Boycotting is a complete waste of time in this case. We are not talking about boycotting fur which has a negative stigma attached to it, nor are we walking about sticking it to some small company that doesn't want to play by the rules. Media is just too pervasive in society and the next round of teenyboppers can keep the big media companies afloat with their rampant desire for the next N'Sync and Power Rangers.
Beyond that, while there are many Slashdotters who have no problem skipping Star Wars or LOTR until it comes out on video, ask them to not purchase the next Resident Evil when it comes out. Video games (something geeks love) and the movies are hopelessly intertwined. When you support the video game or the console (hello!?! PS2 is made by SONY!) you support the DRM bills we all hate.
If the geeks on Slashdot want to make a difference, they should
Give some of their bucks to EFF or EPIC. That doesn't mean "don't go to the movies"... it just means offset your media habit with some donations to the people who fight for you!
Keep track of the latest bills that affect patents, copyrights, digital media, licensing, etc on Thomas, EFF or EPICs webpages.
Write (not e-mail) to your legislature politely expressing your views
Comment when Agencies such as the FTC, Commerce Department and the FTC make requests for comments on bills affecting your rights.
There are a lot of smart people reading Slashdot. I read a number of posts on any given topic that the author should just cut and paste into a letter, throw it in an envelope and send it to his or her legislator.
That is how you make a difference... not by boycotting.
WINDOWS is generic. Words that describe the main feature of a good or service are generic even though it seems like they would be only descriptive. Thus, ATTIC was held descriptive for fire-sprinklers that were only mounted in the attic of a house. See In re Central-Sprinkler Company
20 years ago, WINDOWS may have been descriptive, because GUI interfaces were not common. You may wonder why the PTO didn't hold it generic, because it was a main feature, but a window was not necessarily a main feature of software back then. The PTO won't refuse registrations for things that may become generic.
So descriptive words (like WINDOWS back in 1983) are capable of TM protection by showing secondary meaning... I believe MS did make that showing back in the day, thus, they received a registration.
MS is running into the classic problem that Bayer ran into with ASPIRIN (which is still a registered trademark BTW), Xerox ran into with XEROX a couple of years back. Their mark has become generic and there is no way that a generic word can function as a source identifier. At least, I guess until MS tries to make it so.:)
Still, I'd love to see somebody with the cajones enough to try to cancel the WINDOWS trademark.
Marks are compared using a two part test: Similarity in the marks and Similarity in the Goods and Services
Comparing the marks is easy: similarity in sound, appearance and meaning. Here, the marks are identical.
Comparing the goods and services is a little trickier: Similarity of Goods/Services, Similarity of Use or Users, Similarity of Marketing/Marketing Channels. I think the BIOS people have some strong arguments, but I don't think it is an open and shut case. The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (and I would bet, a couple of Courts) have held that there is no per se confusion in general, and specifically that there is no per se confusion for computer goods and servicess. Obviously, that's because computer goods and services run the gambit. For example, I don't think the consuming public would confuse identical trademarks for computer monitors and web design services. Both involve computers, but there has to be more than that.
Phoenix BIOS may be arguing that they are a famous mark. Takes less than you think to be "famous", but still, I don't know if they meet the requirement like Apple Computer does.
Apple pretty much has Apple wrapped up for anything related to computers, and they can argue sucessfully that they are a famous mark.
I can only guess that Mozilla doesn't want to deal with litigation and Phoenix BIOS knows that.
Yeah, it seems childish on Phoenix BIOS' part, but it is often a "slippery slope" argument when trademark holders don't protect their assets... they run the risk of letting their mark be "diluted" until it has very little value or goodwill anymore.
i have no problems paying a little extra for a distro to be installed on a harddrive, but 1.5 times more!?! No way! Yeah, yeah, its free as in freedom, not free beer, but cut me a break!
That seems like an awful waste of money, especially since most decent *nix distros are no brainers when it comes to the install. When you click through the install yourself and let it run its course, or they conveniently put it on the drive for you, it still has dozens of packages you don't want.
You can get a 180 gb Maxtor harddrive for 180 bucks... that's more than 4 times the storage and you still have 70 bucks to buy the distro. Thus, paying $250 for a 40 gb with the distro is just insane.
I couldn't justify the cost difference for myself and I don't think the company I worked for could justify it either. Unless they like wasting money and recouping it by charing more for their products and services.
MS has a lot of nerve charging for security when they already charge and arm and a leg for their OS and it is an unsecure piece of garbage! Beyond that it takes them six months to get a security update released, if they even acknowledge the "security hole" as an actual issue!
