I should point out - their 'heritage' now apparently includes rocket-propelled harpoons and chainsaws.
If they want to preserve their ancient ways, fine. Hunt whales from small canoes with bone spears. But don't use a chainsaw and claim you're 'preserving your heritage'. Heritage is not a buffet. Either do it as your ancestors did to keep in touch with your past, or man up and move on.
Yeah, and at some point in the past they upgraded from bone to stone hewn tools to metal. At some point in the past they have made improvements to the designs of their boats. Exactly which revision of their "heritage" are you saying they have to stick to for it to satisfy you?
Unless one of their cultural traditions is "technological statism" then I don't see the problem. They didn't "man up and move on" when they invented a better harpoon; it was considered the natural continuation of the same heritage. Because there's a lot more to the underlying cultural heritage than a specific hunting technique.
Or do you think the plains natives should have stopped their traditional bison hunts after they aquired the horse from European settlers? I think in both cases the spiritual and cultural significance of the hunt was not fundamentally erased just because they figured out a new and better way to do it.
The difference in this case is that the Inuit are doing it on a small scale, in a way that will not harm the whale population. Large scale commercial whaling is what has wiped out so many of the whales. Ten Inuit tribes who collectively are allowed to kill 250 whales over 5 years is not going to cause whales to go extinct. Japan's fishing operations if allowed to go unchecked would.
It's like how clear cutting the entire amazon rain forest for lumber and slaying all of the monkeys for exotic dishes would be very bad, but a small group of indiginous peoples occasionally cutting down a tree for building materials and killing monkeys for food is just fine.
It's not cultural relativism, it's plain ol' relativism. Sometimes it is the scale of something that makes it good or bad, and this is one of those cases (as are many cases of ecological preservation).
Now, since the scale of the activity matters, we can't let everyone whale, and we can't let anyone whale without limit. So who do we allow to whale, with limits? Well that's where culture comes in. The Inuit get first dibs. But it's not "okay" because they're doing it, it's "okay" because it's limited and sustainable.
"The 49-foot male whale died when it was shot with a similar projectile last month, and the older device was found buried beneath its blubber as hunters carved it with a chain saw for harvesting."
In other words, the whale fell victim to a modern version of the same weapon it survived in the 1800s.
One thing at a time, man. They can only have so many revelations at a time.
Obviously the price is significant, only complete morons thought it wasn't, by which I mean Sony execs. They're slowly figuring out that a $600 console is inherently unappealing and will never be mass-market.
Once they've wrapped their head around that concept, then they can start figuring out the other problems with their strategy.
You keep saying things...then expecting me to just accept them because you say them. You'd make a good politician. That is not a compliment.
You keep saying things then changing what it was that you meant retroactively. Which is exactly what a politician does to try to avoid sounding like they were stupid or lying.
Oh hey, is this your job solving "real world problems"? Sounds more like you are the real world problem.
U r dumb.
This line encapsulates as much knowledge of the subject of patents as everything else you've said. (in case you can't tell, that quantity is zero).
In the days of new video cards costing nearly as much as a PS3, I don't really buy the whole price tag thing.
Yeah, you'll notice that the graphics cards that cost that much are a niche product. The mainstream mass-market products are much cheaper. Whoa, just like the current console generation. Weird.
Nobody who balks at the price of a PS3 is buying a $600 video card either.
Therefore, your desire to get a patent is why you go get a patent, for which part of the process is submitting an application. You really have to twist hard to misapply what I said.
Missaply to what? You said that the problem with the USPTO was not the root cause of bad patents being granted, it was wanting a patent. Wanting patents is not the cause of the problem, because if someone wants a bad patent that patent should not be granted regardless. The USPTO not doing its job is the problem. I understand what you said perfectly, and you're wrong. Again, we don't have any perpetual motion machines patents, and it has nothing to do with people not wanting them. Get it?
I see. When I try to answer out of your framework, you complain that I am not in your framework. When I answer WITHIN your framework, you accuse me of exiting my own framework. In YOUR WORLD, there are protections. That's how I approached that answer. You cannot have it both ways.
