She came up with a hypothesis about people's motivations "people would prefer the white barbies because they're used to them" and then tested only preference. She threw in a "control" variable that completely overwhellemed the adult choice
This is an elementary school science fair project, not a federally funded research project with a paper to be published in Science. The fact that she tried to test a hypothesis at all--and that she had a control, even if it wasn't an ideal one--puts her far ahead of most science fair projects of her age group.
The writer also doesn't say what her conclusions WERE, yet flatly asserts that she wasn't having a discussion on race, just presenting findings. Frankly, I'd hold off on that distinction until i could see the actual project.
Why start now? The fact that you haven't seen the project didn't stop you from making several other judgements about it.
Anyway, the experiement didn't test her stated hypothesis, used a flat and boring experimental method and most likely drew unwarrented conclusions. B+ if her printing was neat.
She had a hypothesis, she had an experimental method, and she had conclusions. Again, this puts her far ahead of most science fair projects done by children her age.
Not that it really matters, since you can word things so that it doesn't show up on a prior art search looking for particular keywords, or is buried in the middle of so many other similar crap patents with such obtuse language that somebody could see the claims 3 times without twigging to the fact that they've got a match.
Don't I know it. As I've alluded previously, there are for-pay databases which address exactly this issue. But I'd be much happier if they weren't necessary.
If you have a suggestion how that issue can be improved, I'd love to hear it.
Please show me a US pending patent - oh that's right, you can't. Silly me. Kind of hard to do any prior art searches on those, isn't it? Wasn't I just talking about that?
Yes, you were, and now we've come full circle in the discussion. In case you've forgotten, here's a summary:
You: "You can't search US pending patents."
Me: "No, you can't. But you can search non-US pending patents, and are likely to be able to get a good idea of what's pending in the US that way."
You: "No, because the non-US patents aren't even filed for until after the US patent is granted."
Me: "Bulls***. Non-US patents pending are often published before the US patent grants. Here's an example."
You: "Yeah, but you can't see US patents pending, can you? So there!"
I suppose this might be more of an issue with regards to software patents; since those are allowed only in the US, people don't apply for software patents anywhere else. In my field it's not a huge issue.
[Long rant about intended benefits of patents to society and what should be considered novel deleted.]
I must have misunderstood. From your earlier post I thought you were complaining about the way patents are enforced. Would it be more accurate to say that you are displeased with the way patents are applied for and granted (in which case I agree with you to some extent) and not with the way that patents (if they're good patents in the first place) are enforced?
At least some companies get their US patents FIRST, then use those patents (and the "art" associated with the patents) as leverage to get patents in other countries
Simply untrue. Once you file a patent application in one country, you have a one-year grace period to file in any other country--after that your first patent application counts as prior art in the other countries you would seek to get a patent in!
(assisted by the international treaties which have been signed to allow the "prior art" in one country's patent system to invalidate a patent filed in another country's).
The international treaties may have standardized this practice among all developed countries, but in most countries this was the case even before the treaties: just as both patents and non-patent literature constitute prior art, documents published both in the country in which the patent is applied for and outside constitute prior art.
Are you seriously arguing against this practice? Are you seriously suggesting that if someone in France has invented something but patented it only in France, that I should be allowed to patent it in the US?
Therefore, the pending patent is secret until granted.
Oh please. Here is one it took me about 15 seconds to find. There's thousands of published pending patent applications.
it has been made abundantly clear that many organizations applying for patents only do enough searching (usually in the patent database itself) to ensure that the Patent Office will give them the patent (i.e., implementation stated the exact same way has not already been patented),
I certainly don't deny that the USPTO often does a sloppy job of examining patent applications
then use whatever legal resources are necessary to make the patent worth something (by intimidating others into paying license fees, or using the patent as a defense against predatory patent-abusers).
Excuse me, but I thought that's what patents were for? I'm afraid I'm not clear on your position--are you saying all patents by definition are a bad thing, or are you arguing against the way some companies enforce their patents? If the latter, how are they supposed to do it other than "'intimidating' others into paying license fees or using the patent as a defense against predatory patent abusers?" If you are not against patents in general, what would you suggest would be the appropriate way for companies to enforce valid patents?
Did you happen to catch BT's patent on hyperlinks? I hope you kept your company from wasting any development time and money on that patented technology. Did you happen to discover AltaVista's patent on search engines and keep your company from wasting any time and effort on search engines?
My company is not in the computer tech field. In the interest of privacy and partial anonymity, I do not care to say what field they are in.
The point is, when patents are overly broad no amount of research is going to discover whether or not something infringes until it gets through the court system.
I don't deny that many patents being issued in the computer/software field seem to be overly broad (but since that's not my area of expertise, I can't say for sure). The point of the original poster seemed to be that companies somehow keep their patents secret until they decide they want to enforce them, and it was that point, and only that point, to which I was responding.
Only in the US, and anything big is not going to be patented only in the US. You don't think I search only for US patents, do you?
2. There are WAY too many patents, and not terribly well categorized & indexed, for all but the largest patent-searching organizations to be absolutely sure they've covered all the possibilities (which costs money). In other words, even if there IS a patent which you're violating, there's a good chance you'll never find it in the noise - but if you're successful, you can bet that the patent holder is going to be giving you a call.
