Congratulations on a very well written desciption of what is wrong with most patent discussions here. Hopefully the parent will be modded up as it contains some very good information.
I have posted this basic thing a few times already, but here goes again:
The patent in question has a foreign application priority date of Mar 01, 1989. Was the casio watch availible before then? If so it may qualify, but it would also have to meet the requirements of the claims in order to be of any use.
The patent in question has a foreign application priority date of Mar 01, 1989. In order for a piece of prior art to qualify it must have been publicly known before this date, which it sounds like the HP 95LX was not.
I can immediately invalidate most of your cited prior art: The patent in question has a foreign priority filing date of Mar 01, 1989.
For something to qualify as prior art it must have been publicly known before that date. The radio shack pocket computer may qualify, but I am guessing it doesn't meet the password authentication requirement.
Most of the prior art cited here doesn't even come close to meeting the invention as described in the claims. Most people here read the abstract (which is nothing more than a summary of the invention) and then use a summary of the abstract to cite examples of prior art.
A lot of the prior art cited around here also seems to be based on the date that the patent was issued, instead of the filing date (or priority date) or the patent. In order for something to be prior art it must meet the requirements as set forth in the claims and have been publicly known before the filing (or priority) date of the patent in question.
A device for selecting data from a plurality of data sources such as credit cards, check cards, customer cards, identity cards, documents, keys, access information and master keys comprising:
an electronic multi-function card, said card having storage means for storing a data set from each of the plurality of data sources, said card having at least one display area for displaying said stored data set;
input means for producing a secret code;
activating means for activating said card for use;
processing means responsive to said secret code for enabling said activating means;
selection means for selecting a predetermined one of said stored data sets in said activated card; and
display means for displaying said selected data set on the card in said display area.
For the hundreth time, read the damn claims and ignore everything else.
I wouldn't base my choice for a home OS on how it functions in large control systems such as these. If you did that you would probably end up running some form of real-time operating system or some mainframe system.
The two situations really have nothing to do with each other unless you are running a train traffic signal network, nuclear safety monitoring setup or large power grid on your home system.
Just for clarification, this accident occured on the MARC line which runs over the CSX rails along with normal freight trains. The Metro system is on their own set of rails and don't share them with any other trains.
Do you honestly believe that GE doesn't have the resources to promote this technology if they wanted to? I'm guessing there isn't much of a market here for it as wind power generation hasn't caught on that well to begin with.
The reason for this is that the constant electron drift in the wires breaks the wires down by moving the atoms slowly farther down stream by collisions. Eventually a point is created in the wire that is thinner than normal and the effect magnifies and dramatically increases the impedence in the wire. If the wires have currents traveling in both directions the effect has a tendency to canel itself out I guess.
1998 is the date that the patent was issued and has nothing to do with the date required for prior art. The patent was filed on October 17, 1994, this is the date that you have to consider when looking at prior art. Lets check the math:
1994 less than 1995 = TRUE
Looks like the Java applets don't count and the jury was in fact smarter than you, sorry.
Isn't that irrelevant, and why software patents are 'evil'? It doesn't matter whether your work was completely independent. If it is patented, your stuffed.
It is true that the ones who do not have the patent in a case such as that have the burden of proof, but if they can prove that they invented whatever it maybe that was patented, then the patent will be over turned. This is why it is so important that you document as much as possible all activities related to any possible inventions.
That being said, as far as I know, this is only true for the USA. In other countries the first one to file gets the rights to the invention no matter what.
Congratulations on the best out of context quote I have seen today. Read the question right before it:
Why are patents important for continued innovation at Cisco?
Robert Barr: Cisco is recognized worldwide for helping create the Internet as it exists today and changing the way people communicate. There's no doubt that Cisco is a highly innovative company. By innovative, I mean that Cisco excels at transforming new ideas into services and products that customers need to improve the productivity of their businesses. Patents help protect the right to innovate at Cisco. By capturing and patenting new ideas that emerge, Cisco has more freedom to develop new technologies that can be transformed into value-added products for customers.
The reason that Cisco's engineering teams don't question whether or not something is patentable before researching it is because they aren't paid to do that, they are paid to do research. Cisco has a legal team which takes care of the wondering whether or not something can be patented.
About the free software/patent issue you said:
The biggest danger inherent in software patents is to free software. Megacorporations can easily collect thousands of patents on trivial processes to use against open source programmers who have little means to defend themselves.
There is plenty the free software community can do to protect themselves. All they have to do is publish their work before any of the "megacoporations" go out and file their patents. The problem is that as far as I have seen the free software community doesn't care much about actual innovation, all they want is a free version of the products that every other company sells. If the free software community would stop trying to copy everything that Apple/Microsoft/Sun and countless others have made they wouldn't have to worry about nearly as much about patents.
However, it still applies to claim 6 ("a shopping cart ordering component that in response to performance of an add-to-shopping-cart action, sends a request to the server system to add the item to a shopping cart.") and claim 9 and their respective dependent claims.
Last line of clam 1: "whereby the item is ordered without using a shopping cart ordering model."