I made that point in the futile attempt to get your brain to actually engage and think about the problem with allowing patents that should never have been granted due to the existence of prior art to be granted and become de facto legal until they can be challenged in a court. I was assuming, since you keep SAYING you know things about the patent system, that you would be able to figure out some of the practical problems with this approach. Obviously I expected to much, and obviously you don't actually know anything.
The only "framework" that I care about is reality. In REALITY, documentable prior art is protection against subsequent patenting by a different party, but if the patent is granted anyway and the courts forced to assume the job of verifying its validity, then that protection becomes more difficult to apply. Remember that the stance of the courts is that once granted a patent is de facto valid. Again, if you have three brain cells you should be able to list at least a few practical problems that arise IN REALITY due to this approach.
In other words, you should be able to answer your own question of "If they DID take pains to protect it, then what's the problem?"
But you can't, because you really are as stupid and ignorant as you first appeared. It wasn't just that you're a piss-poor communicator.
Then there's a reason to challenge the patent. Really, I don't see how any patent office is supposed to be able to keep up with everyone in the country and whether or not they thought of something first. I agree that duplicate patents are a problem, but those ARE NOT what the discussion was about. Your claim was that the patent office should know if the person submitting the application thought of the idea or not, which is not possible. It is up to whoever disputes the patent to prove their case.
It's not possible for the USPTO to have done exactly what I did and go on the internet and find an example of this very idea that predates the patent application? You're shitting me! They don't have to keep up with everyone in the country, but they can and should perform basic due dilligence to make sure there aren't obvious examples of prior art. Their inspectors should have to keep up with the state of the art. They don't have to know what everyone on earth has been thinking, but they damn well should have a subscription to EE Times, Journal of the ACM, and so on. They should have access to an internet search engine.
The court challenge of a patent is supposed to be a failsafe in the cases where something slips through the cracks of the USPTO review process. The courts should not be the default place where validity of patents is decided in every case.
So now you know the motivations of people you have never met? Maybe you should get a job in the patent office.
I said "most likely", as in an educated guess, not omniscient knowledge. That's the kind of thing you have to do when solving real world problems where you have incomplete
YOU ASSUMED that I was not aware of something because I didn't explicitly state it, the VERY THING of which you accuse me.
But even when given the chance to reword yourself from the beginning, the same foolish assumptions appear. Really, you're a big ball of self-contradiction and it's hilarious.
What a shocker! Wrong again. You're the Texas Rangers of./
Apparently they just got a good draft pick, because the sacrifice bunt to set up the steal worked perfectly.
It's sometimes a trick to get a retard who knows they are wrong to actually address the question directly, but you stack the bases right, and they set themselves up perfectly for you to knock em down. And believe me, it is perfectly obvious now why you were reluctant.
Exactly. They are NOT responsible for causing someone to want to patent something. Exactly as I said, and in DIRECT contradiction to what you said.
Okay, so if you aren't a retard, then you should be able to show me where I said that USPTO is responsible for someone wanting to patent something.
People wanting to patent something is the cause of things getting patented. I'm truly sorry that I had to explain that to you.
Yeah, you should be sorry that you revealed just how stupid you are regarding the patent process. Here's a multiple choice question:
Q: Why are there no patents on perpetual motion machines? a) Nobody has ever wanted to patent a perpetual motion machine. b) The USPTO rejects patent applications for perpetual motion machines.
The correct answer also reveals why what you said was stupid. People wanting to patent something is the cause of patent applications. The USPTO screening process is responsible for patent grants. Wanting a patent does not cause it to be patented! And before you say something equally retarded like "without the application there would be no grant", this is true, but it is also true that without the Big Bang there would be no grant. The Big Bang is not responsible for bad patents being granted. People making bad patent applications is not responsible for bad patents. USPTO granting the patent is the critical and necessary step and the failure of USPTO to screen bad patents is what is responsible for bad patents being granted. Again note: granted, NOT applied for.
But you go ahead and want yourself up some patents and see how that works. The USPTO is responsible for granting patents and for screening patents, and once again this is a matter of law. Patent applications are not the problem. Patent grants are. Patent grants are the sole responsibility of USPTO.
