actually it's not - it looks like the US patent is claiming further priority from a patent filed in Australia, so the actual date that sets the priority is Oct 03, 2000.
Assuming the patent in question is the right one, then the date of filing (for the US patent) is actually October 3, 2001, so you would need to find prior art over the claims from before this. However, it also looks like the patent is claiming a priority date of Oct 03, 2000 from a patent originally filed in Australia, so you would need to find prior art before that date.
With respect, you are completely wrong. In your example, the granted patent is for a round transportation device (since this is claim 1). The sub-claims are irrelevant (although it holds different weight in litigation). Patents are written the way they are for a very good reason - if you are not allowed the broadest claim (usually claim 1), then you drop that and move down to the next broadest etc etc. The claims that are actually granted can be very different from those in the PCT publication.
I really wish people on slashdot would learn how patents actually work - the amount of plain wrong information is unbelievable.
Probably the best book, particularly since it deals with mostly software technology is Geoffrey Moore, "Crossing the Chasm". Emminently readable as well.
The problem is that it's not really the research side of things which is expensive. You can get a single drug candidate through to Phase I for under $10m, assuming you have a pretty top team. It's the attrition rate and further trials that cost big money. And the problem with newer (and better) treatments coming out is that the next treatment costs even more because you need an even bigger trial because it is now harder to show efficacy. AIDS is a real problem therapy for this - to demonstrate efficacy over current treatments is extremely tough (= huge clinical trial cost/time), which is why AIDS is no longer the big area it once was.
The public funding is generally spent on RESEARCH, which might only be $1-2m, companies fund the other $998m to get the drug onto the market (recent estimates to get a drug to market are now closer to $1.2b for a biologic).
Anyone who thinks public money will ever be spent on the expensive trials needed to take a single lead target to market doesn't understand the industry. Brazil "revoking" the patent will only punish brazilian people in the future.
This is exactly how the current system works and the thinking behind the fee structure. You pay a fee in each territory each year. That fee must be paid whether the patent is in examination or has already been granted and the fee increases each year (up to year X - 20 in most countries - when the patent expires). Patents are published after about 12/18 months (unless withdrawn).
The system is not as broken as slashdotters seem to think it is, there is just an incredible amount of ignorance of how it actually works.
sorry, (very!) wrong. On average a drug costs around $600m and takes 7-12 years to get to the market (this includes drop off candidates along the way). If patents didn't exist to protect that investment (for a few years anyway) no pharma company would even dream of trying to develop drugs.
The child needs to be aware of what's going on in the world...If they're secluded from everything, they're going have no clue what's going on when they hit the real world.
But that is surely the crux of the matter - does a child actually NEED to know what is going on in the "real" world? Or should they be allowed to worry about that when the time comes?
I don't know the answer, but I do think that this is the essential difference between the current generation and the previous generation - today's children are not children, but small adults. Maybe it's because there is more media in your face, maybe because people feel they have to grow up sooner and take responsibility to "make something of their lives", maybe...
these items in online games have MASSIVE intrinisic value based on labor.
Value is driven by demand, not by how much "effort" was put in. If there is no demand that value will never be realised so it's value is essentially zero. Countless businesses failed - and will continue to fail - because they never understood this basic principle.
Re:He was cringeworthy but...
on
Steve Irwin Dead
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You know I used to think exactly the same as you - I also cringed that the world thought this was what Australians were like. But the more I saw of the bloke the more I realised it wasn't an act, it was genuine, unbridled enthusiasm. He wanted people to be as fascinated as he was, his enthusiasm was magnetic, and real. He wanted to teach all this stuff to kids. He wanted people to respect these (dangerous) wild animals the way he did. He never held back, he always smiled. And for all those reasons and more, he completely turned me around - I am more than happy that the world thinks this represents Australians at their core - genuine, enthusiastic, and a good mate.
Importantly, you seem to have completely missed usenet, and newsgroups in general (the original "forum"), from your point of view. Usenet is still one of the best places to get detailed, expert information on specific topics/questions.
Software is usually covered by copyright law, not patent law. It is rare (except in the US) for software to be patentable, so by default, if you create the code, then you get the copyright automatically (and hence the IP).
Many companies will not hire consultants unless they get the IP out of the end, and most are happy to limit this to the IP they actually paid for (although some will try and slip clauses like "future/past IP" in as well so watch out).
I wish people would get a clue about IP protection, and patents in particular.
The entire point of an NDA is that the disclosure is not public, but private, which means it is NOT admissable as prior art. Even if you deliberately go and disclose the idea in public, i.e. violate the NDA to try and make it prior art and thereby invalidate a patent, in many countries this will still be admmissable.
Every NDA is different - you need to examine the clauses in the actual NDA in front of you. In practice if you're not happy with it, suggest changes and send it back. Most companies are happy to go through this process.
The point of an NDA is not (usually) to try and steal all of your ideas, it is to protect the ideas (for BOTH parties).
