I'm not sure why people are so worried about high tech methods of "stealing" passports when thousands of passports are physically lost and stolen every year. Check out the statistics from the past two Brits abroad reports.
I don't see the big deal. I'm sure one day they might color it green and perhaps call it a Greencard but hey no big deal.
That's pretty much its equivalent. My greencard has a picture of my fingerprint on the front for crying out loud.
I think you misunderstood the explanation. It's a little more complicated than saying "may" means "may not". Using the phrase "a person may use X" implies that the person ALSO "may not use X" and still perform the invention. In other words it implies that the feature is optional.
Patents are legal documents and in the same way contracts use strange legal speak, patents use legal language so that there is no doubt what they claim. While it may look like obfuscation when read properly they are actually quite clear.
You haven't really understood my point. I will repeat it.
While in reality the skilled person construct is more than one person, it is not just anyone off the street.
Does a physicist expect his paper on the formation of globular clusters to be understood by everyone? No. Even other physicists will complain that the paper is nonsense. But if you want to fully understand it you can study more physics, read up around the subject and you'll start to understand it.
With patents, it is just the same. Learning the "patent speak" isn't terribly hard. You don't have to be a lawyer, but it helps to at least know how to read a legal act, understand precedent, and understand what the different parts of a patent mean.
Yes, patent speak can be a problem. But we are talking about a legal document not an engineering textbook. Have you ever read a legal contract and understood all the "wherein the first party identified by the..."?
Because it is a legal document it uses terms which have specific legal meanings. For example there is a real difference between saying "comprises of" and "consists of" switching between the two in a patent can serious affect the scope of protection. Similar to how the meaning of "obvious" is not the dictionary definition. Sometimes plain english just isn't specific enough.
Ok you ask who the skilled man is who is meant to be able to recreate the invention. Without being insulting, it isn't the majority of slashdot readers. In reality its probably a team of people including an engineer, a patent attorney/agent and several others.
You can learn how to read a patent properly, in the same way you can learn to read a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal. As for your example, as you've taken it completely out of context it is as near as useless as it can be.
Yes I know, that's why I mentioned the publishing change around 2001. But I don't think any of the patents discussed on Slashdot in recent stories have been actual submarine patents. They have all been ones you just simply didn't know about.
I can't resist replying to this comment. It is typical of many Slashdot comments particularly in relation to Patent Law.
I don't know how much the author actually knows about patent law but the comment illustrates a severe lack of understanding.
Patents must and do include "details on how to recreate such an idea". It's called the "description". While you no longer need to produce a prototype there is generally enough in the description for "someone skilled in the art2 to recreate it. In fact the whole reason you don't have to produce a working model is because you might not have the resources available but you want your idea protected while for example you get funding to set up a factory or what not.
I really don't know what you mean by a "secret patent". Since 2001 in the US and the rest of the world for approximately forever, pretty much all granted patents have been published twice. Once 18 months after filing and the second time after grant. Just because you don't know about a patent does not make it secret. All the patent databases are available for free online these days.
Not necessarily. There are other laws apart from copyright.
JK Rowling et al could and probably would still sue you for such things as trademark infringement, destroying good will in the name etc etc.
In a way you're right. The claims are important but it would be more correct to say "the claims of the granted patent are what matter".
At this stage being an application, the claims are written as broadly as possible. It is likely that should it be granted the claims will be much narrower, possibly bringing in features only found in the description.
When reading a claim you read it "in light of the description". Which means if you see a term in the claim, there is likely a paragraph or two in the description which fleshes it out and gives it context. Therefore you can learn more by reading the description at this stage.
The thought that we can just keep on using more and more of something at an increasing rate and other countries can increase their rate of consumption without any problems because we can always dig up and refine more oil/copper/zinc/or whatever. Don't worry, there will always be gas in your pump, someone will find a new oil field.
People need to change. Consumers should be demanding 100+mpg cars, fully recycled products, whole life cycle design. Engineers and scientists need to step up and provide these solutions.
The glass is either half empty and we are all doomed or half full and we are just waiting for these great strides.
Re:I can't believe they overlooked it!
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
I hate to point this out but smoking was generally banned due to safety issues not lung cancer issues.
