Unless your idea is very truly novel (very rare among patents) your invention is something that people other than you can and will come up with.
Nothing is novel once you demonstrate the concept and sell your product for others to copy. Even the most novel idea will be copied almost immediately.
You just happened to come up with it first.
If something was so obvious that it will certainly be invented, why didn't it exist before it was invented?
Inventions were invented, brought to market, and sold for profit long before patents existed.
Very often with the inventor getting little or nothing out of the idea. What would we have now if inventors in those days could have protected their ideas? Would discovery have moved even faster?
They will continue whether patents exist or not.
Likely to some extent, but innovation will certainly suffer if innovators are assured to lose benefit from their work.
I recognize the original post was on a software patent topic, but not all patents are software related. Patent reform must be careful to fix one without breaking the other, or we will find ourselves in the same situation again.
Until we see you here next week whining about how your valid patent was rejected and now you can't commercialize your idea.
When you make the game completely fair, you reduce it to the least common denominator (usually much lower than what you thought it would be), such that no one wants to play anymore. Your proposed cure is worse than the disease.
Considering that approximately 66% of electricity in the US is generated by fossil fuels, electric cars are not really much of an alternative. Just because you don't burn fossil fuels directly in the car doesn't mean they are not dependent on fossil fuels.
If you are someone who creates new things, the inability to patent and protect your invention greatly reduces the incentive to continue your work, bringing your invention to market and likely employing others.
If you are someone who lives off of the ideas of others, cannot comprehend that patents protect the small guys just as they do the mega-corporations, and are bitter that some get ahead while you do not, then by all means, shut inventors down and kill the economic benefit they provide.
* Full disclosure - I have several patents issued, several pending, and run a small business that would not be possible if we could not patent the things we innovate.
In a fair world, the original patent examiners should be held personally liable for all of Google's legal fees in this matter.
Yeah, that will fix the patent process for sure. Implement that rule and you will have exactly zero patents issued moving forward.
There is no way a patent examiner will have perfect knowledge, and having an expectation that they will is not reasonable. There is nothing "fair" about your concept.
The Onion is just about as believable as mainstream media most of the time. Probably closer to reality most of the time.
Re:Unfortunately, the way to proceed is clear
on
Righthaven Loses
·
· Score: 1
Well, kinda. Whatever Righthaven's ownership structure is, they are a separate entity, and the assets of the parent company do not belong to the subsidiary. So the judge's standing is completely correct that Righthaven does not own the copyright they are seeking to enforce.
Stephens Media who did not want to be named in the suit
Gotta love how that worked out for them.
Re:Unfortunately, the way to proceed is clear
on
Righthaven Loses
·
· Score: 2
I am sure that the newspapers will just grant full copyright to RightHaven, for a right to share in the spoils of the lawsuits.
A newspaper giving away their asset in order for someone to enforce the asset doesn't leave it an asset of the newspaper, does it? So, why would the newspaper do that? Would you sign over the title to your home when you hire a firm to install and monitor a security system?
This might have been RightHaven's plan all along...
I have a plan for everyone in the world to send me $100. The fact such plan exists does not mean anyone will be dumb enough to do it...
Well, my government has spend billions of dollars to determine that the government spends too much money and that will be a problem someday when our credit runs out. We are spending billions more to redefine that as a *big* problem. And we didn't even get a website out of the deal.
If by "Free speech" you mean the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, "free speech" does not give anyone the right to make stupid comments in a private forum. The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws to restrict one's right of free speech. There is no government regulation of the Slashdot forums. If Taco wishes to shut down AC postings and shut down accounts for troll posts, he is free to do so. I'm sure he will refund the Slashdot access fee you paid as well.
And while we are on the subject, the Bill of Rights did not grant anyone a right. The Bill of Rights specifically limited government intrusion into our natural rights. It is an important distinction if you stop and think about it for a second.
I don't know what kind of trouble you can get into by receiving legal papers intended for someone else
None. It was addressed to your name, delivered to you. You can't know it isn't for you until you read it.
If it is so important that you shouldn't be reading it, they should have taken care to address it properly.
You have no duty to report it back to the sender, although doing so is polite. You have no duty to delete it, although doing so would bolster your defense for any wrongful whatever suit may be filed by the sender in an attempt to cover their own failure.
HIPPA doesn't apply unless you are a medical professional sharing a patient's information. Reading something sent to you does not put you in jeopardy. You would have to investigate to have any reasonable belief to believe you received valid information about a real person.
Insider trading? What if a Nigerian prince had a hot stock tip for you? Any unsolicited information you receive is more likely a scam than misdirected corporate information that would make you rich.