I don't think MICS used a shopping cart ordering model, though I could be wrong. If it doesn't then it wouldn't qualify as prior art (according to USC 102) for claims 1 and 6. The claims 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10 are are dependent on claims 1 and 6 (10 is dependent on 9 which also has the shopping cart limitation). Unless you can throw out the independet claims 1, 6 and 9 you can't touch the claims that are dependent on them.
Brazil uses the "," instead of "." to denote the decimal place, in fact a lot of countries do. Therefore, this would be $350.00 (three hundred fifty dollars and zero cents) american.
This reminds me of the typewriter art by Paul Smith. He creates pictures using a typewriter (primarily the @#$%^&*()_ symbols). Pretty cool stuff all in all.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations on a very well written desciption of what is wrong with most patent discussions here. Hopefully the parent will be modded up as it contains some very good information.
Everyone please note that in order for something to qualify as prior art for this patent it must have been publicly known before Mar 01, 1989!!
Please check your dates before posting.
I have posted this basic thing a few times already, but here goes again:
The patent in question has a foreign application priority date of Mar 01, 1989. Was the casio watch availible before then? If so it may qualify, but it would also have to meet the requirements of the claims in order to be of any use.
The patent in question has a foreign application priority date of Mar 01, 1989. In order for a piece of prior art to qualify it must have been publicly known before this date, which it sounds like the HP 95LX was not.
I can immediately invalidate most of your cited prior art: The patent in question has a foreign priority filing date of Mar 01, 1989.
For something to qualify as prior art it must have been publicly known before that date. The radio shack pocket computer may qualify, but I am guessing it doesn't meet the password authentication requirement.
Most of the prior art cited here doesn't even come close to meeting the invention as described in the claims. Most people here read the abstract (which is nothing more than a summary of the invention) and then use a summary of the abstract to cite examples of prior art.
A lot of the prior art cited around here also seems to be based on the date that the patent was issued, instead of the filing date (or priority date) or the patent. In order for something to be prior art it must meet the requirements as set forth in the claims and have been publicly known before the filing (or priority) date of the patent in question.
Read the claims. Paper and pen don't include any authentication system of any kind and therefore do not count as prior art.
For the hundreth time, read the damn claims and ignore everything else.
I wouldn't base my choice for a home OS on how it functions in large control systems such as these. If you did that you would probably end up running some form of real-time operating system or some mainframe system.
The two situations really have nothing to do with each other unless you are running a train traffic signal network, nuclear safety monitoring setup or large power grid on your home system.
Just for clarification, this accident occured on the MARC line which runs over the CSX rails along with normal freight trains. The Metro system is on their own set of rails and don't share them with any other trains.
And other people have families to support and can't do all their work for free.
Hopefully you will never invent anything worth while and need that patent system.
Do you honestly believe that GE doesn't have the resources to promote this technology if they wanted to? I'm guessing there isn't much of a market here for it as wind power generation hasn't caught on that well to begin with.
Furtilizer Helps Grow Crops
Motor Oil Helps Reduce Friction in Engines
Story at 11
The reason for this is that the constant electron drift in the wires breaks the wires down by moving the atoms slowly farther down stream by collisions. Eventually a point is created in the wire that is thinner than normal and the effect magnifies and dramatically increases the impedence in the wire. If the wires have currents traveling in both directions the effect has a tendency to canel itself out I guess.
That being said, as far as I know, this is only true for the USA. In other countries the first one to file gets the rights to the invention no matter what.
About the free software/patent issue you said: There is plenty the free software community can do to protect themselves. All they have to do is publish their work before any of the "megacoporations" go out and file their patents. The problem is that as far as I have seen the free software community doesn't care much about actual innovation, all they want is a free version of the products that every other company sells. If the free software community would stop trying to copy everything that Apple/Microsoft/Sun and countless others have made they wouldn't have to worry about nearly as much about patents.
Nevermind re: claim 1, I read that wrong.
However, it still applies to claim 6 ("a shopping cart ordering component that in response to performance of an add-to-shopping-cart action, sends a request to the server system to add the item to a shopping cart.") and claim 9 and their respective dependent claims.
Last line of clam 1:
"whereby the item is ordered without using a shopping cart ordering model."
I don't think MICS used a shopping cart ordering model, though I could be wrong. If it doesn't then it wouldn't qualify as prior art (according to USC 102) for claims 1 and 6. The claims 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10 are are dependent on claims 1 and 6 (10 is dependent on 9 which also has the shopping cart limitation). Unless you can throw out the independet claims 1, 6 and 9 you can't touch the claims that are dependent on them.
It might apply to claims 11 and up however.
Just a note: Legally, the abstract in a patent means absolutely nothing. If you want to know what they actually patented, then go read the claims.
It's absolutely amazing how many "nerds" can't figure out how to use a search engine.
Search results from USPTO, or go to the USPTO homepage and do it yourself.
Latency?
I'd be much more worried about the braking distance required to stop.
Brazil uses the "," instead of "." to denote the decimal place, in fact a lot of countries do. Therefore, this would be $350.00 (three hundred fifty dollars and zero cents) american.
This reminds me of the typewriter art by Paul Smith. He creates pictures using a typewriter (primarily the @#$%^&*()_ symbols). Pretty cool stuff all in all.