incorrect there. The statute is 35 USC 271 and states:

Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

Note that there's no commercial requirement - this is unlike trademark law, where infringement has to include commercial use, because federal trademark law comes out of the commerce clause, while patents are under Article 1, section 8, clause 8. Merely using a patented invention is infringement, even if it's for completely non-commercial gain. In fact, this why there was the whole big controversy over the BRCA1 gene in Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics: one of the concerns was that if Myriad could patent an isolated gene, then scientists couldn't use that isolated gene even in their non-profit research on cancer cures.

Two things, though: first, that swinging on a swing patent has been invalidated. ;)
Second, for the most part, if you're making something for personal use in your home, the patent owner may never find out about it, so while you may be infringing, you're unlikely to get sued. Even if you do, the reasonable royalty for private, personal home use may be negligible. Let's pretend that the swinging patent was still valid and you did it... What's a reasonable royalty? A nickel? Maybe an entire quarter? It's going to cost someone at least $50k to file suit for infringement, and even if by some incredible odds you were found to willfully infringe and be held liable for their attorney fees, they'd still lose money, just due to inflation and lost investment opportunity. Plus, a judge would probably refuse the attorney's fees, because someone who sues over twenty-five cents is someone who is wasting the court's time, so why should they end up anywhere close to whole?

I don't buy the auto analogy, mainly because the insurance companies have nothing to do with the suit, except though my contract with them for payment of an award. The only reason their lawyers get involved is because it's their money.

But they have no right to interfere in the suit, even if it's their money, unless they can be made a party. That's what FRCP rule 14 is all about. As a result, they do have something to do with the suit, albeit indirectly to the main controversy. Civil procedure is weird that way.

I have a buffalo wireless router I purchased many years ago, and if the courts interpret "use" as you say, then I am in direct violation of several patents (since Buffalo, afaik, never paid for the patents they used)

Yes, quite possibly. It would depend on the claims at issue, of course.
Specifically, some claims are written from an active client perspective - "receiving, by a router, a wireless communication; processing, by the router, the communication to do something really awesome; etc." Buffalo may make routers, but do they infringe such a claim?

Really? (and I say that as a genuine question, not some snarky reply)

I always thought you could "make your own" from patent filings, you just couldn't sell/trade/traffic/commercialize it. So if I wanted to construct a swing in my backyard and use it in a sideways motion (with or without the Tarzan yell), such as currently under patent http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... , I could do so without fear of repercussion, but I could not sell such a swing setup to others without violating the rights of the patent owner. Your definition of "use" would prevent such a project in my back yard.

I don't buy the auto analogy, mainly because the insurance companies have nothing to do with the suit, except though my contract with them for payment of an award. The only reason their lawyers get involved is because it's their money. I have a buffalo wireless router I purchased many years ago, and if the courts interpret "use" as you say, then I am in direct violation of several patents (since Buffalo, afaik, never paid for the patents they used)

Do you realise a keyboard and a mobile phone are different products, again , I repeat you have no concept of trade marks beyond I own everything greed. They are strictly limited.

First, this is actually trade dress, not trade marks. Similar, and still falls under Lanham 43, but if you're throwing around the "you have no concept of what we're talking about" stone, you might want to make sure it's the correct stone. Otherwise, you're liable to hit one of your glass walls, y'know.

Second, trademark registrations under Lanham 32 are "strictly limited" to fields. For example, here is the registration record for Blackberry. And here's the fields it's "strictly limited" to:

IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Apparatus for recording, transmission, processing or reproduction of data, sound or images, namely, electronic handheld units, mobile phones, telephones, smartphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) for the wireless transmission of data and/or voice signals; data processing equipment, namely, printers, scanners, cameras and computers for use with electronic handheld devices; computers; mobile computing and communication devices, namely, mobile phones, smartphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), tablet phones, tablet computers, mobile computers, and mobile apparatus for recording, transmission, processing or reproduction of data, sound or images; computer communication software for the synchronization, transmission and sharing of data, calendar, content and messaging between one and more electronic handheld devices and data stored on or associated with a computer; computer software and programs in the field of music, movies, animation, electronic books, digital maps in the fields of general entertainment and communications; computer software for navigation; the aforementioned for computing and communication devices in the nature of apparatus for recording, transmission, processing or reproduction of data, sound or images, data processing equipment, and computers, and mobile computing and communication devices in the nature of mobile phones, smartphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), tablet phones, tablet computers, mobile computers, and mobile apparatus for recording, transmission, processing or reproduction of data, sound or images. embedded computer software for the synchronization, transmission and sharing of data, calendar, content and messaging between one and more electronic handheld devices and data stored on or associated with a computer, the aforementioned software used as a feature found on the foregoing computing and communication devices and mobile computing and communication devices; embedded computer software for GPS navigation used as a feature found on the foregoing computing and communication devices and mobile computing and communication devices; downloadable software for the synchronization, transmission and sharing of data, calendar, content and messaging between one and more electronic handheld devices and data stored on or associated with a computer, the aforementioned software for the foregoing computing and communication devices and mobile computing and communication devices; mobile application software for the synchronization, transmission and sharing of data, calendar, content and messaging between one and more electronic handheld devices and data stored on or associated with a computer, the aforementioned software for the foregoing computing and communication devices and mobile computing and communication devices; downloadable entertainment content, namely, music, movies, animation, electronic books, digital maps in the field of general entertainment and communications; downloadable entertainment content in the nature of games, and music; downloadable video recordings; operating system software for the foregoing computing and communication devices and mobile computing and communication devices; enterprise software, the afo

Look up "design patents". They are completely different animals from "utility patents". There are also abortions called "plant patents" (yeah, plant as in green growing thing), and "defensive publications", the latter now superseded by "statutory invention registrations". See this.

The court is doing its job. If a design patent is infringed, what else can the court do? The contemptible lunacy of design patents is on the heads of the legislature.

http://www.uspto.gov/aia_imple...
Based on what I read there is a 1 year grace period where prior art is null and void so... if You invented on January 1st 2014 someone has until December 31st 2014 to file (before you) and take your invention.

Then there is the possible "lost paperwork" that several bigger businesses would be happy to "pay" persons of low integrity in USPTO to "accidentally" lose so theirs can be considered FIRST.

USPTO is a paid WHORE for big corp. Power is nice, but NOTHING beats what people will do for money.

Ok, I used the wrong term to describe what it was they were defending. I'll give you that. But according to the trademark claim, "Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark." Fluke states on their own trademark claim submission that they are not defining a specific color as part of their trademark. Doesn't that remove their claim of "The yellow makes it look like ours"? And when a color is part of a trademark claim, it has to be a VERY specific definition of that color, doesn't it?

We're basing the idea that the multimeter was confiscated for being yellow from what was said in a sparkfun blog post. They have an incentive to down play the violation.

Indeed, If you look at the actual USPTO filing it is clearly stated that "Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark."

I've purchased some cheap multimeters that look a lot like flukes (The way the yellow cover is shaped, the font,spacing on the dial and the curves of the plastic).

A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.

Do Trademarks, Copyrights and Patents protect the same things?

No. Trademarks, copyrights and patents all differ. A copyright protects an original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an invention.

As pointed out in the Wiki article on design patents, an object (like the Coca-Cola bottle shape) can be both covered by a design patent and a trademark. As you mentioned, a design patent runs out after a certain amount of time, but a trademark is valid as long as it is used in commerce. Also, from this article:

In Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that color alone may be protected as a trademark, “when that color has attained ‘secondary meaning’ and therefore identifies and distinguishes a particular brand (and thus indicates its ‘source’).” The Court held color may not be protected as a trademark when it is “functional”. There are two types of functionality: “utilitarian” and “aesthetic.” A color is functional under the utilitarian test if it is essential to the use or purpose of the product, or affects the cost or quality of the product. A color is aethestically functional if its exclusive use “would put a competitor at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage”. If color “act(s) as a symbol that distinguishes a firm’s goods and identifies their source, without serving any other significant function,” it can be protected as a trademark.