Why the heck should I pay extra for MS "security"!?!
Yes, but you can buy a used Celeron or Duron PC for 350 - 500 bucks, and even with a proprietary form factor, it is way more expandable than an X-box (without the hassle of modchips either). You can probably scrounge around your house and find a bunch of usable parts and build your own Celeron or Duron PC for 400 bucks (I know, because I just did it).
I think Linux on an X-box is pretty neat and just goes to show you what a bunch of programmers can do, but it seems to me that if your budget is small and you want to take full advantage of Linux as a network OS, you are better off with a used PC, and leave the X-box for the games.:)
I don't know if a patent system is good or bad, but it seems fair to me that if somebody does come up with something that meets the requirements of "an invention" that they should be able to reap the benefits of such work. Mostly from what I read on Slashdot, I think tech people think there are no other kinds of patents but software. And it is, to me anyway, ridiculous to give a 20 year monopoly on a piece of software that will not even remotely be the same thing at Revs 2, 3 and 4 as it was when the patent was applied for.
I just think there is middle ground between the ridiculous idea that there should be no patents to the idea of these "forever" monoplies (and to me, 20 years is forever for software).
The solution to me is a graduated term for patents depending on the area of the invention. 20 years seems reasonable to me for a new pharmceutical, but not for software or business methods.
Right now, the PTO is a "cash cow" due to recent events and the amount of money it makes for the Feds, but it is hardly a "money guzzling obstruction to society". It more than pays for itself and overall provides benefits to the people who applied for registrations (patent or trademark). Can it use some fixin'? You bet! But what agency or corporation doesn't need some fixin?
Heck, I don't know if the PTO (as compared to other IP Offices around the world) is good or bad. I can tell you that the examiners are overworked and that the PTO's internal "mission" switches from "quality" to "quantity" every couple of years. More often than not though, it is on quantity, because the Office is inudated with applications. Since the Office provides ample opportunity (as required by law) to make comment on proposed rules as well as its new "strategic plan", you should direct your comments to the PTO itself. Otherwise, I don't really think you have any room to complain about the US Patent system.
The Patent Office sees about a fifth of 1 billion dollars in fees that it makes for the government.
It seems pretty clear to me having (up-until-recently) worked at the Office, that the PTO is marked as a "cash cow" for the new Homeland Security Office. And why wouldn't it be when it makes all that money for the Feds!?!
I may be a minority on slashdot, but I don't think there is anything wrong with IP in general (whether it be copyrights, patents or trademarks. Yeah, am I definately biased because that is where I make my living. BUT the current system of extending patent and copyright term protection just isn't effective for the fast moving world of computer software and business methods. I think (or maybe, I hope) that over the next several years, the Feds will figure out that software and business methods are essentially without value after a few years on the market and reduce the term protection for those patents to a "reasonble" four or five years (I say "reasonable", because that seems reasonable to me based on what I know).
Thus, the inventor gets a chance to make his money when the invention has real value and the rest of the tech industry can spend the next five years coming up with a "better virtual moustrap."
You are absolutely right... most patents are not worth much, because the two basic standards for patents can almost always be blown away.
What isn't "prior art" anymore?
What isn't novel and non-obvious to someone in the field
Chances are somebody, somewhere has done it before or figured it was so obvious that it wasn't worth going after.
That being said, a patent attorney for a couple of hundred bucks can generally tell you if it is worth your while. Without getting into the scruples of lawyers, none of the patent attorneys I know would intentionally steer somebody into wasting a lot of money on something that couldn't get them a decent return.
There is a funny little exception to having a "technical degree" that if you have 20 hours of Physics credits (an "Associates" in physics?), you may sit for the Patent Bar. You'd have to read the requirements (probably on the PTO website). It's actually a method I've thought about pursuing since most law firms want people who have or are eligble for the Patent bar.
If you are basing your entire opinion on what is said in a forum (yeah, even one as cool as/.), then I'd say you need to read up on it more.
The point of getting a patent as a solo inventor is that once you have it, you then can go to some of the big boys in the field and say, "here is my patent, you can have a license for a million bucks."
I wouldn't claim that anybody at the Office is "your friend", but MOST examiners I know on either the patent or trademark side are willing to help a pro se a little bit. But asking for a little help is like anything else... don't abuse it!!!
Yeah, examiners on either side have a quota, but neither side rewards an examiner for denying applications. That's BS. The "quota" system is calculated by first actions and "final" actions whether that final is an allowance, an abandonment or a final Office Action.