And what do you propose to do about this? How is this the fault of the company with the original patent?
Further, a prior art search costs a few thousand dollars, in the patent searcher's time and in the cost of searching for-pay, proprietary databases (which alleviate a lot of the indexing problems you cite with the free databases). Nothing to sneeze at, to be sure, but hardly something available only to "the largest patent-searching organizations," as you claim. Before you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on developing a new technology, doesn't it make sense to spend a few thousand to make sure no one else has patented it already?
3. Prior art doesn't need to be patented - and thus will not show up until somebody needs to put the kibosh on your patent.
I thought we were discussing the alleged "predatory practices" of corporations with patents, not the difficulty of enforcing your own patents, so this is not germane to the issue. In any case, non-patent prior art will show up, as a competent prior art search (such as I would do) covers both patent and non-patent art.
I wonder what the qualifications are for working in the Patent Office?
Sheesh, can no one spend 5 seconds trying to actually find things out? There's a job opportunities page on the USPTO website. As an example, here are the requirements for a position listed as "Patent Examiner (Electrical Engineering/Computer Science Specialist/Computer Engineering)":
MINIMUM ELIGIBILTY REQUIREMENTS: U.S. CITIZENSHIP REQUIRED. Engineering position in Technology Center 5 requires a four- year degree in a professional engineering curriculum from an accredited college or university. Computer Science positions require completion of a four-year course of study leading to a bachelor's degree in Computer Science or another related degree which is supplemented by 30 semester hours in a combination of mathematics, statistics and computer science. At least 15 of the 30 semester hours must have been in any combination of statistics and mathematics that included differential and integral calculus.
Don't blame me for karma whoring--if alen had taken 5 seconds to find this out for himself this post wouldn't be necessary.
I really don't understand how it is that nVidia and Creative can be held liable
Because they're also selling the fans. If you sell a patented technology without the patent holder's permission, whining "but I didn't make it" won't get you off the hook.
Can the people who *use* cards with allegedly infringing fans also be sued?
Yes, in the sense that anyone can be sued any time for anything.
Is it likely? Probably not. Maybe if you're generating a profit from them in one way or another.
You've made the common mistake of thinking the abstract is the meat of the patent. The abstract has little to no legal significance.
When looking at a patent, you should always go immediately to the claims:
5,967,763
What is claimed is:
1. A positioning device for a miniature fan, comprising:
a coil seat including a plurality of annularly spaced poles, each pole having a radially extending stem and terminating with a circumferential arcuate section, each stem having a winding wound therearound, each arcuate section having a first end edge and a second end edge;
a circuit board securely connected to the coil seat; and,
a sensor element mounted on the circuit board, the sensor element being located on a vertical line extending from one of the first end edge and the second end edge of one of the poles so that the sensor element is aligned with the one of the first end edge and the second end edge.
2. The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the pole having the first end edge thereof aligned with the sensor element has a first mark means formed thereon, and the sensor element has a second mark means formed thereon which is aligned with the first mark means when mounting the sensor element onto the circuit board to assure that the sensor element is located on the vertical line.
3. The positioning device according to claim 2, wherein the circuit board includes a notch defined therein for securely receiving the sensor element.
4. The positioning device according to claim 3, wherein the circuit board includes a third mark means aligned with the second mark means to provide a reference for mounting the sensor element in the notch by aligning with the second mark means of the sensor element with the third mark means.
5. The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the pole having second end edge thereof aligned with the sensor element has a first mark means formed thereon, and the sensor element has a second mark means formed thereon which is aligned with the first mark means when mounting the sensor element onto the circuit board to assure that the sensor element is located on the vertical line.
6. The positioning device according to claim 5, wherein the circuit board includes a notch defined therein for securely receiving the sensor element.
7. The positioning device according to claim 6, wherein the circuit board includes a third mark means aligned with the second mark means to provide a reference for mounting the sensor element in the notch by aligning with the second mark means of the sensor element with the third mark means.
6,109,892
What is claimed is:
1. A positioning device for a miniature fan, comprising:
a coil seat including an axle tube, an upper polar plate assembly, a lower polar plate assembly, a winding mounted between the upper polar plate assembly and the lower polar plate assembly, the lower plate assembly including a front end edge and a rear end edge; and
a circuit board mounted to the axle tube and including a sensor element adapted to activate a rotor, the sensor element located on a vertical line extending from one of said end edges of the lower polar plate assembly along a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the axle tube.
2. The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit board includes a notch defined therein for receiving the sensor element.
3. The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the coil seat has a first mark formed thereon, and the sensor element has a second mark formed thereon which is aligned with the first mark so as to assure that the sensor element is located on the vertical line.
4. The positioning device according to claim 3, wherein the circuit board includes a third mark to be aligned with the first mark and the second mark to assure that the sensor element is located on the vertical line.