Also, your belief that USPTO should not be responsible for what patents are granted, basically that the de facto standard of today where all patents are granted and the courts will straighten them out, will be relevent in a minute.
Right. Because when you don't understand something, it's obviously everyone else's fault but yours.
No, but in this specific case, it is only one person's fault: Yours.
Here you are apparently unaware of the difference between 'can't' and 'won't'.
I'm well aware of the difference, and once I figured out how you think, it was a trivial task to get you to prove you know the difference by actually answering the fucking question, so the gambit worked. The funny part is that thusly, in the end, you neither can't nor won't.
"If it was so 'clearly obvious', why did it take until 1996 before anyone thought of it? Why didn't YOU patent it first, if it was so damn obvious to you?"
Why, if the idea were so obvious, were no measures, patenting or otherwise, taken to protect this so clearly obvious idea? Why should I care who owns the patent when whoever came up with the idea did not care enough about it to protect it in any way?
You can't possibly infer that any of these were the case, because AS YOU CLAIM TO ALREADY KNOW none of these things necessarily stop the new patent grant. So BASED ON WHAT YOU CLAIM TO ALREADY KNOW, you cannot possibly use the grant of the current patent to infer that it was not protected, or even not already patented! So once again we're left with the unlikely situation that you asked a question you already knew the answer to.
If they DID take pains to protect it, then what's the problem? The patent can be challenged and will be removed or reassigned to the proper inventor if proper measures were taken.
I like how the only question that you don't already claim to know the answer to is the one that is most distant from what you originally wrote. Is it clear how you failed to communicate? Honestly, have some self awareness. And now it's time to prov
You said that they 'didn't think to patent it' but failed to go any further about what they *did*.
And you assumed that meant nothing. Indicating it is you who is not aware of what else they could do.
I said that BEFORE your insane accusation.
No, read my second post again, BEFORE you started to insert references to non-patent forms of protection into your posts.
What's sad is your inability to admit that you were wrong.
What's sad is that you still can't explain your original statement and prove that it is not you who are wrong. Your retroactive statements -- which STILL show great ignorance about patents and prior art -- don't explain your original retarded comment. Because you can't do it, you know it was wrong and stupid, and you just can't admit it.
The result of natural selection frequently isn't the "best" solution but rather whatever happens to work.
Exactly, and it's a popular misconception that evolution is always about the "best" and anything that is 1% "better" is going to dominate. Which simply isn't true, or our appendix would have vanished long ago. The fact is that appendicitis isn't enough of a problem to select against it strongly. The appendix just doesn't help, so the genes to maintain it aren't selected for either, resulting in the slowly fading vestigal organ.
To emphasize this fact, I like to describe natural selection not as "survival of the fittest" but rather "survival of the sufficiently fit".
You even said "The whole reason these submarine patents become problems is because someone did think of it, but didn't think to patent it." This DOES NOT SAY that they are taking a bunch of other measures to protect their invention. It says they did not think to patent it. That infers that they were either unaware of the patent system (unlikely) or they didn't care enough to protect their invention. You didn't say that they couldn't afford to patent it, or that the man was keeping them from patenting it somehow, or that they didn't WANT to patent it. You said they didn't THINK to patent it. If that wasn't what you meant, you should have said something different.
Once again you "infer" that because someone doesn't patent something, that they don't care to protect their invention at all. That is an utterly retarded inference. No I DID NOT SAY they took a bunch of measures to protect their invention. I ASSUMED that anyone reading the statement would have the three brain cells in their head to rub together and produce a bunch of hypothetical situations. I DID NOT assume you were so retarded that you would see the absence of a statement, and make the most stupid inference about what wasn't said possible. If as you pretend you were already aware of the many reasons someone wouldn't think to patent something, then you could have picked any of those reasons instead of assuming the most retarded thing possible.
But now I realize that's pretty much how you work. You make yourself look retarded through retarded assumptions, then turn around and say "Oh, I didn't mean that! You just didn't tell me not to assume that!" Well why did you assume in the first place, moron?
It's not a contradiction. In fact, it was within the SAME POST and was what, one or two sentences later?
