Ok, I probably have to apologize for that first post, I was in a particularly foul mood. The issue is indeed more complicated, I give you that. I do work in the patent business though, and I can assure you, the average coder, how logical and intelligent he may be, can not in every case assess perfectly whether he will infringe or not. There are technicalities involved which he simply won't know - I can only speak for my local jurisdiction, but would you as a coder know what exactly the doctrine of equivalents means regarding your code and a patent you may or may not infringe upon? Possibly not. I am not saying this to solicit business, the Old Ones take me, but as you said, it is often more complicated than it seems. Again, excuse that post, I wanted to make a point about Sturgeon's Law, but I guess that came over a bit trollish.
Tip from your friendly neighbourhood biochemist - it's not just the cannabidiol, it's the ratio between tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol that counts. Might also induce appreciation for the Greatful Dead, you missed that in your list. Apart from that, a highly valuable substance, indeed. Shame this town is dry like the Atacama in this regard.
Patents are valid for 20 years if, and only if, you pay the yearly extension fees. In most cases, they are not paid for the whole 20 years, hence the 7 year average. Besides, the patent system does not at all impede your learning from others. If you want to profit, though, you have to improve on what you learned.
1. Yes, they should. It won't cost them an arm and a leg with the usual European lawyer fees. That's the cost of doing business. If they can't cover that from their revenues, well, their business model has failed already.
2. Can't comment on that, since I don't know the patent.
Don't even need the EU - the principle of territoriality is laid down in the Paris Convention of 1883, which the UK is a signatory to, and which is still binding.
This is not a fault of patents per se. This is a fault of the US litigation system. Unregulated lawyer fees, which I agree are ridiculous, the possibility of forum shopping, so everyone ends up in Bumfuck, TX for their patent cases, non-technical judges that have no clue about the engineering aspects of a patent, jury trials, just to make sure that the deciding body has no clue about the matter at hand, and ridiculously overblown damages. The US patent system differs from the European one, but not so much as to hurt. What hurts is the difference in litigation. Over here in Europe I have seen small inventors going after global corporation over their patents - successful and on a budget. I have seen patent cases to the highest national court for a total cost in the low five figures. That won't kill a small business. Pushing the litigation costs before damages in the millions - that kills the small guys. Regulate your lawyers, guys.
You are aware that the average lifetime of a patent is seven years? You can feel safe in your house, no one is gonna sue you. Even if it ever had been patented, house-building would have run out of protection a couple of millennia ago.
So, TFA is talking about one, maybe two developers tweeting about retracting from the US market due to their personal interpretation of some patent, without even getting any professional advice on whether they do infringe or not. Then the sheep start bleating about "Patents killing innovation". Sure. Go ahead. Innovate for a change.The article is pure FUD.
Pure software does not fulfill the technicity criterion according to the European Patent Agreement. How much of a physical, tangible component your patent needs, however, is a bit in flux lately. But generally, yeah, software patents "as such" are not allowed here. If you want a detailed account on the latest decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, my usual hourly rate would apply, though;)
(Yes, I am a patent engineer in training to become European patent attorney. Obviously this is not legal advice, yadda, yadda)
That's pretty much what Marx summed up under the label of "alienation". And I agree, that's what is going on. Instead of changing the system, we decided to change the mind by means of psychopharmaca. O brave new world....
Thank god for someone understanding what an argumentum ad hominem actually is. I was despairing over that particular bit of nonsense lately, thanks for reinstating at least some of my trust in humanity.
You mean the tasteful delicious assortment of chemical flavour enhancers designed to make a injection molded corn starch based polymer deep fried in recovered waste fat that hasn't been within 100 yards of a dairy product appear to contain cheddar? Thanks, but I continue to worship at the altar of my home made nachos. One Pope, One God, One Follower. Heathens, all of you. I redirect my fanboyism at myself, for a feedback loop of ever increasing awesomeness!
Just to add to this, go the whole way and make that vinaigrette yourself. Saves you a ton of additives that add nothing of value to the consumer, only enable the producer to make it more cheaply and give it a longer shelf-time. Adds perhaps 2 minutes to preparation time. Or, if you want that salad really quick - dash of good olive oil, squeeze of lime, pinch of salt. Mix it, done.