6,114,785
What is claimed is:
1. A positioning device for a miniature fan, comprising;
a coil seat including an axle tube, an upper polar plate assembly, a lower polar plate assembly, and a winding mounted between the upper polar plate assembly and the lower polar plate assembly, the upper polar plate assembly including an end edge,
a circuit board mounted to the axle tube and including a sensor element adapted to activate a rotor, and
structural elements situated on a vertical line extending from the end edge of the upper polar plate in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the axle tube,
wherein said structural elements include said end edge of the upper polar plate assembly and said sensor element, and
wherein said end edge of the upper polar plate and said sensor element are thereby aligned with each other by being located on said vertical line extending from the end edge of the upper polar plate assembly along a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the axle tube.
2. The positioning device according to claim 1, further comprising a first mark formed on the coil seat and a second mark formed on the sensor element, said second mark being aligned with the first mark so as to assure that the sensor element is located on the line.
3. The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the lower polar plate assembly includes a notch defined therein in which the sensor element is received.
4. The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit board includes a notch defined therein for receiving the sensor element.
5. The positioning device according to claim 2, wherein the circuit board includes a third mark to be aligned with the first mark and the second mark to assure that the sensor element is located on the line.
Also keep in mind that each individual numbered claim is like a mini-patent in its own right; however, within each numbered claim, all listed elements must be present for infringement to occur.
Either way, the real issue is the predatory practice. I patent something, wait until everybody else uses or develops the same technology and then I slap them with an infringement lawsuit.
Patents are public information. It's not as if the patenting company can keep it secret, only to announce the existence of a patent when they decide to file the lawsuit.
If the other companies are in fact infringing the patents in question, they should have known about it beforehand.
I know, because I do patent searching for a Fortune 500 company precisely to make sure there aren't competing patents on a technology before we begin development.
You're correct that the determination of novelty is different than the determination of infringement. However, you're confusing claims with claim elements.
If X1 and X2 are claims in one patent and Y1 and Y2 are claims in another patent, then a patent application consisting of X1 and Y2 and Z is a perfectly valid.
If a single claim in the new patent is a combination of X1 and Y2 and Z, then yes, it is valid.
If the new patent has X1 in one claim, Y2 in another, and Z in a third, it is not. Each claim is like a little mini-patent in its own right. In patent validity cases, it's common for the judge to uphold some of the claims in a patent while striking down others.
Violation(Patent)
= Violation(Claim1) AND Violation(Claim2)
Simply untrue. Violation(Patent)=Violation(Claim1) OR Violation(Claim2). I believe you are confused because within a claim, there can be multiple elements: Violation(Claim1)=Violation(Element1A) AND Violation(Element1B) AND Violation(Element1C).
Novelty(Patent)
= Novelty(Claim1) OR Novelty(Claim2)
Technically, speaking of the "novelty" of a patent is meaningless, because each claim is evaluated for novelty on its own. If Claim1 is not novel, Claim1 would be struck down in a court case (in a perfect world). If Claim2 is not novel, Claim2 would be struck down in a court case. If none of the claims in a patent are novel, the entire patent could be struck down, but as far as the legal effect goes that's just the same as every claim in the patent being struck down.
Novelty(Claim3)=Novelty(Element3A) OR Novelty(Element3B) OR Novelty(Element3A + Element3B)
By which I mean by the last part, even if 3A and 3B are both known, Claim3 can still be valid if it combines 3A and 3B in a non-obvious way.
Have you actually read the very reference you quoted????!!!!
Elements within a claim are ANDed. That's what your reference means by "claim elements." (Gee, "claim elements" is not the same as "claims." Who'd'a thunk it?)
The claims themselves are ORed. (Note that the reference you quote talks about "a claim," not "claims."
So if a patent reads:
I claim:
1. A device consisting of A, B, and C.
2. A device consisting of D, E, and F.
You are infringing that patent if and only if you are doing ((A and B and C) or (D and E and F)).
Whatever pseudo-scientific principles the study is based on, you shouldn't believe the results, even if they have a couple anecdotes to back them up. There wasn't even a control condition reported!
It's a summary in the Sunday Times, not the research article itself. What did you expect? Perhaps you believe that every popular news story on a scientific topic should reprint the actual reasearch article in full?
Are you trying to suggest that the USPTO examiners are going to know more about technology than the Slashdot readership?
I very much suggest that in some fields, the USPTO examiners certainly do know more about technology than the slashdot readership.
If you'd like a suggested experiment, find someone who actually knows something about the technology behind biotech. (A bona fide molecular biologist would be a good choice.) Ask them to read/. comments on a biotech story, and tell you what they think. Even many of the comments upmoderated as "Informative" are full of misinformation.
Too often, moderators see a post that looks like it's full of facts and upmoderate it as informative, without doing the least bit of checking to see whether the facts are accurate or not. Since computers are not my field of expertise, I cannot gauge how often this occurs in computer tech articles, but I know enough not to accept anything printed in a/. comment as gospel truth without any outside confirmation, even if it's moderated up to (5, Informative).
Im pretty confident in my understanding of Computer Tech - maybe a USPTO examiner will have equal understanding, but you cannot suggest the total knowledge of that USPTO couldnt be 'aided' by the input of the "Slashdot" Readership...