It contradicts every previous post wherein you displayed complete ignorance of any method of protecting inventions that wasn't a patent.
I mean, your first post was " Why didn't YOU patent it first, if it was so damn obvious to you?" again displaying a mentality that equates patents with invention. You haven't given any alternative interpretation for this, you've only said that, retroactively, everything you said that LOOKED like you didn't know shit actually was agreeing with me.
Instead of talking about your retarded inferences, can you actually talk about what YOU mean? What was "Why didn't YOU patent it first, if it was so damn obvious to you?" supposed to mean?
So the USPTO is responsible for other people deciding to patent something which is already patented? Perhaps they don't provide a good enough screening process but they did not cause the person to want to patent anything. They also are not responsible for knowing psychically that someone else thought of something first. To think that they would be able to know that the person applying for the patent heard about it from someone else and did not think of it is ludicrous. That is the whole point of having a legal remedy for someone else doing this.
USPTO is responsible for granting or rejecting patent applications. They are responsible for the screening process. They are responsible for the step between someone wanting a patent, and their receiving the patent. Just because someone wants a patent does not absolve the USPTO of their responsibility of determining whether that patent should be granted!
Also, when you say "knowing psychically that someone else thought of something first", I hope to god this is just another case of you picking the most retarded thing to say possible, even though you know that USPTO can and has done actual research to determine this in the past? This ties in to the methods of protecting your invention that don't involve patents, btw. You are aware of those, right, and how this ties in to the USPTO application process, right? You keep saying you are, but I'm not seeing any evidence.
Does not follow from anything that has been said, you do not have to patent your idea to protect it, and you knew this.
The whole reason these submarine patents become problems is because someone did think of it, but didn't think to patent it.
I'll just let you answer you.
That's only an answer if you are still clinging to the retarded and wrong notion that the only way to protect your idea is to patent it.
I thought you said you knew that wasn't true?
Can you actually demonstrate that you are actually aware that this isn't true by not making logical connections that require it to be true? Honestly, claiming you know something then immediately displaying ignorance about it is pretty damn sad.
I turn on the laser, wait a few years or so, then I shift the beam a few degrees. In that one or two seconds I shift that beam, altering the direction it points past a certain distance by a light-year or so, does that beam (knowing it will "bend" if perceived from outside my vantage point) point suddenly move faster than light and travel a few light years in just a few seconds?
Yes, you could make the dot of your laser pointer on some distant object appear to move faster than the speed of light by waving your pointer back and forth.
The reason I say "appear", and the reason this doesn't violate Relativity, is because the dot is not really moving. The dot is not really an object; it is not a collection of glowing matter/photons that moves along the distant surface as you wave the laser pointer. It is merely the point at which the laser pointer beam hits a surface. Relativity does not constrain logical reference points in that way.
The only thing that is actually moving, the photons coming out of the laser pointer, are travelling at c. You're just changing the trajectory of those photons.
Oh, right, if you're lucky you can pick between the cable company and the phone company. So the "choice" most people get around here is between AT&T or Time Warner. Now which one do you pick if you don't want to support needless censorship on behalf of the media industry?!
That's true, but photons do have momentum, and this is the concept by which solar sails work. My first problem with the radiometer trick was the idea that the momentum of photons would be sufficient to overcome the friction of the axle -- when you turn on a lightbulb, do you get pummeled to the ground? No, because photons have tiny amounts of momentum.
Whats funny is if the sun imploded you would never know (except for the loss of light of course) because you would be the same distance from the center of mass with the same total mass.
Contrarywise, if the sun exploded then we would notice as soon as the sphere of exploded solar mass expanded past our orbit, at which point we would drift away from our orbit.
Look, I even gave you free ammo by forgetting to hit 'preview'! Your lucky day!
I went by what you said. I said that what you said was illogical. You said that what I said (which was what you said) was illogical. Thanks for agreeing with me!
No, I never said that, I never said anything about someone patenting something they never heard of. You completely hallucinated the bit about "patenting something without knowing it exists", and by starting from this illogical and hallucinatory statement, you reverse-engineered your way to what I actually said, and what I actually said wasn't illogical in the least. So no, I'm not agreeing with you, unless you are saying you are an idiot who can't read, in which case I do agree completely.
