Slashdot Mirror
Melbourne Man Patents ... The Wheel
ssergE writes: "This article in The Age (A Melbourne, Australia newspaper) tells the story of a patent lawyer who has just recieved an Innovation Patent for a 'circular transportation facilitation device,' aka: a wheel." Of course software should be patentable. Look at how closely the patents are looked over -- clear indication that the world is ready to patent extremely complicated pieces of code. *sigh*
It's a patent for the wheel. Check out this link for the patent or this article for more information.
int main(void)
{
printf("Hello, world!\n");
return 0;
}
And offcourse evere piece of code that does something like this...
While reading you have to realize that
Well, if they had accepted my submission of this earlier today (see below), where I pointed this out in my write-up, this wouldn't be such a problem. I just guess the /. editorial staff aren't that interested in accuracy in reporting. Or maybe I've just made my way onto the submissions killfile somehow. Who knows?
2001-07-02 01:59:21 Australian Lawyer Patents Wheel (articles,patents) (rejected)
FUD. The person who patented the wheel appears to be claiming that these Innovoation Patents will allow people to claim that something is patented (check out our new Honda Outback with unique patented rolling things) even though the claim is dubious.
There seems to be a large group of laws with this fundamental problem: the law is ONLY fair is "wrongdoers" are brought to court, but no one has either the time or the resources to sue, or too much damage is done on an economic, societal, mind-share, or emotional level for the court to recompense. But that's just my patented two cents.
Beware typoes.
Patent.
Patent.
PATENT. patent. PaTeNt. pAtEnT.
Patentpatentpatentpatent.
Yup - patently absurd!
Isn't that what about 50% of Heinlein's stories are about?
-- Arm yourself when the Frog God smiles.
> But, what about those companies who have created such a complex algorithm for a product and have it coded in a product?
*NO* algorithm should be able to be patented. Else you start down the slipperly slope "Well this one algo is slightly complicated, so it should be patented as well." Where do you draw the line for "complex" algorithms. A algo may complex to the layman, but not to someone versed in the field.
Remember: Algorithms ARE jsut mathematical formulas. Should we allow patenting complex calculations too?! I think NOT.
>
Is that the new MS Enhanced syntax?
Alan
Umm excuse me?
What he should have included was...
/* I am not a C programmer */
#include <ianacp.h>
Do you guys even bother to read the articles that you are referring to? THIS IS NOT A STANDARD PATENT!!!. It's a new system installed in Australia to register innovations. It is accompanied by no review process, and provides no monopoly rights to the registrants. In addition the article goes on to explain that this is actually a fraudulent filing, punishable under law because the filer falsely claimed he was the inventor.
You guys are the WORST journalists on the net. This stuff makes Matt Drudge look good, for crying out loud.
Ok. I'm versed in the field(not a layman), and it's complex. If other companies got ahold of this algorithm, it would level the playing field and we would no longer be the industry leader.
/.
/. eutopian society where everyone shares and where companies don't try to make money and become powerful industry leaves, just doesn't and will never exist. Try getting out there in the real world and being in this situation...you'll change your tune.
Patenting this is not stifling innovation, it's fostering innovation. You are taking the extreme stance of being a complete ass. "Should we allow patenting complex calculations too?! I think NOT." Everyone seems to jump completely over the edge when it comes to arguments here on
Ok, try this on. You create an industry wide revolution with an agorithm. You are the industry leader and making oodles of $$. Now since you have no patent on this algorithm, some competing company copies it(through some manner which is not theft so you can't sue), and now has completely leveled the playing field and you are back at square one.
The
While we're on the topic of wierd and wacky patents ... Here's a fun little site I stumbled across http://soundreach.simplenet.com/psp/
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
I think an American already tried this, or something similar to it: http://www.harvard-magazine.com/issues/ja99/right. patent.html.
Look at the last paragraph.
I know.. I am going to patent SEX. That will make me loads of money, but not from many slashdotters.
Seriously, if you want to patent something that obviously PREDATES you, putting a patent of the sex process is the way to go!
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
In my opinion not.
