Then you'll be happy to give us the citation where you published the genetic sequence of those genes, for that is what prior art would have to contain.
No, since prior art must be published. You could have invented something in your basement 50 years ago, but if it was never published than it's not prior art. For genes this usually means the genetic sequence.
I'm going to get rid of this stupid colorblindness DNA patent, I have prior art.
If you've published your genetic sequence before that patent was filed for, then yes, you have prior art. Care to provide a citation to your publication?
It's not an article, it's a company press release. Hardly an objective, unbiased source of information. I'd want to see the patent itself before having an aneurism about it.
I think perhaps the answer is that patent registration cost 10,000+ dollars for company's
and have to be paid to patent office even if the patent gets rejected. For individuals citizens [with no corporate affiliation in patent] would not have to pay that much.
I believe patent application fees are somewhere around the $3000 level (it's on the USPTO site, but I'm too lazy to look it up) so we're already within an order of magnitude of what you want. Individual inventors do get a discount, around 50% off IIRC.
Right now I believe the patent office ONLY gets paid if they accept a patent.
Not so. Application fees must be paid whether the patent is accepted or rejected. There is a separate type of fee, known as a maintenance fee, which must be paid occasionally during the lifetime of a granted patent to keep it active, however.
I think they just want public readings to be considered against the terms of the agreement.
Even that is out of the question. The text is public domain now.
Setting aside this particular case and looking at it more generally, "that" is not out of the question, simply because the book is in the public domain.
You seem to be confusing two separate areas of law: copyright and contract law. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is in the public domain. However, you and I could legally sign a binding contract where I agree to give you $10,000, and you agree never to read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland out loud.
The fact that the book is in the public domain does not impair the enforceability of the contract. If, after entering into such a contract, you read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland out loud, you would be in breach of contract. You would not be in violation of copyright law, but you would be in breach of contract.
See the difference?
Now, whether click-through licenses are enforceable contracts at all is a separate, and very fuzzy, issue which I haven't addressed here. But I wanted to make the point about the difference between copyright law and contract law.
Such things already exist. They're called "journals". (Actually, any public method of publication will do, but journals are the best.) The problem comes when the patent office doesn't adequately search these for prior art. If the patent office can't adequately search journals (and it's not as if databases of journal literature don't exist), what makes you think they could competently search any other database?
Wow, what a troll! So much misinformation packed into such a small space! Very few trolls can achieve this density of misinformation!
1. WTF does this site have to do with first-to-file vs. first-to-invent? Are you claiming that if Europe was first-to-invent, none of these would have been granted? Poppycock. They're two orthogonal issues. After all, the US has plenty of stupid software patents despite being first-to-invent.
2. The US constitution says nothing about whether the US patent system should be first-to-file or first-to-invent. Switching to first-to-file would not require a consitutional amendment.
3. It's a common misconception that first-to-invent is better for small inventors. The flawed logic goes, "Well, large corps can write up a patent application faster than the individual inventor, so even if they invented something a few months later than the individual inventor, they can still get the application in first." That's true to an extent. What people fail to realize is that first-to-invent is even worse for the individual inventor. With first-to-file, if a large corp and an individual inventor have filed applications for the same invention, a court will simply look at the "date received" stamp on the application, and whoever has the earlier date wins. With first-to-invent, the individual inventor comes to court with his one mediocre patent lawyer, and the large corp comes to court with their dozens of crack attorneys, and each tries to prove that they "invented" this invention before the other. Who do you think will win?
With first-to-file, yes, there's an advantage to being able to file quickly, but there's also not much room for legal wrangling if you weren't the first to file.
I'm glad you're trying to make/. a better place. I am too, when I moderate. Like you, I mostly upmoderate.
I see it this way: trolls have a virtually infinite capacity to post. Moderators have finite moderation points. So its better to upmoderate good posts (especially good AC posts, which I try to watch for) than to downmoderate the trolls.
However, I have to take issue with one thing you said:
When doing actual moderation, I look for stories that I wouldn't be interested/knowledgeble enough to post in... and then I look for informative or interesting posts.
If you're not knowledgeable enough yourself to post on a story, how can you be knowledgeable enough to tell whether someone else's post is informative?
Now, maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe you personally, in such a case, only upmod as informative those posts with links to outside sources. I just had to speak up because it's a pet peeve of mine--all too often I see posts with half-truths, misinformation, or outright falsehoods upmoderated as "Informative".