Straw man. I certainly did NOT say that. I said that they were most likely NOT IGNORANT of patents. Learn to read.
Yes you did.
Me: "Your equation of "thought of it" with "patent it" is really exemplary of the problem." You: "How can someone patent something without thinking of it unless the original inventor did not patent it themselves?... Are you seriously trying to state that inventors don't know about the patent system?"
Inference: You can conceive of no reason why someone wouldn't patent an invention other than not knowing about the patent system.
If the inference is wrong and you were aware of other reasons but for some reason chose to say the above instead, then you displayed deliberate stupidity by picking this ludicrous statement. Just so you know, deliberate stupidity is the same as real stupidity, only more pathetic and sad.
Hmm. Kind of shoots your theory down, doesn't it? Isn't that EXACTLY what Franklin did? And didn't I just give as advice exactly what he did? And didn't you use him as an example? So if my advice is so bad, why are you using as an example someone who took it?
First you said " If you want to invent something but not patent it, you should probably keep it to yourself." and that is utterly stupid advice, and that's what I replied to saying so. You're right though, I should have read more carefully, knowing you would start to contradict yourself as the inevitable back-pedalling began.
Well, then you should have no fear. The gubmint will step in and shut down those nasty people. Right? Right?
If it comes up in a lawsuit, then yeah, they probably will. One of the problems is that it requires a lawsuit to get the issue decided.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion. Obviously patenting things that are already patented is EXACTLY the same as patenting something that hasn't been patented yet. That last sentence was sarcasm.
It's not completely irrelevant, because the root problem with the USPTO is the cause of both things being patented which already are, and things being patented that had already been invented by another inventor. The system is oblivious to both cases. If you can't see the relevance of a common root cause, then you should probably never take a job in engineering (or anything else that involves real-world problem solving).
I have no idea. I didn't tell them not to come crying to someone who doesn't understand the situation and gives terrible advice. I told them not to come crying to me.
Equivalent statements. Most people are exposed to the concept in algebra class.
I said that if you do nothing to protect your invention I don't want to hear you crying about it.
Which, given how this whole thing was predicated by you saying "why didn't they patent it?!" strongly indicates you thought patents were the only protection. And if not, then that strongly indicates that this whole thread was your retarded pointless babbling.
I mean seriously, it's pretty hilarious. If you really WERE aware that 1) some people invent things and don't patent them despite knowing about patents and 2) you don't need to patent your invention to protect it from being
I went by what you said. I said that what you said was illogical. You said that what I said (which was what you said) was illogical. Thanks for agreeing with me!
No, I never said that, I never said anything about someone patenting something they never heard of. You completely hallucinated the bit about "patenting something without knowing it exists", and by starting from this illogical and hallucinatory statement, you reverse-engineered your way to what I actually said, and what I actually said wasn't illogical in the least. So no, I'm not agreeing with you, unless you are saying you are an idiot who can't read, in which case I do agree completely.
Straw man. I certainly did NOT say that. I said that they were most likely NOT IGNORANT of patents. Learn to read.
Yes you did.
Me: "Your equation of "thought of it" with "patent it" is really exemplary of the problem." You: "How can someone patent something without thinking of it unless the original inventor did not patent it themselves?... Are you seriously trying to state that inventors don't know about the patent system?"
Inference: You can conceive of no reason why someone wouldn't patent an invention other than not knowing about the patent system.
If the inference is wrong and you were aware of other reasons but for some reason chose to say the above instead, then you displayed deliberate stupidity by picking this ludicrous statement. Just so you know, deliberate stupidity is the same as real stupidity, only more pathetic and sad.
Hmm. Kind of shoots your theory down, doesn't it? Isn't that EXACTLY what Franklin did? And didn't I just give as advice exactly what he did? And didn't you use him as an example? So if my advice is so bad, why are you using as an example someone who took it?
First you said " If you want to invent something but not patent it, you should probably keep it to yourself." and that is utterly stupid advice, and that's what I replied to saying so. You're right though, I should have read more carefully, knowing you would start to contradict yourself as the inevitable back-pedalling began.