It's like some persons who are clueless about patent reality thought of a new solution at the round table.
Even worse, it's a solution to a problem which doesn't actually exist. The vast majority of people think they understand the patent process but simply don't. Publication is a vital part of the process, as is prior art assessment, demonstrating novelty and non-obviousness (to a "person skilled in the art"). You get a patent (ie. exclusive right to commercially prosper) for a set amount of time (20 years in most places) in exchange for disclosing the idea to everybody.
There is nothing to stop you filing a patent application which is an exact copy of an existing, granted patent. That patent application could go to PCT and be published at 18 months and then progress into national levels in individual territories. This could take 3-5 years and can happen without anyone in the patent office having actually examined the validity of that patent . If the patent application was published without an international search report, it might not even have been cross-referenced against the existing patent database!
Even granted patents are technically not valid until they have been challenged and upheld by a court.
...your first statement is only partially true. An invention only has guaranteed protection once a patent has issued.
Even this is a common misunderstanding of patents. Technically, even a granted patent is not actually tested until it ends up in a court. Just because a patent is granted (remember that most of what you see is actually a patent application and many of those will never be granted) doesn't mean it will stand up in court.
The patent process is expensive and slow enough as it is - as far as I can see this would simply make it slower and more expensive.
Very true indeed. The "soft skills" (I couldn't resist either) you learn on a PhD can often be more valuable than the technical skills since many people don't stay within their specialty.
The problem is that employers don't think this (unless they have a PhD themselves) so it is up to you to convince them using those communication, logic and persuasion skills you learnt on your advanced degree:)
Very good points, but, interestingly, the article is on Georgia Tech University's own site, so you'd think the academics themselves might edit the "journalism" and get it right! More likely though, they're talking it up so that (a) they can get more grant funding (b) the technology can be licensed out (c) a spinout company is looking for investors
Yes absolutely true. The average cost to get a drug approved and onto the market is around $880bn and takes about 7-12 years. That includes costs for attrition rates, but even so gives you some idea. No company in their right mind could justify a 10 year development costing almost $1bn just so someone else can copy it as soon as it's on the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Roboform is a brilliant piece of software, can't recommend it highly enough. I'm surprised it isn't mentioned elsewhere in the comments.
actually it's not - it looks like the US patent is claiming further priority from a patent filed in Australia, so the actual date that sets the priority is Oct 03, 2000.
Assuming the patent in question is the right one, then the date of filing (for the US patent) is actually October 3, 2001, so you would need to find prior art over the claims from before this. However, it also looks like the patent is claiming a priority date of Oct 03, 2000 from a patent originally filed in Australia, so you would need to find prior art before that date.
With respect, you are completely wrong. In your example, the granted patent is for a round transportation device (since this is claim 1). The sub-claims are irrelevant (although it holds different weight in litigation). Patents are written the way they are for a very good reason - if you are not allowed the broadest claim (usually claim 1), then you drop that and move down to the next broadest etc etc. The claims that are actually granted can be very different from those in the PCT publication.
I really wish people on slashdot would learn how patents actually work - the amount of plain wrong information is unbelievable.
I share your pain, and to answer your question - not anyone on slashdot anyway.
good luck, I've been trying for years...
/. these days because of the total ignorance of the system.
It's barely worth reading any of the patent articles on
Leeds University developed the bloodhound sensor - an electronic nose - in 1995, now owned by Scensive Technologies.
http://www.scensive.com/
Probably the best book, particularly since it deals with mostly software technology is Geoffrey Moore, "Crossing the Chasm". Emminently readable as well.
The problem is that it's not really the research side of things which is expensive. You can get a single drug candidate through to Phase I for under $10m, assuming you have a pretty top team. It's the attrition rate and further trials that cost big money. And the problem with newer (and better) treatments coming out is that the next treatment costs even more because you need an even bigger trial because it is now harder to show efficacy. AIDS is a real problem therapy for this - to demonstrate efficacy over current treatments is extremely tough (= huge clinical trial cost/time), which is why AIDS is no longer the big area it once was.
The public funding is generally spent on RESEARCH, which might only be $1-2m, companies fund the other $998m to get the drug onto the market (recent estimates to get a drug to market are now closer to $1.2b for a biologic).
Anyone who thinks public money will ever be spent on the expensive trials needed to take a single lead target to market doesn't understand the industry. Brazil "revoking" the patent will only punish brazilian people in the future.
This is exactly how the current system works and the thinking behind the fee structure. You pay a fee in each territory each year. That fee must be paid whether the patent is in examination or has already been granted and the fee increases each year (up to year X - 20 in most countries - when the patent expires). Patents are published after about 12/18 months (unless withdrawn).
The system is not as broken as slashdotters seem to think it is, there is just an incredible amount of ignorance of how it actually works.
sorry, (very!) wrong. On average a drug costs around $600m and takes 7-12 years to get to the market (this includes drop off candidates along the way). If patents didn't exist to protect that investment (for a few years anyway) no pharma company would even dream of trying to develop drugs.
