Beacuse applying it to another domain involves an inventive step - The basic question is if it was so obvious and trivial why didn't somebody else apply the concept to the other domain sooner. The answer that it is so obvious that nobody would be stupid enough to try to patent this concept is does not seem to render these concepts unpatentable.
Why not implanted circuitry? I for one gave up a watch a long time ago. The way he describes this all-in-one-device reminds me of the talking watch calculators of the past.
I find it interesting that open source advocates are so strongly against software patents when copyright (or copyleft as it were) is such an important tool to the open source movement. Loosely defined, "Open Source" software gives a license to the user to freely modify the software as long as the source code and often the original copyright notice are included with the modified code when it is distributed further.
Could a patent not be licensed in a similar manner? I mean what if Linus had invented his OS and decided to invest in patent protection and then turn around and license it the same way that he did? Can you imagine what it would be like if Linus had started patenting Linux at 1.0 and how many innovations could not then be kept from the open source movement and made proprietary?
Since McBride has insisted that the GPL forces SCO to go after end users, shouldn't each user file a lawsuit for a declaritory judgment similar to RedHat - don't know about you but I'd spend $215.00 (the filing fee where i live) and $25 for service of process just to get SCO to have to spend some of that $60 Million in cash. Beats spending $699 for a license from them.
Would not even need to use a lawyer - the RedHat filings would make perfect templates. Who knows if enough end-users want to maybe a class action would be in order!
I noticed it said GettyImages on the page where the photo can be purchased. Is that the large electronic library of photos owned by some guy that lives near Seattle?
How ironic is that? And royalty free - nah it couldn't be him then...
The RIAA is filing suit as a civil matter - reasonable doubt and guilty until proven innocent do not apply. Case will likely fail under a preponderance of the evidence standard - if its more likely than not. Burden of proof shifts between plaintiff and defendant during the course of trial.
Congress is where the change has to come from because our court system normally avoids deciding cases based on broad public policy concerns where narrower issues can decide matters. Also, the Court of Appeals defers to their precendents and is rarely inclined to overturn them.
Unfortunately, the patent system is based more on who gets there first with an application for an idea rather than who invents first - although that still is an important factor. As a result, while a method idea may be applicable in many different areas, i.e. algorithms can be used to model financial transactions as well as used in code, he who files first wins. And applications are filed with claims designed to provide as broad protection as possible.
Patent applications are published after 18 months from the filing date or on the date they are granted, whichever comes first. With a publication before the grant, a party can file an interference with the PTO but they have to KNOW about the filing. Most small concerns do not have time or the money to do this.
Furthermore, with the way that Congress has extended the terms for copyrights in the last 10 or 15 years something tells me that enacting such legislation would be an uphill fight.
Alas, if you have what you believe is a novel method or process, write it down, date it, have it notarized, and protect it as soon as you can.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing could compare to the /. effect - thinking of it just makes me smile. Thanks for everything and good luck.
Beacuse applying it to another domain involves an inventive step - The basic question is if it was so obvious and trivial why didn't somebody else apply the concept to the other domain sooner. The answer that it is so obvious that nobody would be stupid enough to try to patent this concept is does not seem to render these concepts unpatentable.
Why not implanted circuitry? I for one gave up a watch a long time ago. The way he describes this all-in-one-device reminds me of the talking watch calculators of the past.
I find it interesting that open source advocates are so strongly against software patents when copyright (or copyleft as it were) is such an important tool to the open source movement. Loosely defined, "Open Source" software gives a license to the user to freely modify the software as long as the source code and often the original copyright notice are included with the modified code when it is distributed further.
Could a patent not be licensed in a similar manner? I mean what if Linus had invented his OS and decided to invest in patent protection and then turn around and license it the same way that he did? Can you imagine what it would be like if Linus had started patenting Linux at 1.0 and how many innovations could not then be kept from the open source movement and made proprietary?
Since McBride has insisted that the GPL forces SCO to go after end users, shouldn't each user file a lawsuit for a declaritory judgment similar to RedHat - don't know about you but I'd spend $215.00 (the filing fee where i live) and $25 for service of process just to get SCO to have to spend some of that $60 Million in cash. Beats spending $699 for a license from them.
Would not even need to use a lawyer - the RedHat filings would make perfect templates. Who knows if enough end-users want to maybe a class action would be in order!
I noticed it said GettyImages on the page where the photo can be purchased. Is that the large electronic library of photos owned by some guy that lives near Seattle? How ironic is that? And royalty free - nah it couldn't be him then...
The RIAA is filing suit as a civil matter - reasonable doubt and guilty until proven innocent do not apply. Case will likely fail under a preponderance of the evidence standard - if its more likely than not. Burden of proof shifts between plaintiff and defendant during the course of trial.
Congress is where the change has to come from because our court system normally avoids deciding cases based on broad public policy concerns where narrower issues can decide matters. Also, the Court of Appeals defers to their precendents and is rarely inclined to overturn them.
Unfortunately, the patent system is based more on who gets there first with an application for an idea rather than who invents first - although that still is an important factor. As a result, while a method idea may be applicable in many different areas, i.e. algorithms can be used to model financial transactions as well as used in code, he who files first wins. And applications are filed with claims designed to provide as broad protection as possible.
Patent applications are published after 18 months from the filing date or on the date they are granted, whichever comes first. With a publication before the grant, a party can file an interference with the PTO but they have to KNOW about the filing. Most small concerns do not have time or the money to do this.
Furthermore, with the way that Congress has extended the terms for copyrights in the last 10 or 15 years something tells me that enacting such legislation would be an uphill fight.
Alas, if you have what you believe is a novel method or process, write it down, date it, have it notarized, and protect it as soon as you can.