Well, then you should have no fear. The gubmint will step in and shut down those nasty people. Right? Right?
If it comes up in a lawsuit, then yeah, they probably will. One of the problems is that it requires a lawsuit to get the issue decided.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion. Obviously patenting things that are already patented is EXACTLY the same as patenting something that hasn't been patented yet. That last sentence was sarcasm.
It's not completely irrelevant, because the root problem with the USPTO is the cause of both things being patented which already are, and things being patented that had already been invented by another inventor. The system is oblivious to both cases. If you can't see the relevance of a common root cause, then you should probably never take a job in engineering (or anything else that involves real-world problem solving).
I have no idea. I didn't tell them not to come crying to someone who doesn't understand the situation and gives terrible advice. I told them not to come crying to me.
Equivalent statements. Most people are exposed to the concept in algebra class.
I said that if you do nothing to protect your invention I don't want to hear you crying about it.
Which, given how this whole thing was predicated by you saying "why didn't they patent it?!" strongly indicates you thought patents were the only protection. And if not, then that strongly indicates that this whole thread was your retarded pointless babbling.
I mean seriously, it's pretty hilarious. If you really WERE aware that 1) some people invent things and don't patent them despite knowing about patents and 2) you don't need to patent your invention to protect it from being patented by other people then that means:
"Why didn't YOU patent it first, if it was so damn obvious to you?" have a point? What were you actually trying to say in your first post? Because what you actually said was retarded.
Why should anyone believe your statement that they lack cognition and memory?
Well they asked the plants if they had cognition and memory, and the plants said "no". Then they asked if they meant they didn't have either or just didn't have both, and the plant said "both of what?" So there ya go.
It is not logical to say that someone can patent something without knowing it exists. If that person did not think of it, then they had to see it somewhere. If they saw it somewhere, and get it patented, then we can assume that the original inventor(s) did not patent it
So by starting with an illogical scenario that is not what I was describing, you eventually work your way through the logic to what I was actually getting at. Congratulations!
As to WHY they didn't patent it...what does that matter?
Mostly because you somehow conceived the inane concept that people don't patent because they are ignorant of the existence of patents. Apparently you had no idea why someone wouldn't get a patent on something, and was aiming to inform you. It will also become relevent to your advice regarding not patenting:
If you want to invent something but not patent it, you should probably keep it to yourself. If you don't, someone else might 1. think of it themselves and patent it or 2. hear about it somehow, which will have to involve you telling someone about it, and patent it.
Which would have completely defeated the purpose of Franklin not patenting his stove in the first place. Your advice is terrible. And not just in Ben's case.
If you keep your invention to yourself, then truly independent discovery is more likely, as should be obvious. If you keep your invention to yourself, and someone finds out about it anyway, steals it, then patents it, then you won't have any proof that you actually invented it first. Dissimenating information about your idea is important because it provides this evidence.
You are basically saying "I have no sympathy for people who do nothing to protect their ideas... But if you don't want to patent, don't do anything to protect your ideas!" That's very foolish.
Do you think that patents are the only way inventions are protected, and that if an inventor doesn't get a patent then everyone else is free to steal their idea and patent it? Or do you just normally give advice in direct opposition to your stated moral position?
Do you really want to get into things in this world that don't work how they are 'supposed to work'? Seriously? You should be more concerned with how things ACTUALLY work than how they are 'supposed to' work. Especially where money is involved.
I just gave you an example where it did ACTUALLY work that way. And by "supposed to work" I meant "as a matter of law". I do hope you think that it is the responsibility of "someone else", aka the government, to "protect them", when such protection is a matter of law.
The problems with the patent office that prevent it from working that way today also break a lot of other aspects of patent law as well. The office's mentality of "grant the patent and let the courts sort out any problems" has resulted in things getting patented that were already patented. Patent law is so screwed up now because the USPTO has gotten a free pass to ignore the law. That doesn't just affect people who don't patent their inventions, obviously.
The point is that YOU have to do SOMETHING to protect YOUR invention. If you don't, don't come crying to me about it.