It's bad enough already with dozens of shows which seemingly make no sense unless you've also watched the podcasts, read the magazine, surfed through the website and decoded the clues to unlock secret sections, watched the spin off series where they explain the back plot, played the video game, watched the hidden features in the DVD, used the decoder ring in the special pack of Krusty-Os,...
Can't we just have normal tv shows!!!!
They do define conveyor belt slide show. There is apparently a javascript called "conveyor belt slide show". Search google for it.
The only thing that springs to mind that looks like that is the thing you get at the bottom of YouTube which you mouse over and shows similar videos.
Not only go to the library, but talk to the librarians. If you're lucky there might even be a whole section just of sci fi and a librarian dedicated to that section. Ask them what they like to read, what's new, tell them what you've just read and ask if they know something similar, hell you might even get a date out of it!!!!
Hi, my name's Mike Rowe. Today on Dirty Jobs we're going to be sitting in a cubicle all day working for Microsoft. I feel dirty already just thinking about it.
Firstly, the skilled man test is not part of novelty. To attack a claim under novelty all you need is a citation that has ALL of the features of the claim in one document.
20050023524 - this is an application, you may be interested to know it was actually granted and the claims of the published patent are different. Check out 7302343, I'm no computer scientist so I'm not sure how much narrower they are. You'll probably want to check out all the citations listed.
20040230959 - also an application and as far as I can tell this has not been granted. In fact I checked PAIR and it says it is abandoned.
The "wheel patent" you refer to is not really a patent. It is an Australian Innovation Patent which essentially equates to a design right and does not have full patent rights.
I'm not going to defend 6368227, even I have limits.
Precisely. If you're a contractor fighting over billions of dollars of pork spending, damn straight you're going to protect the IP that is the basis of your bid to prevent another contractor screwing you over.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an application NOT a patent.
I'm not sure why people are so worried about high tech methods of "stealing" passports when thousands of passports are physically lost and stolen every year. Check out the statistics from the past two Brits abroad reports.
http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/press-release/2007/08/fco_hp_npr_070802_britsbehavab
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=PressR&id=5226726
I don't see the big deal. I'm sure one day they might color it green and perhaps call it a Greencard but hey no big deal. That's pretty much its equivalent. My greencard has a picture of my fingerprint on the front for crying out loud.
I think you misunderstood the explanation. It's a little more complicated than saying "may" means "may not". Using the phrase "a person may use X" implies that the person ALSO "may not use X" and still perform the invention. In other words it implies that the feature is optional.
Patents are legal documents and in the same way contracts use strange legal speak, patents use legal language so that there is no doubt what they claim. While it may look like obfuscation when read properly they are actually quite clear.
Lack of unity
It's even more fun when you have an exercise partner.
You haven't really understood my point. I will repeat it.
While in reality the skilled person construct is more than one person, it is not just anyone off the street.
Does a physicist expect his paper on the formation of globular clusters to be understood by everyone? No. Even other physicists will complain that the paper is nonsense. But if you want to fully understand it you can study more physics, read up around the subject and you'll start to understand it.
With patents, it is just the same. Learning the "patent speak" isn't terribly hard. You don't have to be a lawyer, but it helps to at least know how to read a legal act, understand precedent, and understand what the different parts of a patent mean.
An odd case for sure. But the patent still isn't secret you can look it up on google.
Of course what happened to the original inventor doesn't quite seem right, though I don't think that is a fault of patent law as such.
Yes, patent speak can be a problem. But we are talking about a legal document not an engineering textbook. Have you ever read a legal contract and understood all the "wherein the first party identified by the..."?
Because it is a legal document it uses terms which have specific legal meanings. For example there is a real difference between saying "comprises of" and "consists of" switching between the two in a patent can serious affect the scope of protection. Similar to how the meaning of "obvious" is not the dictionary definition. Sometimes plain english just isn't specific enough.
Ok you ask who the skilled man is who is meant to be able to recreate the invention. Without being insulting, it isn't the majority of slashdot readers. In reality its probably a team of people including an engineer, a patent attorney/agent and several others.
You can learn how to read a patent properly, in the same way you can learn to read a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal. As for your example, as you've taken it completely out of context it is as near as useless as it can be.