If you work around lots of multimeters, as I do, Fluke certainly has distinguished itself by looks. So, don't start up your new package delivery company and paint all your box trucks a certain color brown, don't sell jewelry in little boxes that have a certain shade of blue, and don't design your housing insulation products to be pink. However, I believe you could sell tractors that are a certain shade of green because within that context, green is identified as a functional color.

So they invented a new military grade radar system for consumer usage in and around the home.

The military has had these systems (directed-energy radar systems) for use in human targeting for decades. A few capabilities include tracking heart rate, breathe, license plates, and brain waves (mind reading/altering). Fully patented since 1974 by Robert Malech. Details here: http://www.oregonstatehospital...

There are other uses of radar technologies coming into the consume land including personal cell "cellular" technology which tracks each cellphone individually and creates a pocket of reception (using energy beamed right to the devices, ala directed-energy) around the device itself rather than using omnidirectional antenna systems. The article about this was on Slashdot just last month.. http://mobile.slashdot.org/sto...

Here's the Raytheon patent for the Multifunctional radio frequency directed energy system , which uses radar to track objects and image them, and can beam energy at the object for slow-kill, annihilation, weather control, and more: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

It can use lasers, infrared, and any other method for targeting.

True, but there were many touchscreen phones before iPhones and none had the "obvious" slide to unlock feature.

Weirdly enough, slide-to-unlock was patented in Europe five years before Apple decided to "invent" it.

Europe: http://worldwide.espacenet.com...

Apple: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

Prior Patent by Apple fucking mentioned in the other Apple patent. Oh BTW, learn the fucking difference between filing date and granting date. 5 years before my ass.

True, but there were many touchscreen phones before iPhones and none had the "obvious" slide to unlock feature.

Weirdly enough, slide-to-unlock was patented in Europe five years before Apple decided to "invent" it.

Europe: http://worldwide.espacenet.com...

Apple: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

Prior Patent by Apple fucking mentioned in the other Apple patent. Oh BTW, learn the fucking difference between filing date and granting date. 5 years before my ass.

True, but there were many touchscreen phones before iPhones and none had the "obvious" slide to unlock feature.

Weirdly enough, slide-to-unlock was patented in Europe five years before Apple decided to "invent" it.

Europe: http://worldwide.espacenet.com...

Apple: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

One aspect of the invention involves a method that includes: in a first area of the touch screen, displaying a current character string being input by a user with the keyboard; in a second area of the touch screen, displaying the current character string or a portion thereof and a suggested replacement for the current character string; replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement if the user activates a delimiter key on the keyboard; replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement if the user performs a first gesture on the suggested replacement displayed in the second area; and keeping the current character string in the first area if the user performs a second gesture on the current character string or the portion thereof displayed in the second area.

So, you got a touch screen. User hits a "key" on the touch screen, autocomplete commences. User hits another key, selection changes, user hits backspace, selection changes. Lacking other prior art (that I know exists), Visual Studio 6 (circa 1999) had intellisense that does the exact same thing, except for "on a touch screen" which ought to be an obvious, and unpatentable extension. Granted (VC6 intellisense) it sucked, but still, prior art.

They don't mention the materials used for fabrication, so the "archival" claim is not supported.

More importantly, a disk-based storage medium is not likely to be useful as "archival" due to both format rot, and the inevitable loss of accessibility as the market moves to other devices. Can you read your MO or Bernoulli disks today?

This (US Patent 8,085,304) is a truly archival technology. One that a naive user with a flatbed scanner and computer could find and read. Say, for example a government in 300 years, or an archaeologist. Sure, quick calculations show that it could hold only 5 GB (if encoded in 4-bit) for the same weight as a CD, but it is the only truly archival idea out there.