Why would anyone come crying to someone who doesn't understand the situation and gives terrible advice? Just so you know, the SOMETHING doesn't have to be getting a patent.
You keep making inane assumptions. First that inventing and patenting were the same, then that anyone who doesn't patent an invention must not know about patents, and finally that if you don't get a patent then you are doing nothing to protect your invention. All of those assumptions are wrong, and that's why you are too.
So...I think you have a logical breakdown here. How can someone patent something without thinking of it unless the original inventor did not patent it themselves?
Nothing gets past you. Now how is that a logical breakdown exactly? There are plenty of reasons why someone would not patent their invention despite obviously knowing that patents exist. They may not be able to afford the fees, they may believe the idea is too obvious to be patentable (and without being able to afford a patent lawyer this is difficult to determine), they may simply not want to patent the idea and put it behind a government-enforced monopoly in the first place. Despite what you may think, none of these things entitles another party to then steal the idea and then patent it, either ethically or more importantly legally.
Benjamin Franklin, for example, invented the Franklin Stove which was much more efficient at heating rooms without filling the room with smoke. He did not patent it because he wanted to make it as easy as possible for everyone to use it. Someone else came along and made an improvement to the Franklin Stove, and he patented his improvement. The original Franklin Stove, however, was still not covered by any patents and anyone was free to make it. This is how it is supposed to work.
Had this other person tried to patent the Franklin Stove, and tried to sue someone for making one, then the defendent would have been able to have that patent invalidated by proving that it was Franklin who invented it, not the patent holder. You cannot steal someone's idea and claim patent protection on it merely because the person you stole it from did not patent it themselves. You do not have to patent an invention.
Slashdot Mirror
I should point out - their 'heritage' now apparently includes rocket-propelled harpoons and chainsaws.
If they want to preserve their ancient ways, fine. Hunt whales from small canoes with bone spears. But don't use a chainsaw and claim you're 'preserving your heritage'. Heritage is not a buffet. Either do it as your ancestors did to keep in touch with your past, or man up and move on.
Yeah, and at some point in the past they upgraded from bone to stone hewn tools to metal. At some point in the past they have made improvements to the designs of their boats. Exactly which revision of their "heritage" are you saying they have to stick to for it to satisfy you?
Unless one of their cultural traditions is "technological statism" then I don't see the problem. They didn't "man up and move on" when they invented a better harpoon; it was considered the natural continuation of the same heritage. Because there's a lot more to the underlying cultural heritage than a specific hunting technique.
Or do you think the plains natives should have stopped their traditional bison hunts after they aquired the horse from European settlers? I think in both cases the spiritual and cultural significance of the hunt was not fundamentally erased just because they figured out a new and better way to do it.
The difference in this case is that the Inuit are doing it on a small scale, in a way that will not harm the whale population. Large scale commercial whaling is what has wiped out so many of the whales. Ten Inuit tribes who collectively are allowed to kill 250 whales over 5 years is not going to cause whales to go extinct. Japan's fishing operations if allowed to go unchecked would.
It's like how clear cutting the entire amazon rain forest for lumber and slaying all of the monkeys for exotic dishes would be very bad, but a small group of indiginous peoples occasionally cutting down a tree for building materials and killing monkeys for food is just fine.
It's not cultural relativism, it's plain ol' relativism. Sometimes it is the scale of something that makes it good or bad, and this is one of those cases (as are many cases of ecological preservation).
Now, since the scale of the activity matters, we can't let everyone whale, and we can't let anyone whale without limit. So who do we allow to whale, with limits? Well that's where culture comes in. The Inuit get first dibs. But it's not "okay" because they're doing it, it's "okay" because it's limited and sustainable.
FTA:
"The 49-foot male whale died when it was shot with a similar projectile last month, and the older device was found buried beneath its blubber as hunters carved it with a chain saw for harvesting."
In other words, the whale fell victim to a modern version of the same weapon it survived in the 1800s.
One thing at a time, man. They can only have so many revelations at a time.
Obviously the price is significant, only complete morons thought it wasn't, by which I mean Sony execs. They're slowly figuring out that a $600 console is inherently unappealing and will never be mass-market.