Additionally, there is no "free" law degree for working at the Office. On the Patent side, you can work at the Office without a law degree and without having passed the patent bar. The "perk" of working at the Office is that after a couple of years you can waive into the patent bar without taking the patent exam (by all accounts, an exam that is harder than any regular bar exam). If you end up getting an examiner who is not an attorney, then you are probably lucky, because the attorneys on the patent side that I know routinely complain about the non-attorney examiners who ignore the law. To me, that would generally be a benefit.
Mostly, I'd say the Office is just like any other government agency or company... you get people who care and people who don't... you may get an examiner who "ruthlessly slam dunks" applications, but it is not the majority of them, even come end of the quarter.
Generally, the PTO's database is fairly difficult to search from the outside. While I work on the Trademark side of the Office, I can't imagine the Patent searching of the Office's database is easier.
Additionally, (most) attorneys know the language the PTO is looking for, as well as how to word your initial claim so that it is broad enough to cover everything. You don't have the experience to do that. It would be akin to asking a typist to set-up your network.
The USPTO makes it quite easy to file a patent or a trademark on-line for the average citizen (a pro se applicant). It is part of the Office's "strategic plan". However, I can tell you that the law for both patents and trademarks is full of little rules and requirements. Well over half of the applications I see on the Trademark side end up being abandoned 6 months later. I'd estimate that at least 80% of the pro se filed applications wind up abandoned for one reason or another. Unfortunately many of those end up abandoning because the applicant gets a long Office Action (i.e., a letter) from an examiner that has some fairly simple requirements that sound complicated becauase of the poorly worded form paragraphs the Office uses and the myriad of statutes that are cited.
At the same time, it never hurts to file and see what happens. The filing fees are a little steep, but if your basic searching has looked good, then maybe it will only require a little bit of phenagling to get it through. Chances are you will not get an allowance straight off the bat... it rarely happens on the Trademark side. I can only guess that it happens even less on the Patent side due to the complexities of the application.
Of course, being an attorney and one who works at the Office, I have to recommend that you get a patent attorney. 3 to 6,000 bucks is on the cheap side compared to what I've heard (over 10,000 bucks for a patent filing). But, one tip if you do file is that the USPTO's response time is generally six (6) months. There are exceptions so check the rules (Statute, CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), and MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure)... all available at the Office's website). If your application abandons, the fees to revive it are very high on the patent side (1,000 bucks). That's peanuts to a company like Dow or Microsoft, but a lot of beans for a solo inventor.
Finally, if you file yourself and it ends up looking good, but you get stuck, you can always go to an attorney at that point (That happens a lot, at least on the Trademark side... again, can't imagine it is much different on the patent side). Again though, I gotta recommend that you get an attorney... sorry if I sound like an attorney, but, well... I am one!:)
I appreciate your comments. Excellent points that have made me think differently regarding open source and the differences (and similarities) between it and closed OSes such as MacOS and Windows.
Also much appreciated the info on the ease of installing and configuring Linux (specif., SuSe) on PC boxes. One of my projects in the upcoming year or two is to build my own PC... and I certainly wasn't planning on putting Windows on it!:)
Yes, I realize now that it really is the responsibility of the distro to make it more or less configurable, more or less difficult to install. As an aside, I believe that may be a problem for Linux. I don't think the average user understands that Linux is the underlying "kernel" driving KDE or Gnome or whatever, that Linux is the underlying kernel in a RH, SuSe or Yellow Dog distro. Thus, Linux is interoperable no matter what platform you are on. People are accustomed to Microsoft: one company for the distro and nothing else generally works very well with it. Of course, that is anti-trust as we have finally seen!:)
I think I am referring to too many prefs in the GUIs, but that is where 99% of the home market wants to do their configuration. Very few of those users want to go back to the DOS command line days. Heck, my girlfriend tells me that Windows had been out a few years before she could actually LEAVE DOS, but now she would never want to go back to all that command line and function key stuff. While I'm more inclined to peer into the command line, I'd rather configure with a GUI.
Lack of polish is a problem. If you followed my post with my locked-up GUI, the solution was simply plugging my mouse back into my laptop. That's the kind of stuff that infuriates the average user and keeps them away from Linux. While I appreciate that the way a distro essentially makes money is by making you pay for support, it seems that a little ridiculous to have to call tech support for every little hiccup. Maybe I'll feel differently when I have a better handle on Linux, but right now, I truly am a Linux newbie.
I think where MacOS and, yeah, even Windows, has Linux beat is in stability of install and ease of configuration. Linux definiately wins on being able to tear the entire system apart to find a problem and make however you want. But then again, as I mentioned, that is why I think, for now, the best of both worlds is OS X.