I don't deny there are many intelligent, knowledgeable people here on/. If there weren't, I wouldn't be reading. But it seems to me the problem is separating the wheat from the chaff--it's a waste of the patent examiner's time to look through hundreds of things that are claimed to be prior art to find the two that actually are.
I don't have a good answer to this issue. If I did, I would propose it as a replacement to the current moderation system. I do know that the current moderation system does not adequately resolve this issue.
I am gratified by your explaination, because it makes sense, but more importantly does not automatically dictate that competition is zero-sum.
Excellently put. While some non-zero-sum games are entirely cooperative, many non-zero-sum games have both cooperative and competitive elements.
For a real-life example, look at industry organizations made up of a number of companies in the same industry. While the companies may compete within the industry, at the same time they work together towards those goals which benefit all members of the industry.
Does this include the rule that all rules are subject to change? Because if it does, then you could make is so that not all rules are subject to change....
Yes, it does, and yes, you're absolutely right, the game could change so that in the future it's no longer true that all the rules are changeable. Nomic could turn into a game of chess, even.
It's related to an interesting philosophical question: can an omnipotent being revoke his own omnipotence? That is, is he condemned to remain "omnipotent" forever, in which case he is not truly omnipotent? Or can he will himself to no longer be omnipotent--in which case, perhaps he truly is omnipotent at the moment, but there is no guarantee he will be so in the future.
But it's not a zero-sum game when the teams want to be able to say that it was a good match afterwards.
True. However, that's not what game theorists mean when they say zero-sum. Further, by that rationale, no games are zero-sum (although some may be negative-sum, like Russian roulette!), so if that's what was meant by the person asking the question, he wouldn't have had to ask the question in the first place!
From a zero-sum perspective, it doesn't make sense to play against people who are not worse than you or to give worse players an advantage, since both of these obviously reduce the chance that you'll win.
No, because the question of whether to play the game at all (or which game to play, which is what you're really deciding when you decide to give a handicap) is outside of game theory--game theory (and thus the question of whether the game is zero-sum or not) assumes from the start that the game will be played. Even if you could analyze it by game theory, that statement would only be true if "losing the game" were a worse outcome than "not playing the game at all," which is not necessarily a warranted assumption.
I agree that zero sum needs some clarification for some people, and I think you are a lot closer here, but I still don't think you have it right.
Forgive me for being blunt, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Mathematically, a zero sum game is one with a finite number of possible moves.
There's absolutely no requirement that a zero-sum game have a finite number of possible moves.
Thus, the person that moves first always has the advantage, and technically should always win.
WTF are you talking about?? Even in games which do have a finite number of moves, that doesn't mean the first player has the advantage. There are any number of two-player games known where the game is known to be a theoretical win for the second player. In fact, just a few sentences later you indicate that you are aware of a game which, while having a finite number of moves, is not a theoretical win for the first player:
Tic-Tac-Toe is another zero sum game. Finite number of moves, but the rules of tic-tac-toe make it such that it will almost always end in a draw,
Dude, you really need to lay off the crack.
In case you need me to spell it out for you any clearer, you state:
Mathematically, a zero sum game is one with a finite number of possible moves. Thus, the person that moves first always has the advantage, and technically should always win.
Tic-tac-toe has a finite number of possible moves. Thus, according to your statement, the first player at tic-tac-toe has the advantage, and should always win. Just four sentences later, you state:
Finite number of moves, but the rules of tic-tac-toe make it such that it will almost always end in a draw, because the number of moves are very limited.
You're effectively saying that a pistols at dawn duel is a zero sum game.
Now you're getting into questions of how we measure game results. If you measure it by who-won-and-who-lost, then pistols at dawn is a zero-sum game. If you measure it by who's-alive-and-who's-dead, it's not.
But such arguments can be applied to any game under the sun. If you measure the results of a chess game, not by who-won-and-who-lost, but by how-much-each-player-enjoyed-the-game, then certainly chess is not a zero-sum game.
But since this argument can be applied to any game under the sun, what's the point?? That's not what game theorists mean when they say zero-sum, and that's not what was meant by the person originally asking the question.
If you measure the result of a chess game by who-won-and-who-lost, I still maintain that the loss of a pawn by one player (if the position is such that the player is worse off for having lost the pawn) is a gain by the other player.
Trade usually benefits both, if you don't trade, you won't win.
Trade benefits both of the people trading. At the cost of the others in the game. This is why Settlers of Catan requires three or more people. (IIRC, the rules include a two-player variant, but it isn't very interesting.)
Still zero-sum.
The cost to the other players might not be immediately obvious. It's more clear in Monopoly. Suppose you are playing Monopoly with three or more players, and all the properties are sold and no one has a monopoly. Then, two players trade properties in such a way that they each have a monopoly. If the remaining players don't trade for monopolies soon, they will find themselves out of the game rather quickly.
If you lose a pawn, the opponent actually gains nothing.
Um, have you ever played chess?
If my opponent loses a pawn, I am usually thrilled. How can this be, if I've gained nothing? I have, in fact, gained an increased chance of winning the game.