There's also been a large change in quality of food. The majority of people won't recognize healthy, normal food if it bit them in the arse these days. All deep-fried, processed, additive laden shit, the additives being there to mask the abysmal quality and trigger 'tasty' and 'appetizing' responses in your brain, making you eat more than you initially wanted. And all you get is empty calories from sugar and trans fats. Despite food shows being all over the networks, cooking as a cultural technique seems to be on the decline these days.
Oh yeah, patents in the 80s were fundamentally different. Sure. Big business has been patenting stuff like that for more than a century. By the Old Ones, how this has hampered our technological progress!
Yeah, because learning how an obviousness test actually works would really interfere with all the fun, clueless anti-patent ranting. I swear to the Old Ones, patent discussions on slashdot crack me up. More fun than listening to lawyers talking about linux kernel architecture - not the least because if a lawyer talks about linux kernel architecture, he usually has a clue about it.
It is not. Actually, it is a pretty good sign for non-obviousness. If it was obvious to combine the two things for the desired effect, and the two things have existed for ages, but actually no one has combined them in all this time, it is pretty much non-obvious. Otherwise, the technology would have been all over the place at the filing date already. You are arguing ex post facto, in knowledge of the invention. Common beginner mistake.
Whoa. Been a while since I heard someone talk proper Theory. Look, folks - this is how a communist looks like. Before decrying something as "communism", check whether its proponents can talk like this. If not - not the real deal;)
Listen, mate, I have seen you trying to be cute all over the place. It does not work. I know you are one of THEM. Just because they let you run around without a human mask as their cute human relations spokeslizard doesn't change a bit. I know who THEY are. I know what THEY are up to. You won't distract from that, no, Sir lizard.
I wish one of you spineless honourless fucks capable only of slandering a whole profession because you don't have the tiniest real argument would say something like that to my face in real life. Just once. I'd show you what I'd be willing to jack around and what to ignore.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I probably have to apologize for that first post, I was in a particularly foul mood. The issue is indeed more complicated, I give you that. I do work in the patent business though, and I can assure you, the average coder, how logical and intelligent he may be, can not in every case assess perfectly whether he will infringe or not. There are technicalities involved which he simply won't know - I can only speak for my local jurisdiction, but would you as a coder know what exactly the doctrine of equivalents means regarding your code and a patent you may or may not infringe upon? Possibly not. I am not saying this to solicit business, the Old Ones take me, but as you said, it is often more complicated than it seems. Again, excuse that post, I wanted to make a point about Sturgeon's Law, but I guess that came over a bit trollish.
Tip from your friendly neighbourhood biochemist - it's not just the cannabidiol, it's the ratio between tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol that counts. Might also induce appreciation for the Greatful Dead, you missed that in your list. Apart from that, a highly valuable substance, indeed. Shame this town is dry like the Atacama in this regard.
Patents are valid for 20 years if, and only if, you pay the yearly extension fees. In most cases, they are not paid for the whole 20 years, hence the 7 year average. Besides, the patent system does not at all impede your learning from others. If you want to profit, though, you have to improve on what you learned.
1. Yes, they should. It won't cost them an arm and a leg with the usual European lawyer fees. That's the cost of doing business. If they can't cover that from their revenues, well, their business model has failed already.
2. Can't comment on that, since I don't know the patent.
Don't even need the EU - the principle of territoriality is laid down in the Paris Convention of 1883, which the UK is a signatory to, and which is still binding.
This is not a fault of patents per se. This is a fault of the US litigation system. Unregulated lawyer fees, which I agree are ridiculous, the possibility of forum shopping, so everyone ends up in Bumfuck, TX for their patent cases, non-technical judges that have no clue about the engineering aspects of a patent, jury trials, just to make sure that the deciding body has no clue about the matter at hand, and ridiculously overblown damages. The US patent system differs from the European one, but not so much as to hurt. What hurts is the difference in litigation. Over here in Europe I have seen small inventors going after global corporation over their patents - successful and on a budget. I have seen patent cases to the highest national court for a total cost in the low five figures. That won't kill a small business. Pushing the litigation costs before damages in the millions - that kills the small guys. Regulate your lawyers, guys.