I perhaps overstate my ineptitude, but you would be smart in never hiring me to do an install!:) Yellow Dog installs just fine, but there are numerous spots that can be hang-ups and makes Linux unusable for the average person.
For example, if I partition the drive wrong, then have to restart, I can't use that partition... that info was hidden in the little "pamphlet" I got with the distro. And had I downloaded it, I might have never seen that issue.
If I mistakenly say NO to whether I have OS X also on the drive, it never comes up as an option to boot into X during the bootloader. Now, I'm sure there is a way to re-configure it, but again, this goes back to the average home user: they don't want to be traipsing around the command line trying to figure out the odd-language of the shell AND they don't have you or another support person to fix it. That leads to frustration and that leads to Linux being know as a "Geek OS". I agree with you about corporate users, but they have you and other Support people to help them through.
Now, we get into using the OS. Right now, the GUI interface I installed in the YDL distro no longer works. All I get is the machine constantly flashing the text loging inteface, but I can't login because it keeps "resetting". I've fsck'ed it and all that, but it still doesn't work and I have no idea how to fix it. I booted from the rescue CD, but that only gets me to the command line. I don't know what to run, or what to edit. So I'll spend a few hours trying to figure it out, because I am interested in learning more about Linux. I'll post on the YDL forums and wait for some help, but the average user won't. Most of my friends, my girlfriend, my Mom... they just want to install it and have it work. No troubleshooting, no waiting, just work... even if it is a crappy OS like Windows! And I can't blame them... they aren't remotely geeky (yeah, I guess like you and me!):)
To tie this into a point (I hope!), that is where the configurability of Linux, to me, it is a disadvantage and why you get a lot of breathless calls saying "I don't know how X works". With Windows, you get "my machine crashed, please fix it". So it is a choice between thousands of little calls or dozens of big calls.
I don't know which is better, but being able to blame somebody (i.e., Microsoft) may be what people are willing to pay for.
-A
The problem is that your example is purely anecdotal. The majority of people don't even need near the customizability that Linux offers, which is why everybody pays for MS's garbage.
Second, the fact that this "older lady" likes to customize desktops and backgrounds in KDE does not mean that she can handle an installation in Linux. You can customize backgrounds and desktops in Winders and the installs are point and click.
Without an O'Reilly book and some gumption, I can't get Linux to install right all the time, even in a nice distro format like Yellow Dog! One wrong click and I have to start all over! And not to mention that somtimes, nice features such as the GUI login just stop working (which is where I am at right now with it!)
To me, that will always be the big problem with Linux: the techies don't want to take ANY option away from the average user, so they make Linux usable only to the technically inclined.
I liken it to my insistence on constantly showing my Mom options on MacOS, constantly giving her the "more configurrable" set-up... all I got was phone call after phone call to get help! I don't do that anymore... I just install it, set-up the minimum and let her go. Now, she's got OS X and I have Mail, Word and IE on her dock and that's it! She has one big partition, no swap space or Users paritions, harddrive and other icons are hidden on the desktop, I tell her to save everything in Home so she doesn't lose it and everything works just fine.
Linux won't ever do that, and that's why I sadly think it will never get to the average user machine.
Seems to me I've seen a bunch of articles on companies opting away from MS products. Dell offer Linux, IBM offering Linux, Dell (and other companies?) offering Word Perfect instead of some variation of Office.
In my opinion, this looks like the start of a stance by companies against MS. Time more than ever for ALL Linux distros to be more user friendly. Don't get more wrong, I think Linux is a great thing, but I still use OS X because I get a stable OS, PLUS the ability to futz with *nix.
The Linux "collective" needs to start making Linux less configurable (yes I said LESS) for the average user. The average user just doesn't care about all the configurability of Linux... heck, I'm a slightly above average user and I don't care!!! When the learning curve is less steep for Linux, or when somebody offers a distro (Lycoris?) that has less of a learning curve (a sort of Linux Home edition), then Linux will make some major inroads into the home.
That would be great to see... because everybody should have access to the world of computers and everybody shouldn't have to buy a new one ever 2 years to keep up with the low quality stuff MS puts out.
Slashdot Mirror
Boycotting is a complete waste of time in this case. We are not talking about boycotting fur which has a negative stigma attached to it, nor are we walking about sticking it to some small company that doesn't want to play by the rules. Media is just too pervasive in society and the next round of teenyboppers can keep the big media companies afloat with their rampant desire for the next N'Sync and Power Rangers.
