I opted out at PHX recently, they made a big deal out of making us stand to one side and calling out on their radios for agents to come and do a pat down. While we waited he insisted they were safe blah blah blah. My objection is more political/war profiteering than health risk so I just ignored him and didn't bother trying to engage in conversation.
Anyway after the pat down was done I realized that not only had we bypassed the silly x-ray machine but we had also bypassed the standard metal detector.
1) To have a valid patent, you need to make an enabling disclosure. i.e. describe it in enough detail that someone can make it. If it's inner workings are just fiction then you can't really describe how it works.
2) Even if there is enough information in your sci fi film to actually make one, the film itself is prior art.
Having an actual patent court staffed by judges who are dedicated to patent law and nothing else and cutting out juries (who don't know anything about patent law) like they do in the UK would be a great step forward.
Odd that the article doesn't mention the patents at hand are continuations from 5,752,011 dating from in fact 1994.
I do also note the very long list of prior art on each patent. They were found to be novel or inventive over all that prior art. One would have to read the entire file wrapper on PAIR to understand why they were granted over that. Not a fun/easy/quick job.
If you're going to write a primer on patents, at least try to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. Getting basic facts wrong about for example term length makes you look silly.
Apple hasn't "got away with" anything yet. This is just an application and shockingly the summary got this bit right for once. Oh yes, I know what your reply to this is going to be "yeah but the PTO let all sorts through" or you'll mention something about 1-click and how that got patented or how someone patented a cat toy or a wheel or some such other bullshit. How about just waiting to see, maybe the examiner knows how to do his job more than you know.
It makes it harder to patent yes. The trick is making sure you disclose enough details in a published form that the USPTO will easily find should someone else apply for something similar. The primary source for the USPTO is other patents and published applications.
If you don't know anything about Patent Law best to keep your mouth shut rather than make a fool of yourself. Public sales of the burner and publication of Poggendorffs Ann. Physik, 100, p. 84-5. count as prior art you idiot.
Suppose you have "great open source software" everyone loves it and has been using it since v 1.0 (wow, I know it got out of beta!) came out on April 1st 2000. Now today Microsoft says "haha, no-one has patented this great piece of software let's steal it, lolz".
First to invent - lolz we totally have notarized log books that show we actually did this way back in February 2000, see you in court"
First to file - v 1.0 is prior art, end of story, Microsoft's patent application isn't novel, you can all carry on using the software without any problem
Yet no one protested when IEEE Spectrum magazine's offices in midtown Manhattan virtually overlook the hallowed ground of ground zero (if you squint a bit and stand on your tip toes).
Slashdot Mirror
I opted out at PHX recently, they made a big deal out of making us stand to one side and calling out on their radios for agents to come and do a pat down. While we waited he insisted they were safe blah blah blah. My objection is more political/war profiteering than health risk so I just ignored him and didn't bother trying to engage in conversation.
Anyway after the pat down was done I realized that not only had we bypassed the silly x-ray machine but we had also bypassed the standard metal detector.
Yay security!
What, you don't think there are cameras in taxis in the US?
Knowing how lazy students are, they probably just copied the list off someone else.
Well, how big is YOUR solar sail?
Not really, for two reasons.
1) To have a valid patent, you need to make an enabling disclosure. i.e. describe it in enough detail that someone can make it. If it's inner workings are just fiction then you can't really describe how it works.
2) Even if there is enough information in your sci fi film to actually make one, the film itself is prior art.
It would be easier to just use a solid rocket booster from ATK.
Anyone? Beuller?
It's also a clever way of avoiding income tax.
You don't actually know what a design patent is, do you?
Having an actual patent court staffed by judges who are dedicated to patent law and nothing else and cutting out juries (who don't know anything about patent law) like they do in the UK would be a great step forward.
Okay then, which one pays/evades/avoids the most corporate taxes?
I'm still using 3.something.
I bet none of them are standards compliant.
Odd that the article doesn't mention the patents at hand are continuations from 5,752,011 dating from in fact 1994.
I do also note the very long list of prior art on each patent. They were found to be novel or inventive over all that prior art. One would have to read the entire file wrapper on PAIR to understand why they were granted over that. Not a fun/easy/quick job.
Self editing. Applies equally to ebooks and old fashioned paper ones.
If you're going to write a primer on patents, at least try to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. Getting basic facts wrong about for example term length makes you look silly.
Easier, read it into voice recognition software. That way you can't be accused of bypassing any encryption.
Apple hasn't "got away with" anything yet. This is just an application and shockingly the summary got this bit right for once. Oh yes, I know what your reply to this is going to be "yeah but the PTO let all sorts through" or you'll mention something about 1-click and how that got patented or how someone patented a cat toy or a wheel or some such other bullshit. How about just waiting to see, maybe the examiner knows how to do his job more than you know.
It makes it harder to patent yes. The trick is making sure you disclose enough details in a published form that the USPTO will easily find should someone else apply for something similar. The primary source for the USPTO is other patents and published applications.
If you don't know anything about Patent Law best to keep your mouth shut rather than make a fool of yourself. Public sales of the burner and publication of Poggendorffs Ann. Physik, 100, p. 84-5. count as prior art you idiot.
Such as Facebook, twitter, farmville...
How about they test to see if they actually prevent terrorism more than my magic rock?
People apparently watch Fox news and believe everything they are told. I think it's some kind of witch craft, probably Obama's fault too.
Can we please stop the comments about prior art.
Suppose you have "great open source software" everyone loves it and has been using it since v 1.0 (wow, I know it got out of beta!) came out on April 1st 2000. Now today Microsoft says "haha, no-one has patented this great piece of software let's steal it, lolz".
First to invent - lolz we totally have notarized log books that show we actually did this way back in February 2000, see you in court"
First to file - v 1.0 is prior art, end of story, Microsoft's patent application isn't novel, you can all carry on using the software without any problem
Ready to cut funding so they can pay for their tax breaks.
Yet no one protested when IEEE Spectrum magazine's offices in midtown Manhattan virtually overlook the hallowed ground of ground zero (if you squint a bit and stand on your tip toes).