They've a biased mind to this or that direction in various scopes, and use every opportunity to underline this point of view.
In my opinion "News for Nerds" should actually only report, giving the reader the information he needs to form an opinion. Yes unfortunally in puplic many views of stuff like patents, microsoft, licenses, companies, new technoligies are frivolous chosen without acurate information. However IMMO 'News for Nerds' should primary try to bring this information and not to easy prejudice the public with slashdot editors general opinions, Fear, Disinformation, Untrusts are """THEIR""" weapons, we on the other end should dissociate from that level.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
Why is a novel, original, groundbreaking algorithm any less deserving of a patent than a novel, original, groundbreaking device?
Remember: Algorithms ARE jsut mathematical formulas. Should we allow patenting complex calculations too?! I think NOT.
Now, argue all you want about how the patent system is broken and abused, but I have yet to be convinced that novel, original algorithms fill a magic niche that set them apart from novel, original machines.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I think he meant submitting improvement ideas was naive. "Trying to make a difference" may or may not be naive, depending on how you go about it. His point seemed to be that it is naive to think that they are actually going to implement "improvements" that would actually have a real effect on the number or quality of patents being issued. Now there may actually be ways to make a difference. This just isn't one of them.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Shoudn't this article have the "funny" icon?
IMO, Slashcode should let an article have multiple topics. For instance, a Darwin kernel article could go under both Apple and BSD, and a patent humor article such as this one could go under Patents and Humor. It would make topic searching a bit more accurate.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I might believe that, if he had made any comments about what might help. But he didn't; he just spouted meaningless nonsense while trashing the original poster. I tend to give more credence to the people who engage their brains before starting into an argument, even if they may not be totally correct.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Software companies get to have their cake and eat it too. After the patent rights expire, they still have copyright control over the code, for a fantastically long time. MS-DOS 1.0's copyright should expire sometime around 2050 or so.
No, 95 years for works made for hire. Try around 2075. DisneyCo and the other MPAA studios are way too good at lobbying for effectively perpetual copyright.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You can view the status of stories you submittied in your personal page. There's no way (that I've seen) to review a list of submitted stories.
---
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
These 'Innovation Patents' are just a rubber stamp yes, BUT, having been awarded one the holder can legally claim to own the 'patent' on such device. Ergo stupidity. A 'Patent Approved' label becomes meaningless.
/. news.
Just because you disagree with the inflection of the editor does not immediately invalidate the story as
Try being constructive next time.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Quick, dig it out and well hit 'em with prior art!
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
So some patent clerk with time on his hands gets an 'idea patent' for the wheel, certainly for his sole amusement. It might have well been a nebulous concept such as 'a better mouse trap.' I think it's kinda funny, really. Take it for what it was - a joke - rather than crucifying /. moderators for their apparent faux pas concerning the finer points of patent law. We need people who do inane things (Vide: This response.) to show just how inane the world has become, assuming it was ever any better.
Root DOWN
grep what I sed?
Sounds like Heinlein by the style, though I don't recognize the story.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
20 GOTO 10
I'd love to see this go to court. And isn't it weird how funny the word patent starts to sound after you've squeezed it into a sentence 10 times? Patent patent patent....
Here's a patent for what basically works out to be a toaster!
(thanks to steve for the link)
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
"...I'm just a Caveman, your world frightens and confuses me. When I use my fax machine are there little deamons in there typing the message? When I'm watching my 52" TV I wonder if the people are actually inside the screen?"
'You know, for drinks'
The Coen Bros. always rule, and this time they are even on-topic!
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
The problem this guy has with the innovation-registration system is that they're called patents. Hence, this fellow can claim to have patented the wheel, whereas he really only registered it as an innovation. In short, the article's claim that he recieved a "patent" is accurate; the problem is that patents in Austrailia now come in two kinds, and the article (intentionally, if one wishes to read it that way) highlights the potential for confusion between the two.
Dear sir,
I would like to patent the complex calculation 22/7. AFAIK this calculation has not been completely solved as of today, and therefore sounds like a really complex calculation.
Yours etc...
No sharp objects, I'm a programmer!