Beyond that, while there are many Slashdotters who have no problem skipping Star Wars or LOTR until it comes out on video, ask them to not purchase the next Resident Evil when it comes out. Video games (something geeks love) and the movies are hopelessly intertwined. When you support the video game or the console (hello!?! PS2 is made by SONY!) you support the DRM bills we all hate.
If the geeks on Slashdot want to make a difference, they should
There are a lot of smart people reading Slashdot. I read a number of posts on any given topic that the author should just cut and paste into a letter, throw it in an envelope and send it to his or her legislator.
That is how you make a difference... not by boycotting.
-AWINDOWS is generic. Words that describe the main feature of a good or service are generic even though it seems like they would be only descriptive. Thus, ATTIC was held descriptive for fire-sprinklers that were only mounted in the attic of a house. See In re Central-Sprinkler Company
20 years ago, WINDOWS may have been descriptive, because GUI interfaces were not common. You may wonder why the PTO didn't hold it generic, because it was a main feature, but a window was not necessarily a main feature of software back then. The PTO won't refuse registrations for things that may become generic.
So descriptive words (like WINDOWS back in 1983) are capable of TM protection by showing secondary meaning... I believe MS did make that showing back in the day, thus, they received a registration.
MS is running into the classic problem that Bayer ran into with ASPIRIN (which is still a registered trademark BTW), Xerox ran into with XEROX a couple of years back. Their mark has become generic and there is no way that a generic word can function as a source identifier. At least, I guess until MS tries to make it so.
Still, I'd love to see somebody with the cajones enough to try to cancel the WINDOWS trademark.
unfortunately for Mozilla, there doesn't have to be "actual confusion" (i.e. infringement), just a likelihood of confusion.
There doesn't have to be a direct relation.
Marks are compared using a two part test: Similarity in the marks and Similarity in the Goods and Services
Comparing the marks is easy: similarity in sound, appearance and meaning. Here, the marks are identical.
Comparing the goods and services is a little trickier: Similarity of Goods/Services, Similarity of Use or Users, Similarity of Marketing/Marketing Channels. I think the BIOS people have some strong arguments, but I don't think it is an open and shut case. The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (and I would bet, a couple of Courts) have held that there is no per se confusion in general, and specifically that there is no per se confusion for computer goods and servicess. Obviously, that's because computer goods and services run the gambit. For example, I don't think the consuming public would confuse identical trademarks for computer monitors and web design services. Both involve computers, but there has to be more than that.
Phoenix BIOS may be arguing that they are a famous mark. Takes less than you think to be "famous", but still, I don't know if they meet the requirement like Apple Computer does.
Apple pretty much has Apple wrapped up for anything related to computers, and they can argue sucessfully that they are a famous mark.
I can only guess that Mozilla doesn't want to deal with litigation and Phoenix BIOS knows that.
Yeah, it seems childish on Phoenix BIOS' part, but it is often a "slippery slope" argument when trademark holders don't protect their assets... they run the risk of letting their mark be "diluted" until it has very little value or goodwill anymore.
i have no problems paying a little extra for a distro to be installed on a harddrive, but 1.5 times more!?! No way! Yeah, yeah, its free as in freedom, not free beer, but cut me a break!
That seems like an awful waste of money, especially since most decent *nix distros are no brainers when it comes to the install. When you click through the install yourself and let it run its course, or they conveniently put it on the drive for you, it still has dozens of packages you don't want.
You can get a 180 gb Maxtor harddrive for 180 bucks... that's more than 4 times the storage and you still have 70 bucks to buy the distro. Thus, paying $250 for a 40 gb with the distro is just insane.
I couldn't justify the cost difference for myself and I don't think the company I worked for could justify it either. Unless they like wasting money and recouping it by charing more for their products and services.
-AWhy in the hell would I spend 250 bucks on a 40 gig Maxtor harddrive with free software on it!?!
I can go to CompUSA, get robbed at 85 bucks for a Maxtor harddrive, order the stinking CD for 15 bucks and save myself 150 bucks!
If I want to get taken to the cleaners, I'll go buy Windows!
-AM$ used *nix servers, they wouldn't have this problem
-AI be more inclined to buy a switch for 50 bucks and a couple of ethernet cables. Far more useful in the long run!
Isn't that what the heck Samba is for anyway!?!
-AI'm surprised its not higher.
Imagine that people just want to be able to do something that the law permits!?!
At least until RIAA eviscerates the fair use section of the Copyright Act
Pardon me while I get assimilated! :)
MS has a lot of nerve charging for security when they already charge and arm and a leg for their OS and it is an unsecure piece of garbage! Beyond that it takes them six months to get a security update released, if they even acknowledge the "security hole" as an actual issue!