The only way to incur any liability would be to further distribute or act on any information if you had any reason to believe it was legitimate, sensitive information. Simply reading it before deleting it does not meet that bar.
But what if your car patent described wooden wheels and I came behind you with a patent for a car with rubber tires and was able to undercut you? Not trying to take away your point (which I agree with to a large extent) - merely pointing out the devil is in the details
Software patents make sense. It is the way software patents are being implemented which is incorrect. Software patents should be reformed, but I'm not in favor of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I've gained immeasurably over the last couple of decades because a few people chose to give away what they had.
That's great. One choosing to give away what they have is wonderful. If they chooseto give it away. Making it mandatory to give inventions away so you might profit is wrong, and removes the incentive for motivation. If you want altruism, be the inventor and give your stuff away. Don't assume others should too so you can "gain immeasurably" from their work.
Just go ahead and try to prove that would happen.
I asked Google to give up their IP and remain profitable. They declined. Prove you are not a moron.
So software, no matter how novel, is never inventive? The patent process was meant to protect inventions.
And why is it no one argues about the obviousness of an invention before it was invented? Could it be that before it was invented it was non-obvious and didn't exist yet?
So making money off one's invention is evil while giving one's invention away is not? Google may have a lot of money, but giving away inventions is still a bad business model. Would it benefit society for all Google employees to lose their jobs and all the money they spend in their respective communities and all the taxes they pay to suddenly cease?
There is absolutely nothing novel about that concept, unless they are using a novel method of image processing (which the claims do not appear to indicate
See claim 5. The "based upon the determined error". Why patent the image processing to determine the error when it could and should be better maintained as a trade secret.
Patents that attempt to claim what is done are not valid. Patents that attempt to claim what is done, but in a much better, or even in a not-so-much-better but still novel way are patentable.
We hear about the patent system being broken, but my recent patent reviews have asked some good questions about what is being claimed. Since this is an application and not a patent, it is reasonable to assume it will receive some degree of examination related to the obviousness of the invention.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless your idea is very truly novel (very rare among patents) your invention is something that people other than you can and will come up with.
Nothing is novel once you demonstrate the concept and sell your product for others to copy. Even the most novel idea will be copied almost immediately.
You just happened to come up with it first.
If something was so obvious that it will certainly be invented, why didn't it exist before it was invented?
Inventions were invented, brought to market, and sold for profit long before patents existed.
Very often with the inventor getting little or nothing out of the idea. What would we have now if inventors in those days could have protected their ideas? Would discovery have moved even faster?
They will continue whether patents exist or not.
Likely to some extent, but innovation will certainly suffer if innovators are assured to lose benefit from their work.
I recognize the original post was on a software patent topic, but not all patents are software related. Patent reform must be careful to fix one without breaking the other, or we will find ourselves in the same situation again.
Until we see you here next week whining about how your valid patent was rejected and now you can't commercialize your idea.
When you make the game completely fair, you reduce it to the least common denominator (usually much lower than what you thought it would be), such that no one wants to play anymore. Your proposed cure is worse than the disease.
Considering that approximately 66% of electricity in the US is generated by fossil fuels, electric cars are not really much of an alternative. Just because you don't burn fossil fuels directly in the car doesn't mean they are not dependent on fossil fuels.
Here's the source of the 66% number for the "I don't believe your number" types. http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
Depends on your perspective.
If you are someone who creates new things, the inability to patent and protect your invention greatly reduces the incentive to continue your work, bringing your invention to market and likely employing others.
If you are someone who lives off of the ideas of others, cannot comprehend that patents protect the small guys just as they do the mega-corporations, and are bitter that some get ahead while you do not, then by all means, shut inventors down and kill the economic benefit they provide.
* Full disclosure - I have several patents issued, several pending, and run a small business that would not be possible if we could not patent the things we innovate.
In a fair world, the original patent examiners should be held personally liable for all of Google's legal fees in this matter.
Yeah, that will fix the patent process for sure. Implement that rule and you will have exactly zero patents issued moving forward.
There is no way a patent examiner will have perfect knowledge, and having an expectation that they will is not reasonable. There is nothing "fair" about your concept.
We will get to that in about a year.
Next time slightly alter the presentation to make it look incompetent
For most PowerPoint presentations, that is accomplished without making any edit to the original.
Come on, people, get a clue!
Indeed.
That's extremely unfair. He got it for not being the warmongering fuck that George Bush was. Or simply not being George Bush, if you prefer.
Ever heard of Libya? Congress approved of Bush's actions. Obama is a standalone warmonger.
It sucks when the truth gets in the way of your rant.