Well If you'd rather not watch any Television/cable/Dish whatsoever, I wouldn't say "fuck my company". My company is responsible for getting the ads/programming/content delivered from the companies to the distributors.
``Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.''
Got any proof, or are you just a troll?
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
Who moderated this funny? This is just annoying. A patent is the right to forbid someone else to do something. What the original poster meant was ``denying the use of patents'' to everyone else. Patents would be pretty useless if you couldn't implement them yourself. Besides, BASIC sucks.
Slashdot--Just like an insane asylum, except the inmates go around calling themselves geeks.
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
Please explain which things in nature or human design are not the expression of, or at least expressable in, mathematical formulas. Not to imply I believe there are no such things, but surely a sizeable majority of the mathematical, if not the scientific, community is prone to this belief.
To exempt anything from a patent because it essentially involves an algorithm may be to exempt all things from patents. An arguable position, but not because mathematics is a special case. Or are we only to patent things in the realms of the arts and spirituality, where some would say mathematics does not express the essence as it does in the realms of engineering?
You have used my patented Picasso process in the portrayal of my patented Buddha, please decist!
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
No no. It was done in Victoria. They don't have the wheel down there. Its a new discovery for them.
Hardly. If company A has a "real" patent dated 1999, and you produce a registered idea in 1998 that is exactly the same, that's evidence that company A is not the (first) innovator. There's no evidence that you're the first, either, but that doesn't necessarily matter - it's enough to invalidate their patent (which is what I'm personally interested in - invalidating patents, not clamping down on, or leeching revenue from, other people's implementations of my ideas). They can't go back and say, "uh, actually, we invented it in 1998" - it goes by the patent date (either filing date or approval date, depending on jurisdiction, etc.) This applies to prior art checking both at registration stage and at trial stage (if the patent office was too stupid to have noticed the prior registration - which, as we all know, never happens. Ahem.) IANAL.
Female Prison Rape in NY
I read the patent. It doesn't say anything about brakes.
excuse me why I go patent a pointy stick
--
Free Mac Mini
These patents are defensive mechanisms. They allow you to put information in the public domain quickly. This allows you to deny a competitor a patent.
Excuse me, I'd like to finish a rebuttal to all of this, but the CIA and the NSA called, we are going over the newest crop of intellectual property. You know, gotta get em to market... BEFORE YOUR COUNTRY. You know what is great about the USA? We actually have an espionage ring that is SO BUSY stealing the ideas of other countries instead of, say, little sidebar projects, like, I dunno, protecting the nation from terrorism or other dangers. God bless the USA. We still beat you!!! (Poster giggles like a schoolgirl and runs off into the sunset) I love unchecked rhetoric.
How can I sign up to be a beta tester?
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
> If no one else thought of it before, then why shouldn't the inventor get a short monopoly to take advantage of it.
I agree, granting people a time-limited-monopoly to create and use their implemtnation is an acceptable compromise. i.e. They get a chance to make money on it. But after X number of years the device should become public knowledge for the betterment of society. Or at least that was the orginal *intent* with copyright, since it is not a "natural right", but a government created one.
People will argue over exactly how long "short" X means, but I'm of the opinion that 5 to 10 years (MAX) for patents and copyright is long enough. (Unlike the current perversion of 75+ years for copyright.)
> In the physical world, there's lots of simple ideas that people come up with that are relatively trivial to implement but now one thought of before,
The physical world is no different then the software world. You have 2 parts: a) an idea, b) an implementation.
The main reason I am against software patents is because it effectively says "you need permission to think."
I should be able to use *any* algorithm that I come up with on my own, irregardless if someone else has already patentend. I don't need their permission to come up with (good) ideas, and they don't "own" my ideas.
I don't have a problem with people trying to make money off their formulas (i.e. drug research find different chemical formulas) But stopping someone else because they came to the same conclusion as you, is draconian.
Cheers
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.
Want Root?
It allows individuals to cheaply (no idea what it costs for this service?) register with a government authority the fact that they had this idea on or around a date. This in itself is going to save the small time or once off innovator in the long run.
