No... I know, it' very proprietary, and it costs a bundle. But LINGO is actually quite interesting because:
- you can see immediate, visual results - you can see changes in the memory (stored in the cast) - you can step through and debug stuff - you can send your 'creations' to other people
I dunno.. it helped me get into 'the programming mindset'... Hell, it even helped me learn enough about Object Oriented programming that I was able to clep a class on OO design!
As of 1994, the US did NOT have first-to-file. You can see this in this article:
The application of the provision of the United States Patent law that subject to certain limitations a patent should be awarded, to the first to invent rather than the first to file a patent application is most frequently encountered in interferences. The case of Mycogen Plant Science Inc. v. Monsanto Co. provides a reminder that the rule is of broader application. 35 USC 102(g), the provision enacting the first to invent rule, provides that a patent cannot be validly granted if,
Before the applicant's invention thereof the invention was made in this country by another who has not abandoned, suppressed or concealed it.
Mycogen sued Monsanto for patent infringement. Monsanto defended on the ground that the patents in question were invalid because Monsanto employees had made the inventions in question before Mcogen's. The patents related to synthetic genes that were to be used in plants. It was conceded that Monsanto had produced the genes in question prior to Mycogen. However, Mycogen argued that Monsanto had "no appreciation of the claimed methods... with improved expression, or contemporaneous understanding that they had synthesized their gene using any of the processes claimed in the patents". They therefore argued that Monsanto's prior activities were "accidental" and so could not be accepted as being a prior reduction to practice of the invention by Monsanto. While accepting the theory of Mycogen's case, the Court found that the evidence in the present case showed that Monsanto's activities were not accidental and so the defense succeeded.
It should be noted that a defense to an infringement action on the ground of prior invention by another is still only possible in cases where the prior invention was in the United States. The 1999 change in the law permitting reliance on inventions made abroad is confined to situations where both parties have U.S. patents or patent applications and do not apply to a simple plea of invalidity in an infringement case where the defendant has no patent or application itself.
The US patent law is based on the concept of first-to-discover. The Japanese patent law is based on first-to-file.
This means Japanese companies are highly encouraged to file patents as soon as possible.
Also, the scope of Japanese patents is VERY different from American patents, and this is what usually leads American companies astray if they already understand they have to be the first to file.
US patents are generally very broadly worded, so the inventor gets the most bang for the buck, so to say. On the other hand, Japanese patents are generally very narrow, and minor variations can call for a completely new patent (changes in the shape of a glass substrate for a laser for example).
So oftentimes, American companies will come to Japan assume broad rights only to be confronted by a Japanese competitor reading the rights according to Japanese law - very narrowly. Japanese courts will, of course, uphold Japanese patent law which is, as mentioned above, narrow and different.
The above reason is why Japanese companies hold so many patents: they have to get patents for each minor variation of a technology if they really want to control it. This (and the below, though I'm not clear on the below) is why Japanese companies have so many patents.
Also, and I can't remember this one in detail, but I _THINK_ I recall there being some stipulation in Japanese patent law that allows (or at least highly encourages) technology licensing. In other words, if one company can license, you must allow all companies to license. Maybe someone can look up the details?
Slashdot Mirror
No... I know, it' very proprietary, and it costs a bundle. But LINGO is actually quite interesting because:
- you can see immediate, visual results
- you can see changes in the memory (stored in the cast)
- you can step through and debug stuff
- you can send your 'creations' to other people
I dunno.. it helped me get into 'the programming mindset'... Hell, it even helped me learn enough about Object Oriented programming that I was able to clep a class on OO design!
Different patent laws.
The US patent law is based on the concept of first-to-discover.
The Japanese patent law is based on first-to-file.
This means Japanese companies are highly encouraged to file patents as soon as possible.
Also, the scope of Japanese patents is VERY different from American patents, and this is what usually leads American companies astray if they already understand they have to be the first to file.
US patents are generally very broadly worded, so the inventor gets the most bang for the buck, so to say. On the other hand, Japanese patents are generally very narrow, and minor variations can call for a completely new patent (changes in the shape of a glass substrate for a laser for example).
So oftentimes, American companies will come to Japan assume broad rights only to be confronted by a Japanese competitor reading the rights according to Japanese law - very narrowly. Japanese courts will, of course, uphold Japanese patent law which is, as mentioned above, narrow and different.
The above reason is why Japanese companies hold so many patents: they have to get patents for each minor variation of a technology if they really want to control it. This (and the below, though I'm not clear on the below) is why Japanese companies have so many patents.
Also, and I can't remember this one in detail, but I _THINK_ I recall there being some stipulation in Japanese patent law that allows (or at least highly encourages) technology licensing. In other words, if one company can license, you must allow all companies to license. Maybe someone can look up the details?