Yes I know, that's why I mentioned the publishing change around 2001. But I don't think any of the patents discussed on Slashdot in recent stories have been actual submarine patents. They have all been ones you just simply didn't know about.
I can't resist replying to this comment. It is typical of many Slashdot comments particularly in relation to Patent Law.
I don't know how much the author actually knows about patent law but the comment illustrates a severe lack of understanding.
Patents must and do include "details on how to recreate such an idea". It's called the "description". While you no longer need to produce a prototype there is generally enough in the description for "someone skilled in the art2 to recreate it. In fact the whole reason you don't have to produce a working model is because you might not have the resources available but you want your idea protected while for example you get funding to set up a factory or what not.
I really don't know what you mean by a "secret patent". Since 2001 in the US and the rest of the world for approximately forever, pretty much all granted patents have been published twice. Once 18 months after filing and the second time after grant. Just because you don't know about a patent does not make it secret. All the patent databases are available for free online these days.
Not necessarily. There are other laws apart from copyright. JK Rowling et al could and probably would still sue you for such things as trademark infringement, destroying good will in the name etc etc.
In a way you're right. The claims are important but it would be more correct to say "the claims of the granted patent are what matter".
At this stage being an application, the claims are written as broadly as possible. It is likely that should it be granted the claims will be much narrower, possibly bringing in features only found in the description.
When reading a claim you read it "in light of the description". Which means if you see a term in the claim, there is likely a paragraph or two in the description which fleshes it out and gives it context. Therefore you can learn more by reading the description at this stage.
A good war ought to sort that out :-(
It's called the myth of sufficient plenty.
The thought that we can just keep on using more and more of something at an increasing rate and other countries can increase their rate of consumption without any problems because we can always dig up and refine more oil/copper/zinc/or whatever. Don't worry, there will always be gas in your pump, someone will find a new oil field.
People need to change. Consumers should be demanding 100+mpg cars, fully recycled products, whole life cycle design. Engineers and scientists need to step up and provide these solutions.
The glass is either half empty and we are all doomed or half full and we are just waiting for these great strides.
I hate to point this out but smoking was generally banned due to safety issues not lung cancer issues.
They may lead from one to the other but they are not all the same thing.
Who ever said war was a fun thing?
It's bad enough already with dozens of shows which seemingly make no sense unless you've also watched the podcasts, read the magazine, surfed through the website and decoded the clues to unlock secret sections, watched the spin off series where they explain the back plot, played the video game, watched the hidden features in the DVD, used the decoder ring in the special pack of Krusty-Os,... Can't we just have normal tv shows!!!!
They do define conveyor belt slide show. There is apparently a javascript called "conveyor belt slide show". Search google for it. The only thing that springs to mind that looks like that is the thing you get at the bottom of YouTube which you mouse over and shows similar videos.
Not only go to the library, but talk to the librarians. If you're lucky there might even be a whole section just of sci fi and a librarian dedicated to that section. Ask them what they like to read, what's new, tell them what you've just read and ask if they know something similar, hell you might even get a date out of it!!!!
Hi, my name's Mike Rowe. Today on Dirty Jobs we're going to be sitting in a cubicle all day working for Microsoft. I feel dirty already just thinking about it.
Don't know if it's inhumane, but we could solve the energy crisis by strapping magnets to Arthur C Clarke's body as it spins in his grave.
Ok, I'm going to pick this apart.
Firstly, the skilled man test is not part of novelty. To attack a claim under novelty all you need is a citation that has ALL of the features of the claim in one document.
20050023524 - this is an application, you may be interested to know it was actually granted and the claims of the published patent are different. Check out 7302343, I'm no computer scientist so I'm not sure how much narrower they are. You'll probably want to check out all the citations listed.
20040230959 - also an application and as far as I can tell this has not been granted. In fact I checked PAIR and it says it is abandoned.
The "wheel patent" you refer to is not really a patent. It is an Australian Innovation Patent which essentially equates to a design right and does not have full patent rights.
I'm not going to defend 6368227, even I have limits.
Precisely. If you're a contractor fighting over billions of dollars of pork spending, damn straight you're going to protect the IP that is the basis of your bid to prevent another contractor screwing you over.