How many incidents are there where ideas have been taken and patented by larger companies? I'm sure I've read about a few. Even if it doesn't happen all that often it's certainly a weight off the mind of the innovator to know that they can dispute future cashing in on ideas or patent registrations simply by pointing to a government endorsed register.
Simply, the new system is for peace of mind and for easy resolution of disputes.
This was not a standard patent. It is an Innovation Patent which isn't reviewed by the patent office, and doesn't grant monopoly powers over the invention. It's not entirely clear to me what good it does the holder.
Woogie
The guy who patented the wheel wasn't really trying to make a point that patents were too easy to get, his point was that these "Innovation Patents" should be renamed so as not to be confused with *real* patents, where prior art, etc are actually researched. These "Innovation Patents" are just rubberstamped, basically like a way to notarize them for timing purposes (should someone want to prove prior art, or that they registered the idea first in the future).
Once again Slashdot editors show their ignorance of what they are even posting.
I've just been granted the patent on Fusion, so anyone making use of any molecule beyond Hydrogen will be paying royalties, shall we form a LLC and live like kings on the backs of everyone else ??
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Maybe I should patent the the heart and charge people royalties in order to have one. Seriously, this is just as bad as yesterday's Napster crap.
And yes, I read the article. Yes, I'm an American. Regardless, the humor of the situation wasn't lost on me.
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
But,wouldn't this fall under previous use?
coz the Aussies might sue you for skin diseases
--
Bizar technology?
> Who's with me: Let's patent the patent. Then we
> can eliminate the influx of needless patents by
> denying the use of patents....
You silly, silly fool. Do you think you would deny the use of patents, had you such a patent? No, you would let them be used in exchange for a 1% cut on the gross proceeds of any device sold with a patent.
In fact, you would become much more lax than the government in issuing patents, giving them out the way Willy gave out pardons. "Patent the wheel?" you'd say. "Sounds good to me."
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Don't be so bloody naive.
The American Patent Office is doing exactly what the government of the United States wants it to do. Assign rights to any and every idea to American companies to enable them to attempt to control any and all lucrative technologies.
Essentially the Patent Office is all about IP. It is actively engaged in the practice of encouraging intellectual piracy by US corporations. The sheer breadth of the obvious solutions granted patent status is impossible to comprehend unless you're prepared to drown yourself in the paperwork.
Most people are aware that the demise of the cold war has seen US government intelligence agencies focus their energies upon corporate espionage. This is designed to give US companies an advantage over foreign rivals by engaging in activies that are illegal domestically but are apparently okay when your competition is foreign.
Is it too much of a conceptual leap to understand that the US Patent Office is a piece of legal legerdemain designed to accomplish exactly the same goals?
Patents are being granted to US companies at rates that defy justification. IBM alone files thousands of patents a year. Yet the US Patent Office continues to grant patents willy-nilly to so-called 'inventions' that are clearly obvious or predated by previous work.
This isn't simple incompetence, it's deliberate culpability. Rather than a program of stupidity, beauracratic inefficiency or simple mis-understanding, it's an extremely active policy of Intellectual Piracy.
Indeed, there exists a US company (at least one) whose entire purpose is to conduct patent searches in foreign domains for new ideas with the intent of subsequently patenting these ideas in the US before the real inventor does so.
Then the US pressures foreign governements into looking kindly upon any patents which have already been 'legitimised' by the US patent office. Those governments with a shred of common sense laugh themselves silly and tell Uncle Sam to fuck off.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Intellectual Piracy. Have a nice day.
> Sounds like Heinlein by the style, though I
> don't recognize the story.
You may be thinking of "The Man Who Sold The Moon", which this reminded me of, too.
In that, some charlatan tries to acquire the moon by buying the rights to it from all the (poor) equatorial countries, planning to claim that could indeed sell it to him because they owned the exclusive rights to it under international law. You see, it was technically in their airspace, if a little high up, and if he could be the first there, that would really clinch it...
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
"But he has no immediate plans to patent fire, crop rotation or other fundamental advances in civilisation."