Don't confuse "Prisoner's Dilemma" with "Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma." Although the rules are very similar, the strategies are quite different. In a true Prisoner's Dilemma, it's one round only, so if you lose you have no chance for retaliation--there is no tit-for-tat.
Prisoner's Dilemma and Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma are both interesting in their own ways, so there's a lot written about both.
I've seen a lot of posts here by people who are apparently confused about the meaning of zero-sum. "Basketball isn't zero-sum," they say, "because the sum of both team's points is not zero." Or "Diplomacy isn't zero-sum, because players can cooperate and help each other out."
Neither is correct. A zero-sum game is one where an improvement in the standing (which I'll deliberately leave vague, but you can think of it as "chance to win") of one player necessarily results in a worsening of the standing of another player. Even though, when one team scores two points in basketball, the other team does not lose two points, it is still zero-sum because that score reduces the chances of the other team. And even though two players can cooperate in Diplomacy to improve the position of both, they can do so only at the cost of another player.
OTOH, all those people pointing out that RPGs are non-zero sum are entirely correct. It is possible to perform actions which improve the position of all players in the game simultaneously. Even if you count the gamemaster as a player, it's still non-zero sum. The gamemaster's ultimate goal is neither coincident with the players' (if, above all else, he wanted the players to reach their goal, he could make it insanely easy for them to do so) nor opposed to it (if he wanted to stop them from achieving their goal, he could do that as well). The gamemaster's goal is to create an interesting game, and that is neither directly coincident with nor directly opposed to the players' goal.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an elementary school science fair project, not a federally funded research project with a paper to be published in Science. The fact that she tried to test a hypothesis at all--and that she had a control, even if it wasn't an ideal one--puts her far ahead of most science fair projects of her age group.
The writer also doesn't say what her conclusions WERE, yet flatly asserts that she wasn't having a discussion on race, just presenting findings. Frankly, I'd hold off on that distinction until i could see the actual project.
Why start now? The fact that you haven't seen the project didn't stop you from making several other judgements about it.
Anyway, the experiement didn't test her stated hypothesis, used a flat and boring experimental method and most likely drew unwarrented conclusions. B+ if her printing was neat.
She had a hypothesis, she had an experimental method, and she had conclusions. Again, this puts her far ahead of most science fair projects done by children her age.
Don't I know it. As I've alluded previously, there are for-pay databases which address exactly this issue. But I'd be much happier if they weren't necessary.
If you have a suggestion how that issue can be improved, I'd love to hear it.
Please show me a US pending patent - oh that's right, you can't. Silly me. Kind of hard to do any prior art searches on those, isn't it? Wasn't I just talking about that?
Yes, you were, and now we've come full circle in the discussion. In case you've forgotten, here's a summary:
I suppose this might be more of an issue with regards to software patents; since those are allowed only in the US, people don't apply for software patents anywhere else. In my field it's not a huge issue.
[Long rant about intended benefits of patents to society and what should be considered novel deleted.]
I must have misunderstood. From your earlier post I thought you were complaining about the way patents are enforced. Would it be more accurate to say that you are displeased with the way patents are applied for and granted (in which case I agree with you to some extent) and not with the way that patents (if they're good patents in the first place) are enforced?
Simply untrue. Once you file a patent application in one country, you have a one-year grace period to file in any other country--after that your first patent application counts as prior art in the other countries you would seek to get a patent in!
(assisted by the international treaties which have been signed to allow the "prior art" in one country's patent system to invalidate a patent filed in another country's).
The international treaties may have standardized this practice among all developed countries, but in most countries this was the case even before the treaties: just as both patents and non-patent literature constitute prior art, documents published both in the country in which the patent is applied for and outside constitute prior art.
Are you seriously arguing against this practice? Are you seriously suggesting that if someone in France has invented something but patented it only in France, that I should be allowed to patent it in the US?
Therefore, the pending patent is secret until granted.
Oh please. Here is one it took me about 15 seconds to find. There's thousands of published pending patent applications.
it has been made abundantly clear that many organizations applying for patents only do enough searching (usually in the patent database itself) to ensure that the Patent Office will give them the patent (i.e., implementation stated the exact same way has not already been patented),
I certainly don't deny that the USPTO often does a sloppy job of examining patent applications
then use whatever legal resources are necessary to make the patent worth something (by intimidating others into paying license fees, or using the patent as a defense against predatory patent-abusers).
Excuse me, but I thought that's what patents were for? I'm afraid I'm not clear on your position--are you saying all patents by definition are a bad thing, or are you arguing against the way some companies enforce their patents? If the latter, how are they supposed to do it other than "'intimidating' others into paying license fees or using the patent as a defense against predatory patent abusers?" If you are not against patents in general, what would you suggest would be the appropriate way for companies to enforce valid patents?
My company is not in the computer tech field. In the interest of privacy and partial anonymity, I do not care to say what field they are in.
The point is, when patents are overly broad no amount of research is going to discover whether or not something infringes until it gets through the court system.
I don't deny that many patents being issued in the computer/software field seem to be overly broad (but since that's not my area of expertise, I can't say for sure). The point of the original poster seemed to be that companies somehow keep their patents secret until they decide they want to enforce them, and it was that point, and only that point, to which I was responding.
