You forgot the MAJOR reason to counsel your client to not conduct a prior art search: notice. I know YOU know this, but for the benefit of other/.ers: Say your company legitimately spent tons of money on your new inventive widget. The company is betting the farm on it so you want a patent RIGHT NOW and go through the accelerated exam process. As part of it you perform a prior art search and, oh crap, someone out there has a patent either dead on or very similar to soemthing in your widget. You are now aware of the patent if you keep making the widget and they sue the company, the company is a WILLFUL infringer. Treble damages. Yuck.
There are legal benefits for sticking your head in the sand and a reason the PTO requires that you disclose only what you are aware of (and does not require a search).
Wrong. Claims stand and fall on their own. An independent claim must be novel and non-obvious. A dependent claim, dependent on that independent claim, must also be nonvel and non-obvious. Patent claims are analyzed individually for invalidity and the limitations of dependent claims are not read into the parent independent claim.
Many rejections from an examiner will reject the independent claim and will object to the dependent claim, stating that the dependent claim, which is narrower than the indepent claim, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
What people on slashdot should look at is the image file wrapper (put in the patent number, select patent number from the drop down, and select the image file wrapper tab). These are the arguments are exchanged between the Examiner and the applicant in trying to get the patent allowed. This is the ultimate authority on what the applicant says is his invention because he may be estopped during litigation from claiming his invention is something he said it wasn't during prosecution.
Actually the growing trend taught in law school is never to use legalese for exactly the reasons/.'s decry: no one can understand it except lawyers. This book is a required text for my Legal Practice Skills course.
Hi. I go to law school. I used to be a software engineer but I became interested in the law after reading YRO on slashdot over the years and decided to switch careers.
Not only that, but this is the gamers section of slashdot... Dude, i'm so into GTA, QUAKE and LEGAL DOCUMENTS, woah! Anyone?
I used to clan in TFC (I prefer the HL feel over Quake3). I own every major console from the last 15 years except X-box and Turbo Graphix 16. Can I please read the interesting article now? Thanks.
Starting broad and restricting down is exactly what they do. What people seem to have trouble with is the business side of patents. A patent is a way of preventing your competitors from competing. It's a business strategy. In return for full disclosure, you get a temporary monopoly on that technology. However, keeping in mind you want to maximize the monopoly to maximize revenue, you define your claims as broadly as possible. The examiner then says "no, you claimed too much. There's prior art" and you back off some. If you went the other way, you would patent a small area of the space, your competitors would design around your patent, and you're out of business. You can cry all you want about fairness and morality, but the currency of business is money (surprise) and the more money, the better the business. MS may be scum, but they're a hell of a business. That's why you start broad and narrow down. Doing otherwise is not loking out for your client.
For once a judge has seen how ridiculous our patent system is.
s/is/was/
Granted, the patent system still has issues, but it is getting better. The PTO has implemented a system like the EU where patent apps are published at 18 months regardless of their status. This was done in direct response to abuses like "submarine" patents. It's getting better. It's just going to take time.
If I am an inventor, and I have a great new chip design, but do not have the millions of dollars to set up a fabrication business, then I shouldn't get a patent? How do you measure intent? It has to be within one year? Two years? What if the business starts up and fails within 6 months?
I also love your quote at the end: I know of no lawyers that attempt to uphold the intention of the law. This statement is ignorant in several ways.
the intent you described is what YOU think the intention of the patent system is, which is incorrect. The intent of the patent system is a quid pro quo: In exchange for fully disclosing how to enable a person skilled in the art to recreate your invention, you gain a limited (timewise) monopoly on restricting who and when others can implement your technology.
I'm guessing you don't know any lawyers. I work with dozens of them and believe it or not, they are average Joe and Janes that are good citizens that try to do what's right in the spirit of the law while being an advocate for their client
"The law" is drafted by the Legislature who is *gasp* mainly lawyers. Judges then interpret the law. Judges are *gasp* all lawyers. If these two groups aren't attempting to uphold the intent of the law, which in and of itself changes as society progresses, then how does the law get created?
The point is: it's already out there and it worked extremely well. Anyone should be able to pick up the concept and say "we can do this." Nintendo, Sega, EA, whoever.
It's on the Dreamcast. Example: NFL Blitz. You could hide what play you were choosing from the other player and use the VMU to see the play grid for yourself. This would be KILLER for sports titles like baseball where the pitcher has to select a pitch location without alerting the batter. That's what the N should do.
Obvious things are patented every day. If a rule isn't enforced, it doesn't exist.
You obviously don't prosecute patents for a living. I see 103 rejections all the time and for non-obvious material (35 USC 103 is the statute that bars the patenting of obvious subject matter). Contrary to what everyone on/. thinks, you don't just whip out a patent app, give the PTO a check, and poof, you have a patent. Most patents take years, and several Office actions, to get through if they do at all. You only think the rule does not exist because a patent or three a year comes up that is "bad." No one says "look at the hundreds of useful, new, and non-obvious patents that are issued" because it's easier to tear apart the one or two that are broken.
psxndc
Re:Stop looking for "programming" jobs
on
Exporting Myself?