Why the heck should I pay extra for MS "security"!?!
What a joke!!!
-AYes, but you can buy a used Celeron or Duron PC for 350 - 500 bucks, and even with a proprietary form factor, it is way more expandable than an X-box (without the hassle of modchips either). You can probably scrounge around your house and find a bunch of usable parts and build your own Celeron or Duron PC for 400 bucks (I know, because I just did it).
I think Linux on an X-box is pretty neat and just goes to show you what a bunch of programmers can do, but it seems to me that if your budget is small and you want to take full advantage of Linux as a network OS, you are better off with a used PC, and leave the X-box for the games. :)
-AActually, I never said that.
I don't know if a patent system is good or bad, but it seems fair to me that if somebody does come up with something that meets the requirements of "an invention" that they should be able to reap the benefits of such work. Mostly from what I read on Slashdot, I think tech people think there are no other kinds of patents but software. And it is, to me anyway, ridiculous to give a 20 year monopoly on a piece of software that will not even remotely be the same thing at Revs 2, 3 and 4 as it was when the patent was applied for.
I just think there is middle ground between the ridiculous idea that there should be no patents to the idea of these "forever" monoplies (and to me, 20 years is forever for software).
The solution to me is a graduated term for patents depending on the area of the invention. 20 years seems reasonable to me for a new pharmceutical, but not for software or business methods.
Right now, the PTO is a "cash cow" due to recent events and the amount of money it makes for the Feds, but it is hardly a "money guzzling obstruction to society". It more than pays for itself and overall provides benefits to the people who applied for registrations (patent or trademark). Can it use some fixin'? You bet! But what agency or corporation doesn't need some fixin?
Heck, I don't know if the PTO (as compared to other IP Offices around the world) is good or bad. I can tell you that the examiners are overworked and that the PTO's internal "mission" switches from "quality" to "quantity" every couple of years. More often than not though, it is on quantity, because the Office is inudated with applications. Since the Office provides ample opportunity (as required by law) to make comment on proposed rules as well as its new "strategic plan", you should direct your comments to the PTO itself. Otherwise, I don't really think you have any room to complain about the US Patent system.
-AA general response to the original thread:
The Patent Office sees about a fifth of 1 billion dollars in fees that it makes for the government.
It seems pretty clear to me having (up-until-recently) worked at the Office, that the PTO is marked as a "cash cow" for the new Homeland Security Office. And why wouldn't it be when it makes all that money for the Feds!?!
I may be a minority on slashdot, but I don't think there is anything wrong with IP in general (whether it be copyrights, patents or trademarks. Yeah, am I definately biased because that is where I make my living. BUT the current system of extending patent and copyright term protection just isn't effective for the fast moving world of computer software and business methods. I think (or maybe, I hope) that over the next several years, the Feds will figure out that software and business methods are essentially without value after a few years on the market and reduce the term protection for those patents to a "reasonble" four or five years (I say "reasonable", because that seems reasonable to me based on what I know).
Thus, the inventor gets a chance to make his money when the invention has real value and the rest of the tech industry can spend the next five years coming up with a "better virtual moustrap."
-A
Prior art!?! The novel and non-obvious requirement is what's gettin' me!!!
-AWhat isn't "prior art" anymore?
What isn't novel and non-obvious to someone in the field
Chances are somebody, somewhere has done it before or figured it was so obvious that it wasn't worth going after.
That being said, a patent attorney for a couple of hundred bucks can generally tell you if it is worth your while. Without getting into the scruples of lawyers, none of the patent attorneys I know would intentionally steer somebody into wasting a lot of money on something that couldn't get them a decent return.
There is a funny little exception to having a "technical degree" that if you have 20 hours of Physics credits (an "Associates" in physics?), you may sit for the Patent Bar. You'd have to read the requirements (probably on the PTO website). It's actually a method I've thought about pursuing since most law firms want people who have or are eligble for the Patent bar.
-AIf you are basing your entire opinion on what is said in a forum (yeah, even one as cool as /.), then I'd say you need to read up on it more.
The point of getting a patent as a solo inventor is that once you have it, you then can go to some of the big boys in the field and say, "here is my patent, you can have a license for a million bucks."Seems worth 5 grand to me!! :)
I wouldn't claim that anybody at the Office is "your friend", but MOST examiners I know on either the patent or trademark side are willing to help a pro se a little bit. But asking for a little help is like anything else... don't abuse it!!!