Only in the US, and anything big is not going to be patented only in the US. You don't think I search only for US patents, do you?
2. There are WAY too many patents, and not terribly well categorized & indexed, for all but the largest patent-searching organizations to be absolutely sure they've covered all the possibilities (which costs money). In other words, even if there IS a patent which you're violating, there's a good chance you'll never find it in the noise - but if you're successful, you can bet that the patent holder is going to be giving you a call.
And what do you propose to do about this? How is this the fault of the company with the original patent?
Further, a prior art search costs a few thousand dollars, in the patent searcher's time and in the cost of searching for-pay, proprietary databases (which alleviate a lot of the indexing problems you cite with the free databases). Nothing to sneeze at, to be sure, but hardly something available only to "the largest patent-searching organizations," as you claim. Before you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on developing a new technology, doesn't it make sense to spend a few thousand to make sure no one else has patented it already?
3. Prior art doesn't need to be patented - and thus will not show up until somebody needs to put the kibosh on your patent.
I thought we were discussing the alleged "predatory practices" of corporations with patents, not the difficulty of enforcing your own patents, so this is not germane to the issue. In any case, non-patent prior art will show up, as a competent prior art search (such as I would do) covers both patent and non-patent art.
Sheesh, can no one spend 5 seconds trying to actually find things out? There's a job opportunities page on the USPTO website. As an example, here are the requirements for a position listed as "Patent Examiner (Electrical Engineering/Computer Science Specialist/Computer Engineering)":
Don't blame me for karma whoring--if alen had taken 5 seconds to find this out for himself this post wouldn't be necessary.
Because they're also selling the fans. If you sell a patented technology without the patent holder's permission, whining "but I didn't make it" won't get you off the hook.
Can the people who *use* cards with allegedly infringing fans also be sued?
Yes, in the sense that anyone can be sued any time for anything.
Is it likely? Probably not. Maybe if you're generating a profit from them in one way or another.
When looking at a patent, you should always go immediately to the claims:
5,967,763
What is claimed is:
1. A positioning device for a miniature fan, comprising:
-
a coil seat including a plurality of annularly spaced poles, each pole having a radially extending stem and terminating with a circumferential arcuate section, each stem having a winding wound therearound, each arcuate section having a first end edge and a second end edge;
- a circuit board securely connected to the coil seat; and,
- a sensor element mounted on the circuit board, the sensor element being located on a vertical line extending from one of the first end edge and the second end edge of one of the poles so that the sensor element is aligned with the one of the first end edge and the second end edge.
2. The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the pole having the first end edge thereof aligned with the sensor element has a first mark means formed thereon, and the sensor element has a second mark means formed thereon which is aligned with the first mark means when mounting the sensor element onto the circuit board to assure that the sensor element is located on the vertical line.3. The positioning device according to claim 2, wherein the circuit board includes a notch defined therein for securely receiving the sensor element.
4. The positioning device according to claim 3, wherein the circuit board includes a third mark means aligned with the second mark means to provide a reference for mounting the sensor element in the notch by aligning with the second mark means of the sensor element with the third mark means.
5. The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the pole having second end edge thereof aligned with the sensor element has a first mark means formed thereon, and the sensor element has a second mark means formed thereon which is aligned with the first mark means when mounting the sensor element onto the circuit board to assure that the sensor element is located on the vertical line.
6. The positioning device according to claim 5, wherein the circuit board includes a notch defined therein for securely receiving the sensor element.
7. The positioning device according to claim 6, wherein the circuit board includes a third mark means aligned with the second mark means to provide a reference for mounting the sensor element in the notch by aligning with the second mark means of the sensor element with the third mark means.
6,109,892
What is claimed is:
1. A positioning device for a miniature fan, comprising:
-
a coil seat including an axle tube, an upper polar plate assembly, a lower polar plate assembly, a winding mounted between the upper polar plate assembly and the lower polar plate assembly, the lower plate assembly including a front end edge and a rear end edge; and
- a circuit board mounted to the axle tube and including a sensor element adapted to activate a rotor, the sensor element located on a vertical line extending from one of said end edges of the lower polar plate assembly along a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the axle tube.
2. The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit board includes a notch defined therein for receiving the sensor element.3. The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the coil seat has a first mark formed thereon, and the sensor element has a second mark formed thereon which is aligned with the first mark so as to assure that the sensor element is located on the vertical line.
4. The positioning device according to claim 3, wherein the circuit board includes a third mark to be aligned with the first mark and the second mark to assure that the sensor element is located on the vertical line.
6,114,785
What is claimed is:
1. A positioning device for a miniature fan, comprising;
-
a coil seat including an axle tube, an upper polar plate assembly, a lower polar plate assembly, and a winding mounted between the upper polar plate assembly and the lower polar plate assembly, the upper polar plate assembly including an end edge,
- a circuit board mounted to the axle tube and including a sensor element adapted to activate a rotor, and
- structural elements situated on a vertical line extending from the end edge of the upper polar plate in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the axle tube,
- wherein said structural elements include said end edge of the upper polar plate assembly and said sensor element, and
- wherein said end edge of the upper polar plate and said sensor element are thereby aligned with each other by being located on said vertical line extending from the end edge of the upper polar plate assembly along a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the axle tube.