I don't know if it's you personally or not. But as a general plea to moderators, please don't upmoderate posts as "Informative" unless you have some way of verifying yourself that the facts presented are accurate. (Links to an independent source, finding an independent source yourself, or having expertise yourself in that area.) If you don't you'll just make me (or some moderator who does have expertise in that area) cancel out your moderation with a "-1 Overrated" (since/. doesn't have "-1 Misinformative".)
What if his paralegal writes it, and he just signs it? Should that be legal? If he signs it without reading it? If he glances at it for 5 seconds? 15 seconds? 1 minute? Where do you draw the line?
Keep in mind that I'm concerned here with what should be legal--I agree that this is not moral.
So what is a lawyer who is legitimately considering a lawsuit supposed to do, if C&D letters are outlawed as threats? Just file the suit without any attempt to resolve the dispute out of court?
Slashdot IANAL intellect error #2346 -- Law is not a set of general principles and logic problems. Law is a brutal set of specifics, some written, some unwritten or yet to be written.
Now I wish I hadn't already posted to this story--this really deserves to be upmodded. Well put, AC.
So the Constitution's granted right may appear more restrictive than Europe's, but it's also crucial to realize that this is so important that it is the only right granted in the body of the Constitution itself, and not in the later amendments.
No, it's not.
The Constitution grants Congress the authority to secure copyright and patent rights. This is entirely different than the Constitution granting those rights directly.
If Congress wanted to, they could eliminate copyright and patent rights entirely, and it would not be unconstitutional. Unlike freedom of speech, which cannot be revoked by Congress.
If these letters (e-mail or otherwise) are produced by a machine (on its "own", without a human or a lawyer validating results), ordering a human to shut down something and the human complies, isn't that machine eliminating the free speech right of that person?
Show me where I ever suggested that the human ought to comply with the C&D letter.
The argument above was that both the web site and the letter were instances of free speech. If the automated cease and desist is honored, that gives the machine more right to speech than the human (the machine's pervailed, the human's was squelched).
Please re-read my earlier comments. I never suggested that the recipient of the C&D letter ought to comply. Only that the sending of the C&D letter was free speech.
If I tell you to give me $10,000, that is free speech. It does not mean you have to give me $10,000. What is so hard to understand about that???
You can use copyrighted materials all you want provided it is in critique or parody.
Great. I'll copy Stephen King's latest book word for word, add one sentence of commentary at the end (thus using the material for "critique") and publish it.
You can use copyrighted materials to some extent for critique or parody, more than you can for other purposes, as fair use. But that does not mean you can do whatever the hell you want in the name of critique or parody.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you'll be happy to give us the citation where you published the genetic sequence of those genes, for that is what prior art would have to contain.
I'm not defending the system, just explaining it.
If you've published your genetic sequence before that patent was filed for, then yes, you have prior art. Care to provide a citation to your publication?
I'm not defending it, just explaining it.
I'm not saying it's right, that's just how it is.
Oh? Would you care to show me where you published your genetic sequence?
Prior art must be published. As in available to the general public. For genes, that generally means the genetic sequence.
I'm not defending the system, just explaining it.
It's not an article, it's a company press release. Hardly an objective, unbiased source of information. I'd want to see the patent itself before having an aneurism about it.
I believe patent application fees are somewhere around the $3000 level (it's on the USPTO site, but I'm too lazy to look it up) so we're already within an order of magnitude of what you want. Individual inventors do get a discount, around 50% off IIRC.
Right now I believe the patent office ONLY gets paid if they accept a patent.
Not so. Application fees must be paid whether the patent is accepted or rejected. There is a separate type of fee, known as a maintenance fee, which must be paid occasionally during the lifetime of a granted patent to keep it active, however.
I'd want to see the patent itself before I go foaming at the mouth.
How to determine what a patent really claims:
Even that is out of the question. The text is public domain now.
Setting aside this particular case and looking at it more generally, "that" is not out of the question, simply because the book is in the public domain.
You seem to be confusing two separate areas of law: copyright and contract law. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is in the public domain. However, you and I could legally sign a binding contract where I agree to give you $10,000, and you agree never to read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland out loud.
The fact that the book is in the public domain does not impair the enforceability of the contract. If, after entering into such a contract, you read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland out loud, you would be in breach of contract. You would not be in violation of copyright law, but you would be in breach of contract.
See the difference?
Now, whether click-through licenses are enforceable contracts at all is a separate, and very fuzzy, issue which I haven't addressed here. But I wanted to make the point about the difference between copyright law and contract law.
One thing I remember particularly strongly from the book is the epigraph to one of the sections, describing Paul:
This I would have no problem with.