·
· Score: 1
Also, be an example for others. You are living proof that you should get a BS in computer science, not a BA.
I can't speak to the poster's experience, but A) my school didn't offer a BS in Comp Sci because "it's not a hard science" so the choice may not have been his and B) it has never been brought up in an interview that I had a BA vs. a BS, nor has it been mentioned at any job I landed. Any job I did not get was due to not knowing how to interview.
I got the armband holder from Marware and used to (before school started) run several miles a day with no problems. Watch it when it rains though because the one time I went when there was a lot of humidity in the air, at the end of the run the iPod sort of seized up for a few minutes. It reset itself and was fine, but that was a pretty scary few minutes.
I love the bag. I think it's made extremely well and I've never had a problem with my ibook tucked inside it. But something the parent said caught my eye: back pain. I'm a decently athletic guy with a pretty strong back. But after about a month and a half using my Timbuk2 to carry my books to and from school, I experienced severe pain in my lower right back (where the bag rests). I would take a week off here and there, but the pain never lessened. It was only when I went to the doctor and he told me to get a backpack did I switch. I picked up a Eastpak laptop backpack or something on sale at BestBuy and feel much better. I always thought it was me, but I think it's the way they design their bags: to be slung over a horizontal (like a biker riding his bike) back. yeah yeah yeah "Well it is a messenger bag." I think the construction is great, but I wouldn't recommend it if you're primarily walking with it.
A 1/3 stake of the recovery is not all that uncommon. Is it fair? Well at first blush, no, obviously not. It seems ludicrous. But think about this: if nothing is recovered, the lawyer makes nothing. You take either a contingency OR an hourly fee. Now not recovering wouldn't seem like a big deal if a lawyer had 4 cases going at once and the cases only took 2 or 3 weeks to litigate. The truth is, cases can take years to litigate with several attorneys working on them full time. The lead attorney may not look like he's doing much work, but I guarantee you he has a first year attorney or two going over 3000 documents with a fine tooth comb. That is a lot of man hours to risk not getting paid for.
Now, granted the site talks mainly about personal injury lawyers. I don't know any so I cannot comment on them. But I have some friends that are IP lawyers and the site paints all lawyers in a very unfair light. It even goes so far as to make up statements and pass them along as inside information. Example: frivilous law suits are filed all the time. This simply isn't true. There are laws and sanctions for lawyers that waste the court's time by bringing up frivilous suits. The site also says that lawyers can lie to the court. This is simply untrue as well. Lawyers have a duty of good faith when presenting information and evidence to the court. If they are found to breach this faith, they too have sanctions that can be brought against them, including disbarment. In short, that site is sensational garbage. There are problems with the legal system and there are unscrupulous lawyers. No more so than there are unscrupulous doctors or mailmen. But the truth is, most lawyers are just hard working joes trying to help the people that come to them.
the part where you cite IHATELAWYERS.com. If you want to make your case about lawyers taking on cases without a client, and I'm not saying they never do, don't include a link to an obviously biased website. Send me to a balanced, objective site that discusses rationally and fairly why _some_ lawyers take these cases on. Using a site like the one you cited makes you look like you're anti-lawyer. I'm not saying you have to love them, or even like them, but the site you provided undermines your statements.
Wow. I had no idea. It looks like a website dedicated to a completely even and unbiased look at lawyers and the rest of the legal profession. Thanks! </sarcasm>
The reason for me is because I believe looks shouldn't matter. They always will, and that is unfortunate, but it will never shake the tenant from my mind that "if they can do the job, it doesn't matter what they look like." But that's a geek's perspective. Taller people will always make more money and attractive people will always get raises first because often geeks aren't making those decisions. It sucks, but that's the way it is. We can only try to improve the situation by not acquiescing and being who we are. We don't have to be obnoxious about it, but hope springs eternal that someday people will accept someone for who they are and what they can accomplish instead of the product they use in their hair or the name on the inside of their blazer. *shrug*
I am not above admitting it. I have a 3G iPod and I reset the settings to double check. The light does not come on by default upon button press HOWEVER, "backlight" IS an option on the main screen. My claims are not based on older hardware, only on what I have, a 3G iPod. If you couldn't find it in a 2G and you can in a 3G, isn't that a sign that it is advancing?
Huh? My iPod's backlight comes on whenever I press any button. Not hold; press. Maybe you should blame your friend because he changed the default setting.
Let me ask you something that shows a flaw in your analogy: What do you need for LAN gaming? Answer: An awesome graphics card and... well, that's about it. Maybe sick RAM or a fast HD, but SFFs can match a tower for those. And if not, maybe you'll only get 80FPS instead of 85. Obviously you need a 10/100, but those are built in to everything. Empty PCI slots? Soundblaster 7.1? Doesn't matter if you have headphones.
Basically, there is nothing that a full tower gives you that a SFF does not. Your analogy is flawed because a wet suit gives you more functionality than a bikini; it keeps you warmer. A full tower doesn't give you anything more except bulk.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot the MAJOR reason to counsel your client to not conduct a prior art search: notice. I know YOU know this, but for the benefit of other /.ers: Say your company legitimately spent tons of money on your new inventive widget. The company is betting the farm on it so you want a patent RIGHT NOW and go through the accelerated exam process. As part of it you perform a prior art search and, oh crap, someone out there has a patent either dead on or very similar to soemthing in your widget. You are now aware of the patent if you keep making the widget and they sue the company, the company is a WILLFUL infringer. Treble damages. Yuck.