Fantastic! Then my favorite "Big Business" company can patent them instead, and then start suing aboriginal people who use fire. Damn those natives not obeying IP laws!
---
If other companies got ahold of this algorithm, it would level the playing field and we would no longer be the industry leader.
First, I think you're mis-using the phrase, "level the playing field". To oppose a level playing field is to oppose the idea that your competitors deserve a fair shot at success. Second, if your algorithm is that innovative, you'd probably be better off keeping it a trade secret, where others can only guess what it may be, rather than patent it, where you have to make it public knowledge (allowing similar implementations).
Patenting this is not stifling innovation, it's fostering innovation.
How surprising to hear such omething like that from someone named Win-Developer. :-)
Try getting out there in the real world and being in this situation...you'll change your tune.
Sorry, no. I am in the "real world", and I've found that I don't discard my ethics when they become inconvenient.
Errr...except those people are actually real. Look at the Lunar Embassy for more information. Some people will do just about anything to convince others to give them money.
on the proccess by with two oxygen molecules are bound and made breathable, I'd be happy to license to you so WE can collect on breathing though
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The govenment needs to wake up! Sherm
No, that's far too kind. I've known some pretty idiotic idiots, but software puts them in the shade for idiocy. I'm sure even George Bush could hold a more coherent conversation with a ten-year-old than the latest Eliza equivalent.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Listen, I totally agree that most patents that are out there for software is completely bull$hit. But, what about those companies who have created such a complex algorithm for a product and have it coded in a product? I work for such a company(I really can't explain the algorithm that'd be a breach of contract). The product is based on an extremely fault-resilient algorithm for broadcasting encoded data.
This algorithm is patented, and I completely agree with it. I don't buy that by patenting certain things we're stifling innovation or hurting anyone.
There are plenty of other companies still creating algorithms, it's just that ours is by far the most scalable and most creative(IMO). We're the industry leader in the market we're in, but by no means are we of M$ caliber.
You get what's called 'competitive advantage.' You get to use an (allegedly) superior algorithm for your particular application. And you get to use it for as long as it takes someone else to come up with either the same algorithm, a functionally equivalent algorithm, a better algorithm, or an acceptable algorithm that isn't as good as yours but makes no different in the competitive marketplace.
That's all you deserve. By what logic do you assume that:
A) Your algorithm is going to make any kind of *difference* to your product that will translate to dollars and cents. Either the algorithm has to make the product significantly BETTER to the point where this influences product consumers or it makes the product CHEAPER to produce in some fashion. If it accomplishes neither of these goals, then why do you deserve to charge others for its use?
B) You're the only ones capable of coming up with this algorithm? If someone comes up with the same algorithm independently, why shouldn't they also be allowed to utilise the fruits of their labour? Oh, only YOU are allowed to do that because YOU'RE FIRST? What kind of screwed up logic is that?
C) That designing and implementing the algorithm allows you to prevent someone from coming up with a functionally equivalent algorithm? Oh, because you jumped through a legal set of hoops FIRST, you get to stop other people from innovating?
D) That someone can't do better than your algorithm? They're not allowed to innovate and create superior technology because you've already come up with the inferior version it's based upon?
Incidentally is your algorithm based upon anything else? Does it sit in glorious isolation or does it rely upon ideas made freely available by previous software pioneers?
I'm betting it's not. In practice it's impossible to claim total originality in software seeing as software itself is based upon concepts of computing by pioneers such as Turing, Von Neumann and so forth.
In other words, having made use of unpatented ideas, algorithms and technologies to create an algorithm you wish to patent, I say fuck you jack and fuck your company.
"If I see further it's because I stood on the shoulders of giants, not because I chopped off my competitors' legs." - Cryptimus
Why feel sorry for that company?!
Companies don't have a RIGHT to be PROFITABLE.
As for the real world, we know society isn't perfect, but we shouldn't be keeping the status quo in place simply because "that is the way things are". We should be trying to change them. Your argument leads to a vicious circle: policies have goals which mirror the current situation, hence things never change, hence goals never change, etc.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I actually agree with the above posting, despite being an avowed despiser of proprietary software constructed in corporate caves. Why? Well, read on.