Unfortunately, the USPTO does not publish patent applications until/unless they are granted. This is set to change sometime next year, I believe.
Such things already exist. They're called "journals". (Actually, any public method of publication will do, but journals are the best.) The problem comes when the patent office doesn't adequately search these for prior art. If the patent office can't adequately search journals (and it's not as if databases of journal literature don't exist), what makes you think they could competently search any other database?
1. WTF does this site have to do with first-to-file vs. first-to-invent? Are you claiming that if Europe was first-to-invent, none of these would have been granted? Poppycock. They're two orthogonal issues. After all, the US has plenty of stupid software patents despite being first-to-invent.
2. The US constitution says nothing about whether the US patent system should be first-to-file or first-to-invent. Switching to first-to-file would not require a consitutional amendment.
3. It's a common misconception that first-to-invent is better for small inventors. The flawed logic goes, "Well, large corps can write up a patent application faster than the individual inventor, so even if they invented something a few months later than the individual inventor, they can still get the application in first." That's true to an extent. What people fail to realize is that first-to-invent is even worse for the individual inventor. With first-to-file, if a large corp and an individual inventor have filed applications for the same invention, a court will simply look at the "date received" stamp on the application, and whoever has the earlier date wins. With first-to-invent, the individual inventor comes to court with his one mediocre patent lawyer, and the large corp comes to court with their dozens of crack attorneys, and each tries to prove that they "invented" this invention before the other. Who do you think will win?
With first-to-file, yes, there's an advantage to being able to file quickly, but there's also not much room for legal wrangling if you weren't the first to file.
I see it this way: trolls have a virtually infinite capacity to post. Moderators have finite moderation points. So its better to upmoderate good posts (especially good AC posts, which I try to watch for) than to downmoderate the trolls.
However, I have to take issue with one thing you said:
When doing actual moderation, I look for stories that I wouldn't be interested/knowledgeble enough to post in... and then I look for informative or interesting posts.
If you're not knowledgeable enough yourself to post on a story, how can you be knowledgeable enough to tell whether someone else's post is informative?
Now, maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe you personally, in such a case, only upmod as informative those posts with links to outside sources. I just had to speak up because it's a pet peeve of mine--all too often I see posts with half-truths, misinformation, or outright falsehoods upmoderated as "Informative".
I don't know if it's you personally or not. But as a general plea to moderators, please don't upmoderate posts as "Informative" unless you have some way of verifying yourself that the facts presented are accurate. (Links to an independent source, finding an independent source yourself, or having expertise yourself in that area.) If you don't you'll just make me (or some moderator who does have expertise in that area) cancel out your moderation with a "-1 Overrated" (since /. doesn't have "-1 Misinformative".)
If you won't take my word for it, look them up on ChemFinder.
Keep in mind that I'm concerned here with what should be legal--I agree that this is not moral.
So what is a lawyer who is legitimately considering a lawsuit supposed to do, if C&D letters are outlawed as threats? Just file the suit without any attempt to resolve the dispute out of court?
So what?
In a market economy, price is dictated by the forces of supply and demand.
I'm always amazed at the number of people who fail to understand this and believe that price should be based on supply only.
Well, guess what. You don't have to. It's a free country. In fact, you don't ever have to buy any music again if you don't want to.
Now I wish I hadn't already posted to this story--this really deserves to be upmodded. Well put, AC.
No, it's not.
The Constitution grants Congress the authority to secure copyright and patent rights. This is entirely different than the Constitution granting those rights directly.
If Congress wanted to, they could eliminate copyright and patent rights entirely, and it would not be unconstitutional. Unlike freedom of speech, which cannot be revoked by Congress.
Show me where I ever suggested that the human ought to comply with the C&D letter.
The argument above was that both the web site and the letter were instances of free speech. If the automated cease and desist is honored, that gives the machine more right to speech than the human (the machine's pervailed, the human's was squelched).
Please re-read my earlier comments. I never suggested that the recipient of the C&D letter ought to comply. Only that the sending of the C&D letter was free speech.
If I tell you to give me $10,000, that is free speech. It does not mean you have to give me $10,000. What is so hard to understand about that???
Great. I'll copy Stephen King's latest book word for word, add one sentence of commentary at the end (thus using the material for "critique") and publish it.
You can use copyrighted materials to some extent for critique or parody, more than you can for other purposes, as fair use. But that does not mean you can do whatever the hell you want in the name of critique or parody.
If those letters are honored, it means a machine has more rights than a human.
What? I don't follow your meaning at all. What right will a machine have that a human will not?