2. The positioning device according to claim 1, further comprising a first mark formed on the coil seat and a second mark formed on the sensor element, said second mark being aligned with the first mark so as to assure that the sensor element is located on the line.3. The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the lower polar plate assembly includes a notch defined therein in which the sensor element is received.
4. The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit board includes a notch defined therein for receiving the sensor element.
5. The positioning device according to claim 2, wherein the circuit board includes a third mark to be aligned with the first mark and the second mark to assure that the sensor element is located on the line.
Also keep in mind that each individual numbered claim is like a mini-patent in its own right; however, within each numbered claim, all listed elements must be present for infringement to occur.
Patents are public information. It's not as if the patenting company can keep it secret, only to announce the existence of a patent when they decide to file the lawsuit.
If the other companies are in fact infringing the patents in question, they should have known about it beforehand.
I know, because I do patent searching for a Fortune 500 company precisely to make sure there aren't competing patents on a technology before we begin development.
If X1 and X2 are claims in one patent and Y1 and Y2 are claims in another patent, then a patent application consisting of X1 and Y2 and Z is a perfectly valid.
If a single claim in the new patent is a combination of X1 and Y2 and Z, then yes, it is valid.
If the new patent has X1 in one claim, Y2 in another, and Z in a third, it is not. Each claim is like a little mini-patent in its own right. In patent validity cases, it's common for the judge to uphold some of the claims in a patent while striking down others.
Violation(Patent) = Violation(Claim1) AND Violation(Claim2)
Simply untrue. Violation(Patent)=Violation(Claim1) OR Violation(Claim2). I believe you are confused because within a claim, there can be multiple elements: Violation(Claim1)=Violation(Element1A) AND Violation(Element1B) AND Violation(Element1C).
Novelty(Patent) = Novelty(Claim1) OR Novelty(Claim2)
Technically, speaking of the "novelty" of a patent is meaningless, because each claim is evaluated for novelty on its own. If Claim1 is not novel, Claim1 would be struck down in a court case (in a perfect world). If Claim2 is not novel, Claim2 would be struck down in a court case. If none of the claims in a patent are novel, the entire patent could be struck down, but as far as the legal effect goes that's just the same as every claim in the patent being struck down.
Novelty(Claim3)=Novelty(Element3A) OR Novelty(Element3B) OR Novelty(Element3A + Element3B)
By which I mean by the last part, even if 3A and 3B are both known, Claim3 can still be valid if it combines 3A and 3B in a non-obvious way.
Have you actually read the very reference you quoted????!!!!
Elements within a claim are ANDed. That's what your reference means by "claim elements." (Gee, "claim elements" is not the same as "claims." Who'd'a thunk it?)
The claims themselves are ORed. (Note that the reference you quote talks about "a claim," not "claims."
So if a patent reads:
You are infringing that patent if and only if you are doing ((A and B and C) or (D and E and F)).
Clear now?
It's a summary in the Sunday Times, not the research article itself. What did you expect? Perhaps you believe that every popular news story on a scientific topic should reprint the actual reasearch article in full?
"And theft is OK as long as you don't steal more than $5 from any one person. That way it's 'hardly a major inconvenience.'"
I very much suggest that in some fields, the USPTO examiners certainly do know more about technology than the slashdot readership.
If you'd like a suggested experiment, find someone who actually knows something about the technology behind biotech. (A bona fide molecular biologist would be a good choice.) Ask them to read /. comments on a biotech story, and tell you what they think. Even many of the comments upmoderated as "Informative" are full of misinformation.
Too often, moderators see a post that looks like it's full of facts and upmoderate it as informative, without doing the least bit of checking to see whether the facts are accurate or not. Since computers are not my field of expertise, I cannot gauge how often this occurs in computer tech articles, but I know enough not to accept anything printed in a /. comment as gospel truth without any outside confirmation, even if it's moderated up to (5, Informative).
Im pretty confident in my understanding of Computer Tech - maybe a USPTO examiner will have equal understanding, but you cannot suggest the total knowledge of that USPTO couldnt be 'aided' by the input of the "Slashdot" Readership...
I don't deny there are many intelligent, knowledgeable people here on /. If there weren't, I wouldn't be reading. But it seems to me the problem is separating the wheat from the chaff--it's a waste of the patent examiner's time to look through hundreds of things that are claimed to be prior art to find the two that actually are.
I don't have a good answer to this issue. If I did, I would propose it as a replacement to the current moderation system. I do know that the current moderation system does not adequately resolve this issue.
Excellently put. While some non-zero-sum games are entirely cooperative, many non-zero-sum games have both cooperative and competitive elements.
For a real-life example, look at industry organizations made up of a number of companies in the same industry. While the companies may compete within the industry, at the same time they work together towards those goals which benefit all members of the industry.
The results of a game of chess are not measured by how many pieces you have on the board.