Because he cannot even disclose his backdoor deals with the government to provide access willingly.

Also black operations methods to intercept the data via satellite and radar still exist, by observing computer and electro emissions from cables over long-range. They call this technique Van Eck Phreaking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...

Observe the TEMPEST emissions standards of NSA/DOD themselves, to get an idea of what signals can be remotely observed (virtually any signal can be, and they're very paranoid about unshielded cables, unshielded monitors, and unshielded computer systems): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

On top of that, surveillance methods using radar and satellite mind reading are wide spread, allowing them to extract passwords, what you see and hear and think and dream, and more. All the information we use to secure the data centers and our personal accounts is available and unsecure in our minds, giving them direct access using the TAMI system, "Thought Amplifier and Mind Interface," patented by Robert Malech in 1974, deployed by the NSA and DOD in 1976, and owned by EDO Corporation (now defunct and owned by ITT Corporation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... Yes, understandably, they don't need access to Google to steal our Google data, they can get it from our minds or by remotely watching us, as well. But lets say they want to prank and hack Google, yeah they can do that.

Robert Malech's patent is defunct but the patent and knowledge and systems obviously passed down through EDO Corporation to ITT Corporation, and Raytheon today owns other types of radar and directed-energy and remote imaging patents related. Malech's original patent, at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

Raytheon's radar remote imaging and remote targeting patent for technology very similar, but perhaps covers more of the electronic systems targeting (in addition to human targeting, for slow-kill and other directed-energy abuses, plus systems hacking/tampering): http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

More details brought to light by CIA, DOD, and US DOJ whistleblower Dr. Robert Duncan who helped invent the system, personally programming the software for various Navy systems and US DOJ satellite systems for "tracking heart rate, breathe, and license plates from space." He has a PhD and several degrees from Harvard, Darthmouth, MIT, and has also worked for several fortune 500s. He has personally seen brain images from TAMI and helped invent these weapons systems. Details and his interviews/books at: http://www.oregonstatehospital...

Dr. Robert Duncan's biography here: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/...

Buy Dr. Robert Duncan's books:

Project: Soul Catcher: Secrets of Cyber and Cybernetic Warfare Revealed : http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...

How to Tame a Demon: A short practical guide to organized intimidation stalking, electronic torture, and mind control : htt

Because he cannot even disclose his backdoor deals with the government to provide access willingly.

Also black operations methods to intercept the data via satellite and radar still exist, by observing computer and electro emissions from cables over long-range. They call this technique Van Eck Phreaking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...

Observe the TEMPEST emissions standards of NSA/DOD themselves, to get an idea of what signals can be remotely observed (virtually any signal can be, and they're very paranoid about unshielded cables, unshielded monitors, and unshielded computer systems): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

On top of that, surveillance methods using radar and satellite mind reading are wide spread, allowing them to extract passwords, what you see and hear and think and dream, and more. All the information we use to secure the data centers and our personal accounts is available and unsecure in our minds, giving them direct access using the TAMI system, "Thought Amplifier and Mind Interface," patented by Robert Malech in 1974, deployed by the NSA and DOD in 1976, and owned by EDO Corporation (now defunct and owned by ITT Corporation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... Yes, understandably, they don't need access to Google to steal our Google data, they can get it from our minds or by remotely watching us, as well. But lets say they want to prank and hack Google, yeah they can do that.