There are legal benefits for sticking your head in the sand and a reason the PTO requires that you disclose only what you are aware of (and does not require a search).
-p-
Many rejections from an examiner will reject the independent claim and will object to the dependent claim, stating that the dependent claim, which is narrower than the indepent claim, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
What people on slashdot should look at is the image file wrapper (put in the patent number, select patent number from the drop down, and select the image file wrapper tab). These are the arguments are exchanged between the Examiner and the applicant in trying to get the patent allowed. This is the ultimate authority on what the applicant says is his invention because he may be estopped during litigation from claiming his invention is something he said it wasn't during prosecution.
-p-
psxndc
Actually the growing trend taught in law school is never to use legalese for exactly the reasons /.'s decry: no one can understand it except lawyers. This book is a required text for my Legal Practice Skills course.
psxndc
psxndc
Are lawyers nerds?
Hi. I go to law school. I used to be a software engineer but I became interested in the law after reading YRO on slashdot over the years and decided to switch careers.
Not only that, but this is the gamers section of slashdot... Dude, i'm so into GTA, QUAKE and LEGAL DOCUMENTS, woah! Anyone?
I used to clan in TFC (I prefer the HL feel over Quake3). I own every major console from the last 15 years except X-box and Turbo Graphix 16. Can I please read the interesting article now? Thanks.
psxndc
psxndc
A screwed up one because you don't patent creative works, you copyright them. ;-p
psxndc
psxndc
s/is/was/
Granted, the patent system still has issues, but it is getting better. The PTO has implemented a system like the EU where patent apps are published at 18 months regardless of their status. This was done in direct response to abuses like "submarine" patents. It's getting better. It's just going to take time.
psxndc
I also love your quote at the end: I know of no lawyers that attempt to uphold the intention of the law. This statement is ignorant in several ways.
- the intent you described is what YOU think the intention of the patent system is, which is incorrect. The intent of the patent system is a quid pro quo: In exchange for fully disclosing how to enable a person skilled in the art to recreate your invention, you gain a limited (timewise) monopoly on restricting who and when others can implement your technology.
- I'm guessing you don't know any lawyers. I work with dozens of them and believe it or not, they are average Joe and Janes that are good citizens that try to do what's right in the spirit of the law while being an advocate for their client
- "The law" is drafted by the Legislature who is *gasp* mainly lawyers. Judges then interpret the law. Judges are *gasp* all lawyers. If these two groups aren't attempting to uphold the intent of the law, which in and of itself changes as society progresses, then how does the law get created?
Break out of thepsxndc
psxndc
psnxdc
You obviously don't prosecute patents for a living. I see 103 rejections all the time and for non-obvious material (35 USC 103 is the statute that bars the patenting of obvious subject matter). Contrary to what everyone on /. thinks, you don't just whip out a patent app, give the PTO a check, and poof, you have a patent. Most patents take years, and several Office actions, to get through if they do at all. You only think the rule does not exist because a patent or three a year comes up that is "bad." No one says "look at the hundreds of useful, new, and non-obvious patents that are issued" because it's easier to tear apart the one or two that are broken.
psxndc
I can't speak to the poster's experience, but A) my school didn't offer a BS in Comp Sci because "it's not a hard science" so the choice may not have been his and B) it has never been brought up in an interview that I had a BA vs. a BS, nor has it been mentioned at any job I landed. Any job I did not get was due to not knowing how to interview.
psxndc
psxndc
psxndc
Now, granted the site talks mainly about personal injury lawyers. I don't know any so I cannot comment on them. But I have some friends that are IP lawyers and the site paints all lawyers in a very unfair light. It even goes so far as to make up statements and pass them along as inside information. Example: frivilous law suits are filed all the time. This simply isn't true. There are laws and sanctions for lawyers that waste the court's time by bringing up frivilous suits. The site also says that lawyers can lie to the court. This is simply untrue as well. Lawyers have a duty of good faith when presenting information and evidence to the court. If they are found to breach this faith, they too have sanctions that can be brought against them, including disbarment. In short, that site is sensational garbage. There are problems with the legal system and there are unscrupulous lawyers. No more so than there are unscrupulous doctors or mailmen. But the truth is, most lawyers are just hard working joes trying to help the people that come to them.
psxndc
psxndc
Wow. I had no idea. It looks like a website dedicated to a completely even and unbiased look at lawyers and the rest of the legal profession. Thanks!
</sarcasm>
psxndc
A: Unemployed
Lay the blame where appropriate. Lawyers are part of the problem, but not the only part. Blame the clients that hire them.
psxndc
psxndc
psxndc
psnxdc
Basically, there is nothing that a full tower gives you that a SFF does not. Your analogy is flawed because a wet suit gives you more functionality than a bikini; it keeps you warmer. A full tower doesn't give you anything more except bulk.
psxndc