The Onion is just about as believable as mainstream media most of the time. Probably closer to reality most of the time.
Stephens Media who did not want to be named in the suit
Gotta love how that worked out for them.
I am sure that the newspapers will just grant full copyright to RightHaven, for a right to share in the spoils of the lawsuits.
A newspaper giving away their asset in order for someone to enforce the asset doesn't leave it an asset of the newspaper, does it? So, why would the newspaper do that? Would you sign over the title to your home when you hire a firm to install and monitor a security system?
This might have been RightHaven's plan all along...
I have a plan for everyone in the world to send me $100. The fact such plan exists does not mean anyone will be dumb enough to do it...
Whoosh
Well, my government has spend billions of dollars to determine that the government spends too much money and that will be a problem someday when our credit runs out. We are spending billions more to redefine that as a *big* problem. And we didn't even get a website out of the deal.
Apparently not. The government has been "poking" us for years and there is no revolution yet.
If by "Free speech" you mean the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, "free speech" does not give anyone the right to make stupid comments in a private forum. The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws to restrict one's right of free speech. There is no government regulation of the Slashdot forums. If Taco wishes to shut down AC postings and shut down accounts for troll posts, he is free to do so. I'm sure he will refund the Slashdot access fee you paid as well.
And while we are on the subject, the Bill of Rights did not grant anyone a right. The Bill of Rights specifically limited government intrusion into our natural rights. It is an important distinction if you stop and think about it for a second.
I don't know what kind of trouble you can get into by receiving legal papers intended for someone else
None. It was addressed to your name, delivered to you. You can't know it isn't for you until you read it.
If it is so important that you shouldn't be reading it, they should have taken care to address it properly.
You have no duty to report it back to the sender, although doing so is polite. You have no duty to delete it, although doing so would bolster your defense for any wrongful whatever suit may be filed by the sender in an attempt to cover their own failure.
HIPPA doesn't apply unless you are a medical professional sharing a patient's information. Reading something sent to you does not put you in jeopardy. You would have to investigate to have any reasonable belief to believe you received valid information about a real person.
Insider trading? What if a Nigerian prince had a hot stock tip for you? Any unsolicited information you receive is more likely a scam than misdirected corporate information that would make you rich.
The only way to incur any liability would be to further distribute or act on any information if you had any reason to believe it was legitimate, sensitive information. Simply reading it before deleting it does not meet that bar.
do they compare the emails in question to Ceglia's writing style?
But what if your car patent described wooden wheels and I came behind you with a patent for a car with rubber tires and was able to undercut you? Not trying to take away your point (which I agree with to a large extent) - merely pointing out the devil is in the details
Software patents make sense. It is the way software patents are being implemented which is incorrect. Software patents should be reformed, but I'm not in favor of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I've gained immeasurably over the last couple of decades because a few people chose to give away what they had.
That's great. One choosing to give away what they have is wonderful. If they chooseto give it away. Making it mandatory to give inventions away so you might profit is wrong, and removes the incentive for motivation. If you want altruism, be the inventor and give your stuff away. Don't assume others should too so you can "gain immeasurably" from their work.
Just go ahead and try to prove that would happen.
I asked Google to give up their IP and remain profitable. They declined. Prove you are not a moron.
So software, no matter how novel, is never inventive? The patent process was meant to protect inventions.
And why is it no one argues about the obviousness of an invention before it was invented? Could it be that before it was invented it was non-obvious and didn't exist yet?
So making money off one's invention is evil while giving one's invention away is not? Google may have a lot of money, but giving away inventions is still a bad business model. Would it benefit society for all Google employees to lose their jobs and all the money they spend in their respective communities and all the taxes they pay to suddenly cease?
There is absolutely nothing novel about that concept, unless they are using a novel method of image processing (which the claims do not appear to indicate
See claim 5. The "based upon the determined error". Why patent the image processing to determine the error when it could and should be better maintained as a trade secret.
Patents that attempt to claim what is done are not valid. Patents that attempt to claim what is done, but in a much better, or even in a not-so-much-better but still novel way are patentable.
We hear about the patent system being broken, but my recent patent reviews have asked some good questions about what is being claimed. Since this is an application and not a patent, it is reasonable to assume it will receive some degree of examination related to the obviousness of the invention.
Just like the Chinese hack on Google?
Not at all. One was a government attacking a private company. The other is a group of people attacking a government.
You may argue that the Anonymous attack is wrong, but the premise that the Chinese attacking Google is equivalent is incorrect.
If you are against the Western hypocrisy it would be more correct for you to prove China's innocence than for me to prove its guilt.