Yeah, examiners on either side have a quota, but neither side rewards an examiner for denying applications. That's BS. The "quota" system is calculated by first actions and "final" actions whether that final is an allowance, an abandonment or a final Office Action.
Additionally, there is no "free" law degree for working at the Office. On the Patent side, you can work at the Office without a law degree and without having passed the patent bar. The "perk" of working at the Office is that after a couple of years you can waive into the patent bar without taking the patent exam (by all accounts, an exam that is harder than any regular bar exam). If you end up getting an examiner who is not an attorney, then you are probably lucky, because the attorneys on the patent side that I know routinely complain about the non-attorney examiners who ignore the law. To me, that would generally be a benefit.
Mostly, I'd say the Office is just like any other government agency or company... you get people who care and people who don't... you may get an examiner who "ruthlessly slam dunks" applications, but it is not the majority of them, even come end of the quarter.
-AGenerally, the PTO's database is fairly difficult to search from the outside. While I work on the Trademark side of the Office, I can't imagine the Patent searching of the Office's database is easier.
Additionally, (most) attorneys know the language the PTO is looking for, as well as how to word your initial claim so that it is broad enough to cover everything. You don't have the experience to do that. It would be akin to asking a typist to set-up your network.
The USPTO makes it quite easy to file a patent or a trademark on-line for the average citizen (a pro se applicant). It is part of the Office's "strategic plan". However, I can tell you that the law for both patents and trademarks is full of little rules and requirements. Well over half of the applications I see on the Trademark side end up being abandoned 6 months later. I'd estimate that at least 80% of the pro se filed applications wind up abandoned for one reason or another. Unfortunately many of those end up abandoning because the applicant gets a long Office Action (i.e., a letter) from an examiner that has some fairly simple requirements that sound complicated becauase of the poorly worded form paragraphs the Office uses and the myriad of statutes that are cited.
At the same time, it never hurts to file and see what happens. The filing fees are a little steep, but if your basic searching has looked good, then maybe it will only require a little bit of phenagling to get it through. Chances are you will not get an allowance straight off the bat... it rarely happens on the Trademark side. I can only guess that it happens even less on the Patent side due to the complexities of the application.
Of course, being an attorney and one who works at the Office, I have to recommend that you get a patent attorney. 3 to 6,000 bucks is on the cheap side compared to what I've heard (over 10,000 bucks for a patent filing). But, one tip if you do file is that the USPTO's response time is generally six (6) months. There are exceptions so check the rules (Statute, CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), and MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure)... all available at the Office's website). If your application abandons, the fees to revive it are very high on the patent side (1,000 bucks). That's peanuts to a company like Dow or Microsoft, but a lot of beans for a solo inventor.
Finally, if you file yourself and it ends up looking good, but you get stuck, you can always go to an attorney at that point (That happens a lot, at least on the Trademark side... again, can't imagine it is much different on the patent side). Again though, I gotta recommend that you get an attorney... sorry if I sound like an attorney, but, well... I am one!
Good luck! Hope it works out for ya!
-A
I appreciate your comments. Excellent points that have made me think differently regarding open source and the differences (and similarities) between it and closed OSes such as MacOS and Windows.
Also much appreciated the info on the ease of installing and configuring Linux (specif., SuSe) on PC boxes. One of my projects in the upcoming year or two is to build my own PC... and I certainly wasn't planning on putting Windows on it! :)
-A
Yes, I realize now that it really is the responsibility of the distro to make it more or less configurable, more or less difficult to install. As an aside, I believe that may be a problem for Linux. I don't think the average user understands that Linux is the underlying "kernel" driving KDE or Gnome or whatever, that Linux is the underlying kernel in a RH, SuSe or Yellow Dog distro. Thus, Linux is interoperable no matter what platform you are on. People are accustomed to Microsoft: one company for the distro and nothing else generally works very well with it. Of course, that is anti-trust as we have finally seen! :)
I think I am referring to too many prefs in the GUIs, but that is where 99% of the home market wants to do their configuration. Very few of those users want to go back to the DOS command line days. Heck, my girlfriend tells me that Windows had been out a few years before she could actually LEAVE DOS, but now she would never want to go back to all that command line and function key stuff. While I'm more inclined to peer into the command line, I'd rather configure with a GUI.
Lack of polish is a problem. If you followed my post with my locked-up GUI, the solution was simply plugging my mouse back into my laptop. That's the kind of stuff that infuriates the average user and keeps them away from Linux. While I appreciate that the way a distro essentially makes money is by making you pay for support, it seems that a little ridiculous to have to call tech support for every little hiccup. Maybe I'll feel differently when I have a better handle on Linux, but right now, I truly am a Linux newbie.