Patents, in order to be effective, require a patent filing, which is supposed to explain how the invention (in this case, it would be the program) actually works, well enough so that a person skilled in the art (i.e. a programmer) could construct the invention (code the program) without any real difficulty (well, there's always debugging I guess).
In this, they are unlike copyright law as applied to computer software. In order to get a copyright on a piece of code, you don't have to release the source code. (This is the curse of modern copyright law that the GPL tries to get around.) Note that this make computer programming copyright different from all other forms of copyright. When I read a book or watch a movie, I can figure out how the copyrighted item was made relatively easily. In the computer programming field, however, reverse engineering in some cases is actually illegal.
Not so in patent law. The idea is the patent filing is supposed to make reverse engineering not only legal, but quite easy. The tradeoff? The patent-holder gets 20 years of protection, after which time reverse engineering is completely legal.
20 years might seem like a long time, and it is. However, what it means -now- is that if you have, say, an early Apple ][, there are no patent rights associated with it. This may not seem like a big deal, but sometime in the 2010s when all the Pentium patents expire, look for some really, really cheap webservers. (How much does silicon cost? ;)
But okay. Software companies get to have their cake and eat it too. After the patent rights expire, they still have copyright control over the code, for a fantastically long time. MS-DOS 1.0's copyright should expire sometime around 2050 or so.
This is the problem. Why do we allow copyright to apply to software, especially binary software code? It's dumb. We're protecting people who want to hide their code.
We should just use the patent system. Sure, sometimes patents would be issued for programs that shouldn't get them, but look at the upside: only 20 years of protection anyway, and the IP rights holders would have to explain at least somewhat what their programs do.
Sound like the GPL? Thought so. But try telling RMS that. sigh.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
these innovation patents are not such a bad idea at all... First of all, they do not grant the owner a monopoly, secondly it gets the idea into the 'innovation' office, maybe even the patent office.
Is it such a crazy idea to transform this 'innovation patent' into a prior art machine? I mean, a low cost way of getting the idea inside the patent office?
Assuming that the patent office is forced to search such a innovation patent database, this might get some of the more ridiculous quirks out of the system.
Just an idea. We might be better off with some more radical changes instead of smoothing things over a bit though.
Now that they have "The Wheel", it's likely they'll be using chariots. I hope you have pikemen already!
I know it's not what you're talking about, but it sounds like that time travelling episode of "The Tick."
They couldn't find the cavelady, who invented the wheel, to send her back to her own time. The next day's headline was: "Cavewoman Sues for Back-Royalites on the Wheel."
Vivek
About a month ago I was speaking with an Italian law student and her husband about patent law in Italy. Interestingly enough, they told me that you could place a patent on the bicycle in very little time, with no review. Italy apparently doesn't review patents. However, if you want to enforce your patent, then you have to go to court and prove prior art. Is this the way they do things in Austrlia?
:-)
That's right, patent anything you like, but you can't collect licensing fees from someone who won't pay them until you take them to court and prove prior art. I believe you can get an injunction though.
This left me thinking. Well, at first I was shocked and thought the whole idea was ridiculous. Hmmmm. But then I thought, why do we need a patent office in the first place. It's obvious that the above system would favor those who had the money and clout to back up their patents in court, but isn't that the way our system works in the first place? Why the administrative hassle (and time sink) of looking for prior art in the first place, <b>before</b>one gets their patent?
Then I thought... gee, maybe we've moved to the Italian system after all.
Keep smiling!
What you say!
We always knew he had some relation to yoda. Lay off . =)
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
I can't understand those last few lines in the post. Then again, I'm not very good at English..
the reason I suggested 2050 was because the cap in most of the world is 70 years
William H. Gates III is still alive, isn't he? In cases where works for hire do not have a fixed term, the rule is LIFE of the last surviving contributor plus 70 years. MS-DOS won't go PD until at LEAST 70 years after some slashdot zealot murders bill gates.
"Life plus 70." Doesn't that sound like a prison sentence?