Robert Malech's patent is defunct but the patent and knowledge and systems obviously passed down through EDO Corporation to ITT Corporation, and Raytheon today owns other types of radar and directed-energy and remote imaging patents related. Malech's original patent, at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

Raytheon's radar remote imaging and remote targeting patent for technology very similar, but perhaps covers more of the electronic systems targeting (in addition to human targeting, for slow-kill and other directed-energy abuses, plus systems hacking/tampering): http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

More details brought to light by CIA, DOD, and US DOJ whistleblower Dr. Robert Duncan who helped invent the system, personally programming the software for various Navy systems and US DOJ satellite systems for "tracking heart rate, breathe, and license plates from space." He has a PhD and several degrees from Harvard, Darthmouth, MIT, and has also worked for several fortune 500s. He has personally seen brain images from TAMI and helped invent these weapons systems. Details and his interviews/books at: http://www.oregonstatehospital...

Dr. Robert Duncan's biography here: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/...

Buy Dr. Robert Duncan's books:

Project: Soul Catcher: Secrets of Cyber and Cybernetic Warfare Revealed : http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...

How to Tame a Demon: A short practical guide to organized intimidation stalking, electronic torture, and mind control : htt

Looka t his inventions and their timing.
1996 - Patents the Kernel
1989 - Patents the microprocessor.

A little late to the game, don't you think?
Oh, but when he gets denied, it turns into a large court case where he continually files for appeal, WHILE collecting royalties. And then when he loses he stop collecting royalties; which he doesn't have to pay back.

Go here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtm...

Search for this:
in/Hyatt AND Gilbert

Read some of his patents. He is the original patent troll. One who submits patent for things that exists, and then extract royalties from companies while it's "Patent Pending".

This Licensing = trolling is a ridiculous definition of patent troll. One that got the patent office to change in a way that is far worse for the small time no money inventor.,

Most likely they are tired of him taking him to court every time the deny something of his and our just sitting on it.
Of course this is GIlbert Hyatt, so there might not even really be a patent, and its near certain that f there is a patent, it's more of an idea and nothing that's actual working. It's like he grabs whatever is starting to become well know, lists what it does, and the applies for patent.

Look at this submission from 1989. It's list of idea about how a microprocessor works.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

Or this one form 1996 about how a kernel works:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

Most likely they are tired of him taking him to court every time the deny something of his and our just sitting on it.
Of course this is GIlbert Hyatt, so there might not even really be a patent, and its near certain that f there is a patent, it's more of an idea and nothing that's actual working. It's like he grabs whatever is starting to become well know, lists what it does, and the applies for patent.

Look at this submission from 1989. It's list of idea about how a microprocessor works.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

Or this one form 1996 about how a kernel works:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

Of course the USPTO is aware of this as mentioned in their 2012 press release...

Here's an excerpt from the WH press release...

Today, the USPTO is announcing that it is exploring a series of measures to make it easier for the public to provide information about relevant prior art in patent applications, including by refining its third-party submission program, exploring other ways for the public to submit prior art to the agency, and updating its guidance and training to empower examiners to more effectively use crowd-sourced prior art.

The mere collection of this information, although important, is not what is being addressed here. The USPTO has a complex procedure in place to insert 3rd party information into a patent file for consideration by the examiner. Basically you can only submit other patents or papers (no explanations, analysis, comments, instructions, protest or wild-ass-diatribes allowed). There is also a time window, specific forms and a submission fee and a requirement that the submission be directed at a specific pending patent and limited to 10 items.

Of course the examiner is somewhat free to consider third party resources (like AskPatents), but they are often leery of doing so as third-party participation in the examining process is strictly regulated by statute. AFAIK, this is because examiners aren't supposed to consider pre-publication protests or other opposition in determining the validity of a patent application, only technical information, not opinions of others (like competitor companies or people with axes to grind).

Hopefully, this initiative will streamline the process of getting them relevant technical information w/o the inevitable chaff that tends to go along with crowdsourcing sites. Just because a document gets uploaded to a crowdsourcing site doesn't mean it's a legitimate document. Some people have an agenda, ya know...

Your Move Patent Office. Are they trying to patent an idea again?

yes

likely the patent reviewer is hired at minimum wage, or close to it

http://careers.uspto.gov/Pages/Misc/SalaryRates.aspx

Not even obvious to someone skilled in the art of software development or mathematics?
Someone with a computer science degree?

Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art....

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

Speaking of things which lack substance, your post is a prime offender. You make claims without support, which in this case turn out to be false as I was able to do some quick searching and found some the patents in question: # 6,557,054 and # 6,658,464. I was also able to locate the actual document filed with the court that lists the other four patents.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinions about the patent system, and while I'm sure I probably would agree with you on several points, your post is nothing more than a lazy attempt at preaching to the crowd that is wrought with inaccuracies or outright falsehoods. The OP is right that the linked article isn't very good and leaves out a lot of important information that would be useful to readers. It didn't take more than 10 minutes to dig up this information, so I question why the author of the actual article couldn't be bothered to find out this information.

Personally I doubt that these will hold up. I haven't specifically gone over all of the claims, but the abstracts make it appear as though there's likely prior art. One of the patents in question seems like little more than a description of a screen.

Speaking of things which lack substance, your post is a prime offender. You make claims without support, which in this case turn out to be false as I was able to do some quick searching and found some the patents in question: # 6,557,054 and # 6,658,464. I was also able to locate the actual document filed with the court that lists the other four patents.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinions about the patent system, and while I'm sure I probably would agree with you on several points, your post is nothing more than a lazy attempt at preaching to the crowd that is wrought with inaccuracies or outright falsehoods. The OP is right that the linked article isn't very good and leaves out a lot of important information that would be useful to readers. It didn't take more than 10 minutes to dig up this information, so I question why the author of the actual article couldn't be bothered to find out this information.

Personally I doubt that these will hold up. I haven't specifically gone over all of the claims, but the abstracts make it appear as though there's likely prior art. One of the patents in question seems like little more than a description of a screen.

Speaking of things which lack substance, your post is a prime offender. You make claims without support, which in this case turn out to be false as I was able to do some quick searching and found some the patents in question: # 6,557,054 and # 6,658,464. I was also able to locate the actual document filed with the court that lists the other four patents.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinions about the patent system, and while I'm sure I probably would agree with you on several points, your post is nothing more than a lazy attempt at preaching to the crowd that is wrought with inaccuracies or outright falsehoods. The OP is right that the linked article isn't very good and leaves out a lot of important information that would be useful to readers. It didn't take more than 10 minutes to dig up this information, so I question why the author of the actual article couldn't be bothered to find out this information.

Personally I doubt that these will hold up. I haven't specifically gone over all of the claims, but the abstracts make it appear as though there's likely prior art. One of the patents in question seems like little more than a description of a screen.

Do any of you actually know what a trademark is? A trademark isn't just the word, it includes the color, the font, the background, etc.

Not necessarily. In this instance, as per the USPTO here: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNum..., the trademark itself is indeed just the word CANDY. Relevant information is copied below:

Mark Information

Mark Literal Elements: CANDY

Standard Character Claim: Yes. The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.

If I find a way to grow orange corn, and add a buttery salt to it, and sell it as "BringsApples Corn (TM)", then no other person can sell corn and call it "BringsApples Corn (TM)", but they can grow orange corn, butter it with salty stuff and call it "Similar_Name Corn (TM)". Since I'd have my own recipe, your corn may not be as good as mine, or it may be better. Look at the similarities on the ingredients of Coke and Pepsi.

You are confusing patent & copyright with trademark - http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/ - when you want to trademark (TM) on the name you want to use for your product and others cannot, and trade secret - http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/trade_secrets/trade_secrets.htm - your process/ingredient of your product that is not supposed to be disclosed to anyone but your own! Of course, they all are intellectual properties, but they are not the same.

Then you may need to elaborate about patenting "orange corn" because there are multiple ways of doing so -- patent how to grow/process to get the "orange" feature, genetic (which is controversial), etc.

Also the GP talked about "copyright is forever" is somewhat true in the sense but not exactly. You may look at http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html for more information.