You are aware that the average lifetime of a patent is seven years? You can feel safe in your house, no one is gonna sue you. Even if it ever had been patented, house-building would have run out of protection a couple of millennia ago.
So, TFA is talking about one, maybe two developers tweeting about retracting from the US market due to their personal interpretation of some patent, without even getting any professional advice on whether they do infringe or not. Then the sheep start bleating about "Patents killing innovation". Sure. Go ahead. Innovate for a change.The article is pure FUD.
Pure software does not fulfill the technicity criterion according to the European Patent Agreement. How much of a physical, tangible component your patent needs, however, is a bit in flux lately. But generally, yeah, software patents "as such" are not allowed here. If you want a detailed account on the latest decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, my usual hourly rate would apply, though ;)
(Yes, I am a patent engineer in training to become European patent attorney. Obviously this is not legal advice, yadda, yadda)
Patents do have some international power unfortunately.
Patents are strictly territorial. As long as you don't do business in the US, no US patent needs to concern you.
Poor developers, spamming up every repository with clones of concepts that probably were original way back before the war. Good riddance.
If I shot you right now, most jurisdictions would probably consider that justified homicide. ;)
That's pretty much what Marx summed up under the label of "alienation". And I agree, that's what is going on. Instead of changing the system, we decided to change the mind by means of psychopharmaca. O brave new world....
Thank god for someone understanding what an argumentum ad hominem actually is. I was despairing over that particular bit of nonsense lately, thanks for reinstating at least some of my trust in humanity.
That, I suppose, is the crucial flaw in my master plan.
One can hope for an asymptotic approach though, given unlimited time...
You mean the tasteful delicious assortment of chemical flavour enhancers designed to make a injection molded corn starch based polymer deep fried in recovered waste fat that hasn't been within 100 yards of a dairy product appear to contain cheddar? Thanks, but I continue to worship at the altar of my home made nachos. One Pope, One God, One Follower. Heathens, all of you. I redirect my fanboyism at myself, for a feedback loop of ever increasing awesomeness!
Just to add to this, go the whole way and make that vinaigrette yourself. Saves you a ton of additives that add nothing of value to the consumer, only enable the producer to make it more cheaply and give it a longer shelf-time. Adds perhaps 2 minutes to preparation time. Or, if you want that salad really quick - dash of good olive oil, squeeze of lime, pinch of salt. Mix it, done.
There's also been a large change in quality of food. The majority of people won't recognize healthy, normal food if it bit them in the arse these days. All deep-fried, processed, additive laden shit, the additives being there to mask the abysmal quality and trigger 'tasty' and 'appetizing' responses in your brain, making you eat more than you initially wanted. And all you get is empty calories from sugar and trans fats. Despite food shows being all over the networks, cooking as a cultural technique seems to be on the decline these days.
Oh yeah, patents in the 80s were fundamentally different. Sure. Big business has been patenting stuff like that for more than a century. By the Old Ones, how this has hampered our technological progress!
Yeah, because learning how an obviousness test actually works would really interfere with all the fun, clueless anti-patent ranting. I swear to the Old Ones, patent discussions on slashdot crack me up. More fun than listening to lawyers talking about linux kernel architecture - not the least because if a lawyer talks about linux kernel architecture, he usually has a clue about it.
It is not. Actually, it is a pretty good sign for non-obviousness. If it was obvious to combine the two things for the desired effect, and the two things have existed for ages, but actually no one has combined them in all this time, it is pretty much non-obvious. Otherwise, the technology would have been all over the place at the filing date already. You are arguing ex post facto, in knowledge of the invention. Common beginner mistake.
Whoa. Been a while since I heard someone talk proper Theory. Look, folks - this is how a communist looks like. Before decrying something as "communism", check whether its proponents can talk like this. If not - not the real deal ;)
Listen, mate, I have seen you trying to be cute all over the place. It does not work. I know you are one of THEM. Just because they let you run around without a human mask as their cute human relations spokeslizard doesn't change a bit. I know who THEY are. I know what THEY are up to. You won't distract from that, no, Sir lizard.
I wish one of you spineless honourless fucks capable only of slandering a whole profession because you don't have the tiniest real argument would say something like that to my face in real life. Just once. I'd show you what I'd be willing to jack around and what to ignore.