Dickens, which people still read and enjoy
Charles Dickens, sure, he's on Project Gutenberg, but what about Geoffrey Chaucer? If DisneyCo has its way, copyright terms will be repeatedly extended until the average reader can no longer understand the language of works written hundreds of years ago in 1922, and it'll still be constitutional according to the letter of the law.
Public domain is a closed constant set, and the consumers show their approval of this by voting with their dollars for products whose makers engage in destruction of the value of the public domain. Write your representatives in whatever government you're under if you disagree with these practices.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Wasn't there a site that offered a $10,000 reward for finding prior art on these questionable patents? 'Cause I think I can find that.
I would think this situation more hilarious if it were some kind of sitcom; instead it is reality, and it just becomes sad. Who's with me: Let's patent the patent. Then we can eliminate the influx of needless patents by denying the use of patents....
Listen, I totally agree that most patents that are out there for software is completely bull$hit. But, what about those companies who have created such a complex algorithm for a product and have it coded in a product? I work for such a company(I really can't explain the algorithm that'd be a breach of contract). The product is based on an extremely fault-resilient algorithm for broadcasting encoded data.
/. before, until the patent office wises up we're still going to see plenty of bull$hit patents corrupting people's views on patents in general.
This algorithm is patented, and I completely agree with it. I don't buy that by patenting certain things we're stifling innovation or hurting anyone. There are plenty of other companies still creating algorithms, it's just that ours is by far the most scalable and most creative(IMO). We're the industry leader in the market we're in, but by no means are we of M$ caliber.
But, as it's been said here on
"you know. for kids."
dkap.info
I didn't know Og the Caveman lived in oz.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Robert Hainlein wrote a story about someone who invented a razor who always was sharp and an infinite power supply. The big corporations didn't like him.
Just saying it like it are.
May be slightly offtopic, but, some of you might find the online work of artist John Simon interesting at www.numeral.com. He came to a "Digital Worlds" art class I took last semester and talked about his piece titled "every icon." (He has set up a computer program that is currently in the process of creating every possible combination of a b/w 32x32p icon...which will take several hundred trillion years to complete. You can view the program at the numeral.com website.) we talked about the nature of patents, copyrights, and ownership, because, theoretically, at some point his program is going to replicate icons deigned by Microsoft, Adobe, and, well, every icon ever designed by anyone. and yes, he does have individual copies of this work for sale so, theoretically, he'd be making money to sell these images designed by other poeple. check it out.
So, Dr. Thom appears to be annoyed that someone made a bit of a mockery of the flawed system. What do you think has been going on in the U.S. ever since software algorithms and business processes could be ``patented''? Better develop a thicker skin, Dr. Thom. People are going to be laughing at your process.
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I see benefits of pointy stick.
-toup
Um...right. Only a naive person would actually try to make a difference, rather than sit around and complain to slashdot.
Gee, I'm sure glad we have you cynics around to kick some sense into us. No reason to get up out of the chair and put forth some effort when the most effective means of protest is to whine to oneself. After all, trolling gets you karma points.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I plan to patent anything from a silent stinker to a "explosion between the legs." Of course an honesty system would have to be used for women, well most women anyway. I'm thinking of a 10c per fart licencing fee. With generous corprate discount, you could be farting for next to nothing.
The Red Parrot Inn, Krondor
I just want to find the guy who patented leather.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Shoudn't this article have the "funny" icon?
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
You're risking Aussie wrath with your hidden implication that they stay sober the other days of the week!
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
And this differs substantially from the current system?
How?
Since Australian Government has been rather clueless of late (sorry lads!), as far as Technology stuff goes, it seems to be par for the course.
But I am glad to see that:
"[...] he has no immediate plans to patent fire, crop rotation or other fundamental advances in civilisation"
this reminds me of that classic article from the Onion:
Secret of Fire Falls into Russian Hands
Now we got to worry about the Aussies as well.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Years and years age I read a SF short story about a guy who sucessfully patented the wheel, and thereby became rich, frightened all te big companies etc... I know that this story came from a bundle I think from the sixties, but I cannot remember who wrote it (Asimov, Clarke ???)