Not denying it. But you'll note I said "read the claims in light of the description". This means you essentially use the description as a dictionary to understand the claims. So if the claim says "...a computer..." you look in the detailed description where hopefully there will be at least one paragraph disclosing what they mean by "a computer". It might say something as specific as "a Mark II Widget Enterprises Wizzle Wozzle with Fubar attachment" and not teach or suggest that any other computer will do the job, in which case the claims are relatively narrow and infringement is limited to only that instance. However, it usually doesn't though and they often use the phrase "general purpose computer" which makes the scope of their claim a lot broader.
In the UK at least, it works thusly... Every single patent application goes through one special office with a locked door and a big heavy safe to be vetted for National Security purposes. Most things will just get a cursory glance but if you mention stuff like radar, munitions, nuclear power etc it will get a closer look to see if it poses a risk. It may or may not then get published. Still gets searched and examined I think. I would assume any infringement proceedings would take place in closed session.
I really wish that the law didn't use normal english words like "obviousness" because time and time again I see comments like this that demonstrate to me (as someone who has worked in patent law) that the public (i.e. slashdot readers) don't know anything about how patent law works.
When Patent people talk about "obviousness" they do not mean the dictionary definition!
To make an obviousness objection stick you have to have a pretty close citation already, maybe only missing one feature of the claim (yes, I'm sorry you're going to have to actually read the claims in light of the description). Then you need another close citation with that missing feature and motivation, some sort of explanation why you want to put these two together. Motivation is not an ex post facto analysis along the lines of "oh, I could have thought of that". Preferably the second citation might actually say something like "the use of missing feature X helps wizzle the wozzle". Not forgetting that you might have to demonstrate somehow that the skilled man might actually be aware of what are sometimes two very disparate citations.
It's not always as obvious as you think.
Exactly.
Besides, MY invention isn't software it's a device with mechanical components (i.e. a computer and a network and a CD-ROM). Which incidentally for those who have no real knowledge of patent law is something that has been thrashed about in courts all over the world since the first attempt to patent software. i.e. some clever lawyer will find a loophole.
Your analogy would be much improved if you were talking about yeast or bread dough.
Person A is a provider of live yeast. He has a big ball of dough and sells little bits of it to customers who can then incorporate it into their unyeasted bread dough to make it rise.
Person B comes along and instead of paying for a little bit of dough he just takes a tiny piece without paying.
Person A is not deprived of his yeast. The remaining yeast will replicate as it does normally and he can continue selling to his paying customers.
Person B has acquired goods which were being offered for sale at a price without paying. Is this stealing?
Person B if he is clever can use the bit of dough he now has to pass on yeasty goodness to his friends Person C, Person D and Person E.
Person C, Person D and Person E could have gone to Person A for yeast but this is free yeast and besides it's sharing not stealing. Person A isn't being deprived of his yeast.
I'm going to refrain calling you an idiot.
Clearly the fact that Home Depot is full of these and similar devices illustrates how incredibly obvious this idea is.
Looking at the pictures of the device I would guess the inventiveness is in making the weight drop down the ball screw in a controlled manner over 4 hours. Very different from a clock weight dropping. If there really was a link to the patent, that would really help, but then again when has a story summary been accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
Not denying it. But you'll note I said "read the claims in light of the description". This means you essentially use the description as a dictionary to understand the claims. So if the claim says "...a computer..." you look in the detailed description where hopefully there will be at least one paragraph disclosing what they mean by "a computer". It might say something as specific as "a Mark II Widget Enterprises Wizzle Wozzle with Fubar attachment" and not teach or suggest that any other computer will do the job, in which case the claims are relatively narrow and infringement is limited to only that instance. However, it usually doesn't though and they often use the phrase "general purpose computer" which makes the scope of their claim a lot broader.
In the UK at least, it works thusly... Every single patent application goes through one special office with a locked door and a big heavy safe to be vetted for National Security purposes. Most things will just get a cursory glance but if you mention stuff like radar, munitions, nuclear power etc it will get a closer look to see if it poses a risk. It may or may not then get published. Still gets searched and examined I think. I would assume any infringement proceedings would take place in closed session.
I rest my case.
I really wish that the law didn't use normal english words like "obviousness" because time and time again I see comments like this that demonstrate to me (as someone who has worked in patent law) that the public (i.e. slashdot readers) don't know anything about how patent law works. When Patent people talk about "obviousness" they do not mean the dictionary definition! To make an obviousness objection stick you have to have a pretty close citation already, maybe only missing one feature of the claim (yes, I'm sorry you're going to have to actually read the claims in light of the description). Then you need another close citation with that missing feature and motivation, some sort of explanation why you want to put these two together. Motivation is not an ex post facto analysis along the lines of "oh, I could have thought of that". Preferably the second citation might actually say something like "the use of missing feature X helps wizzle the wozzle". Not forgetting that you might have to demonstrate somehow that the skilled man might actually be aware of what are sometimes two very disparate citations. It's not always as obvious as you think.
Not religions? For all you know Apple could be the next Scientology lead on by the great leader L. Steve Jobs into the volcano!
Do you actually know what the average city center traffic speeds are in the majority of the world's cities?
I love how the first comment is asking if the apollo landing photos were photoshopped.
Also known as "RENEWAL FEES"
Exactly. Besides, MY invention isn't software it's a device with mechanical components (i.e. a computer and a network and a CD-ROM). Which incidentally for those who have no real knowledge of patent law is something that has been thrashed about in courts all over the world since the first attempt to patent software. i.e. some clever lawyer will find a loophole.
Your analogy would be much improved if you were talking about yeast or bread dough.
Person A is a provider of live yeast. He has a big ball of dough and sells little bits of it to customers who can then incorporate it into their unyeasted bread dough to make it rise.
Person B comes along and instead of paying for a little bit of dough he just takes a tiny piece without paying.
Person A is not deprived of his yeast. The remaining yeast will replicate as it does normally and he can continue selling to his paying customers.
Person B has acquired goods which were being offered for sale at a price without paying. Is this stealing?
Person B if he is clever can use the bit of dough he now has to pass on yeasty goodness to his friends Person C, Person D and Person E.
Person C, Person D and Person E could have gone to Person A for yeast but this is free yeast and besides it's sharing not stealing. Person A isn't being deprived of his yeast.
Plus I don't see any mention of the "1:160 harmonic drive gear head" in the calculations.
I'm going to refrain calling you an idiot. Clearly the fact that Home Depot is full of these and similar devices illustrates how incredibly obvious this idea is. Looking at the pictures of the device I would guess the inventiveness is in making the weight drop down the ball screw in a controlled manner over 4 hours. Very different from a clock weight dropping. If there really was a link to the patent, that would really help, but then again when has a story summary been accurate.