I think where MacOS and, yeah, even Windows, has Linux beat is in stability of install and ease of configuration. Linux definiately wins on being able to tear the entire system apart to find a problem and make however you want. But then again, as I mentioned, that is why I think, for now, the best of both worlds is OS X.
-A
I perhaps overstate my ineptitude, but you would be smart in never hiring me to do an install! :) Yellow Dog installs just fine, but there are numerous spots that can be hang-ups and makes Linux unusable for the average person.
For example, if I partition the drive wrong, then have to restart, I can't use that partition... that info was hidden in the little "pamphlet" I got with the distro. And had I downloaded it, I might have never seen that issue.
If I mistakenly say NO to whether I have OS X also on the drive, it never comes up as an option to boot into X during the bootloader. Now, I'm sure there is a way to re-configure it, but again, this goes back to the average home user: they don't want to be traipsing around the command line trying to figure out the odd-language of the shell AND they don't have you or another support person to fix it. That leads to frustration and that leads to Linux being know as a "Geek OS". I agree with you about corporate users, but they have you and other Support people to help them through.
Now, we get into using the OS. Right now, the GUI interface I installed in the YDL distro no longer works. All I get is the machine constantly flashing the text loging inteface, but I can't login because it keeps "resetting". I've fsck'ed it and all that, but it still doesn't work and I have no idea how to fix it. I booted from the rescue CD, but that only gets me to the command line. I don't know what to run, or what to edit. So I'll spend a few hours trying to figure it out, because I am interested in learning more about Linux. I'll post on the YDL forums and wait for some help, but the average user won't. Most of my friends, my girlfriend, my Mom... they just want to install it and have it work. No troubleshooting, no waiting, just work... even if it is a crappy OS like Windows! And I can't blame them... they aren't remotely geeky (yeah, I guess like you and me!) :)
To tie this into a point (I hope!), that is where the configurability of Linux, to me, it is a disadvantage and why you get a lot of breathless calls saying "I don't know how X works". With Windows, you get "my machine crashed, please fix it". So it is a choice between thousands of little calls or dozens of big calls.
I don't know which is better, but being able to blame somebody (i.e., Microsoft) may be what people are willing to pay for.-A
The problem is that your example is purely anecdotal. The majority of people don't even need near the customizability that Linux offers, which is why everybody pays for MS's garbage.
Second, the fact that this "older lady" likes to customize desktops and backgrounds in KDE does not mean that she can handle an installation in Linux. You can customize backgrounds and desktops in Winders and the installs are point and click.Without an O'Reilly book and some gumption, I can't get Linux to install right all the time, even in a nice distro format like Yellow Dog! One wrong click and I have to start all over! And not to mention that somtimes, nice features such as the GUI login just stop working (which is where I am at right now with it!)
To me, that will always be the big problem with Linux: the techies don't want to take ANY option away from the average user, so they make Linux usable only to the technically inclined.
I liken it to my insistence on constantly showing my Mom options on MacOS, constantly giving her the "more configurrable" set-up... all I got was phone call after phone call to get help! I don't do that anymore... I just install it, set-up the minimum and let her go. Now, she's got OS X and I have Mail, Word and IE on her dock and that's it! She has one big partition, no swap space or Users paritions, harddrive and other icons are hidden on the desktop, I tell her to save everything in Home so she doesn't lose it and everything works just fine.
Linux won't ever do that, and that's why I sadly think it will never get to the average user machine.
-A
Seems to me I've seen a bunch of articles on companies opting away from MS products. Dell offer Linux, IBM offering Linux, Dell (and other companies?) offering Word Perfect instead of some variation of Office.
In my opinion, this looks like the start of a stance by companies against MS. Time more than ever for ALL Linux distros to be more user friendly. Don't get more wrong, I think Linux is a great thing, but I still use OS X because I get a stable OS, PLUS the ability to futz with *nix.
The Linux "collective" needs to start making Linux less configurable (yes I said LESS) for the average user. The average user just doesn't care about all the configurability of Linux... heck, I'm a slightly above average user and I don't care!!! When the learning curve is less steep for Linux, or when somebody offers a distro (Lycoris?) that has less of a learning curve (a sort of Linux Home edition), then Linux will make some major inroads into the home.
That would be great to see... because everybody should have access to the world of computers and everybody shouldn't have to buy a new one ever 2 years to keep up with the low quality stuff MS puts out.
-A