Yes, it does, and yes, you're absolutely right, the game could change so that in the future it's no longer true that all the rules are changeable. Nomic could turn into a game of chess, even.
It's related to an interesting philosophical question: can an omnipotent being revoke his own omnipotence? That is, is he condemned to remain "omnipotent" forever, in which case he is not truly omnipotent? Or can he will himself to no longer be omnipotent--in which case, perhaps he truly is omnipotent at the moment, but there is no guarantee he will be so in the future.
If you're interested in this sort of question, I recommend The Paradox of Self-Amendment: A Study of Law, Logic, Omnipotence, and Change by Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic.
True. However, that's not what game theorists mean when they say zero-sum. Further, by that rationale, no games are zero-sum (although some may be negative-sum, like Russian roulette!), so if that's what was meant by the person asking the question, he wouldn't have had to ask the question in the first place!
From a zero-sum perspective, it doesn't make sense to play against people who are not worse than you or to give worse players an advantage, since both of these obviously reduce the chance that you'll win.
No, because the question of whether to play the game at all (or which game to play, which is what you're really deciding when you decide to give a handicap) is outside of game theory--game theory (and thus the question of whether the game is zero-sum or not) assumes from the start that the game will be played. Even if you could analyze it by game theory, that statement would only be true if "losing the game" were a worse outcome than "not playing the game at all," which is not necessarily a warranted assumption.
Forgive me for being blunt, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Mathematically, a zero sum game is one with a finite number of possible moves.
There's absolutely no requirement that a zero-sum game have a finite number of possible moves.
Thus, the person that moves first always has the advantage, and technically should always win.
WTF are you talking about?? Even in games which do have a finite number of moves, that doesn't mean the first player has the advantage. There are any number of two-player games known where the game is known to be a theoretical win for the second player. In fact, just a few sentences later you indicate that you are aware of a game which, while having a finite number of moves, is not a theoretical win for the first player:
Tic-Tac-Toe is another zero sum game. Finite number of moves, but the rules of tic-tac-toe make it such that it will almost always end in a draw,
Dude, you really need to lay off the crack.
In case you need me to spell it out for you any clearer, you state:
Mathematically, a zero sum game is one with a finite number of possible moves. Thus, the person that moves first always has the advantage, and technically should always win.
Tic-tac-toe has a finite number of possible moves. Thus, according to your statement, the first player at tic-tac-toe has the advantage, and should always win. Just four sentences later, you state:
Finite number of moves, but the rules of tic-tac-toe make it such that it will almost always end in a draw, because the number of moves are very limited.
(I know, I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls.)
Now you're getting into questions of how we measure game results. If you measure it by who-won-and-who-lost, then pistols at dawn is a zero-sum game. If you measure it by who's-alive-and-who's-dead, it's not.
But such arguments can be applied to any game under the sun. If you measure the results of a chess game, not by who-won-and-who-lost, but by how-much-each-player-enjoyed-the-game, then certainly chess is not a zero-sum game.
But since this argument can be applied to any game under the sun, what's the point?? That's not what game theorists mean when they say zero-sum, and that's not what was meant by the person originally asking the question.
If you measure the result of a chess game by who-won-and-who-lost, I still maintain that the loss of a pawn by one player (if the position is such that the player is worse off for having lost the pawn) is a gain by the other player.
Trade benefits both of the people trading. At the cost of the others in the game. This is why Settlers of Catan requires three or more people. (IIRC, the rules include a two-player variant, but it isn't very interesting.) Still zero-sum.
The cost to the other players might not be immediately obvious. It's more clear in Monopoly. Suppose you are playing Monopoly with three or more players, and all the properties are sold and no one has a monopoly. Then, two players trade properties in such a way that they each have a monopoly. If the remaining players don't trade for monopolies soon, they will find themselves out of the game rather quickly.
Um, have you ever played chess?
If my opponent loses a pawn, I am usually thrilled. How can this be, if I've gained nothing? I have, in fact, gained an increased chance of winning the game.
Prisoner's Dilemma and Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma are both interesting in their own ways, so there's a lot written about both.
Neither is correct. A zero-sum game is one where an improvement in the standing (which I'll deliberately leave vague, but you can think of it as "chance to win") of one player necessarily results in a worsening of the standing of another player. Even though, when one team scores two points in basketball, the other team does not lose two points, it is still zero-sum because that score reduces the chances of the other team. And even though two players can cooperate in Diplomacy to improve the position of both, they can do so only at the cost of another player.
OTOH, all those people pointing out that RPGs are non-zero sum are entirely correct. It is possible to perform actions which improve the position of all players in the game simultaneously. Even if you count the gamemaster as a player, it's still non-zero sum. The gamemaster's ultimate goal is neither coincident with the players' (if, above all else, he wanted the players to reach their goal, he could make it insanely easy for them to do so) nor opposed to it (if he wanted to stop them from achieving their goal, he could do that as well). The gamemaster's goal is to create an interesting game, and that is neither directly coincident with nor directly opposed to the players' goal.
Semantics. By your definition, role-playing games are not games, yet the vast majority of people still call them games.