The child needs to be aware of what's going on in the world...If they're secluded from everything, they're going have no clue what's going on when they hit the real world.
...
But that is surely the crux of the matter - does a child actually NEED to know what is going on in the "real" world? Or should they be allowed to worry about that when the time comes?
I don't know the answer, but I do think that this is the essential difference between the current generation and the previous generation - today's children are not children, but small adults. Maybe it's because there is more media in your face, maybe because people feel they have to grow up sooner and take responsibility to "make something of their lives", maybe
these items in online games have MASSIVE intrinisic value based on labor.
Value is driven by demand, not by how much "effort" was put in. If there is no demand that value will never be realised so it's value is essentially zero. Countless businesses failed - and will continue to fail - because they never understood this basic principle.
You know I used to think exactly the same as you - I also cringed that the world thought this was what Australians were like. But the more I saw of the bloke the more I realised it wasn't an act, it was genuine, unbridled enthusiasm. He wanted people to be as fascinated as he was, his enthusiasm was magnetic, and real. He wanted to teach all this stuff to kids. He wanted people to respect these (dangerous) wild animals the way he did. He never held back, he always smiled. And for all those reasons and more, he completely turned me around - I am more than happy that the world thinks this represents Australians at their core - genuine, enthusiastic, and a good mate.
RIP Steve.
Importantly, you seem to have completely missed usenet, and newsgroups in general (the original "forum"), from your point of view. Usenet is still one of the best places to get detailed, expert information on specific topics/questions.
Thank you. Easily the most insightful comment on a thread which is generally just demonstrating how clueless the average slashdotter is about IP.
Software is usually covered by copyright law, not patent law. It is rare (except in the US) for software to be patentable, so by default, if you create the code, then you get the copyright automatically (and hence the IP).
Many companies will not hire consultants unless they get the IP out of the end, and most are happy to limit this to the IP they actually paid for (although some will try and slip clauses like "future/past IP" in as well so watch out).
I wish people would get a clue about IP protection, and patents in particular.
The entire point of an NDA is that the disclosure is not public, but private, which means it is NOT admissable as prior art. Even if you deliberately go and disclose the idea in public, i.e. violate the NDA to try and make it prior art and thereby invalidate a patent, in many countries this will still be admmissable.
Every NDA is different - you need to examine the clauses in the actual NDA in front of you. In practice if you're not happy with it, suggest changes and send it back. Most companies are happy to go through this process.
The point of an NDA is not (usually) to try and steal all of your ideas, it is to protect the ideas (for BOTH parties).
It's like some persons who are clueless about patent reality thought of a new solution at the round table.
Even worse, it's a solution to a problem which doesn't actually exist. The vast majority of people think they understand the patent process but simply don't. Publication is a vital part of the process, as is prior art assessment, demonstrating novelty and non-obviousness (to a "person skilled in the art"). You get a patent (ie. exclusive right to commercially prosper) for a set amount of time (20 years in most places) in exchange for disclosing the idea to everybody.
There is nothing to stop you filing a patent application which is an exact copy of an existing, granted patent. That patent application could go to PCT and be published at 18 months and then progress into national levels in individual territories. This could take 3-5 years and can happen without anyone in the patent office having actually examined the validity of that patent . If the patent application was published without an international search report, it might not even have been cross-referenced against the existing patent database!
Even granted patents are technically not valid until they have been challenged and upheld by a court.
...your first statement is only partially true. An invention only has guaranteed protection once a patent has issued.
Even this is a common misunderstanding of patents. Technically, even a granted patent is not actually tested until it ends up in a court. Just because a patent is granted (remember that most of what you see is actually a patent application and many of those will never be granted) doesn't mean it will stand up in court.
The patent process is expensive and slow enough as it is - as far as I can see this would simply make it slower and more expensive.
Very true indeed. The "soft skills" (I couldn't resist either) you learn on a PhD can often be more valuable than the technical skills since many people don't stay within their specialty.
:)
The problem is that employers don't think this (unless they have a PhD themselves) so it is up to you to convince them using those communication, logic and persuasion skills you learnt on your advanced degree
... and publically [sic]
But it's not really public is it, since google have used their own secret data - unavailable and undisclosed to the public - to do the analysis.
Very good points, but, interestingly, the article is on Georgia Tech University's own site, so you'd think the academics themselves might edit the "journalism" and get it right! More likely though, they're talking it up so that
(a) they can get more grant funding
(b) the technology can be licensed out
(c) a spinout company is looking for investors
ok, I should check myself - that should say $880 million!
I hear this a lot. Is this really true?
Yes absolutely true. The average cost to get a drug approved and onto the market is around $880bn and takes about 7-12 years. That includes costs for attrition rates, but even so gives you some idea. No company in their right mind could justify a 10 year development costing almost $1bn just so someone else can copy it as soon as it's on the market.