Once they've wrapped their head around that concept, then they can start figuring out the other problems with their strategy.
Which itself only has 38% broadband penetration. What, a market of 10 million people in a very dense area isn't enough for our ISPs?
Abuses lead to other abuses, which is why we must diligently and aggressively punish abuse.
You keep saying things...then expecting me to just accept them because you say them. You'd make a good politician. That is not a compliment.
You keep saying things then changing what it was that you meant retroactively. Which is exactly what a politician does to try to avoid sounding like they were stupid or lying.
Oh hey, is this your job solving "real world problems"? Sounds more like you are the real world problem.
U r dumb.
This line encapsulates as much knowledge of the subject of patents as everything else you've said. (in case you can't tell, that quantity is zero).
In the days of new video cards costing nearly as much as a PS3, I don't really buy the whole price tag thing.
Yeah, you'll notice that the graphics cards that cost that much are a niche product. The mainstream mass-market products are much cheaper. Whoa, just like the current console generation. Weird.
Nobody who balks at the price of a PS3 is buying a $600 video card either.
Therefore, your desire to get a patent is why you go get a patent, for which part of the process is submitting an application. You really have to twist hard to misapply what I said.
Missaply to what? You said that the problem with the USPTO was not the root cause of bad patents being granted, it was wanting a patent. Wanting patents is not the cause of the problem, because if someone wants a bad patent that patent should not be granted regardless. The USPTO not doing its job is the problem. I understand what you said perfectly, and you're wrong. Again, we don't have any perpetual motion machines patents, and it has nothing to do with people not wanting them. Get it?
I see. When I try to answer out of your framework, you complain that I am not in your framework. When I answer WITHIN your framework, you accuse me of exiting my own framework. In YOUR WORLD, there are protections. That's how I approached that answer. You cannot have it both ways.
I made that point in the futile attempt to get your brain to actually engage and think about the problem with allowing patents that should never have been granted due to the existence of prior art to be granted and become de facto legal until they can be challenged in a court. I was assuming, since you keep SAYING you know things about the patent system, that you would be able to figure out some of the practical problems with this approach. Obviously I expected to much, and obviously you don't actually know anything.
The only "framework" that I care about is reality. In REALITY, documentable prior art is protection against subsequent patenting by a different party, but if the patent is granted anyway and the courts forced to assume the job of verifying its validity, then that protection becomes more difficult to apply. Remember that the stance of the courts is that once granted a patent is de facto valid. Again, if you have three brain cells you should be able to list at least a few practical problems that arise IN REALITY due to this approach.
In other words, you should be able to answer your own question of "If they DID take pains to protect it, then what's the problem?"
But you can't, because you really are as stupid and ignorant as you first appeared. It wasn't just that you're a piss-poor communicator.
Then there's a reason to challenge the patent. Really, I don't see how any patent office is supposed to be able to keep up with everyone in the country and whether or not they thought of something first. I agree that duplicate patents are a problem, but those ARE NOT what the discussion was about. Your claim was that the patent office should know if the person submitting the application thought of the idea or not, which is not possible. It is up to whoever disputes the patent to prove their case.
It's not possible for the USPTO to have done exactly what I did and go on the internet and find an example of this very idea that predates the patent application? You're shitting me! They don't have to keep up with everyone in the country, but they can and should perform basic due dilligence to make sure there aren't obvious examples of prior art. Their inspectors should have to keep up with the state of the art. They don't have to know what everyone on earth has been thinking, but they damn well should have a subscription to EE Times, Journal of the ACM, and so on. They should have access to an internet search engine.
The court challenge of a patent is supposed to be a failsafe in the cases where something slips through the cracks of the USPTO review process. The courts should not be the default place where validity of patents is decided in every case.
So now you know the motivations of people you have never met? Maybe you should get a job in the patent office.
I said "most likely", as in an educated guess, not omniscient knowledge. That's the kind of thing you have to do when solving real world problems where you have incomplete
YOU ASSUMED that I was not aware of something because I didn't explicitly state it, the VERY THING of which you accuse me.
./
But even when given the chance to reword yourself from the beginning, the same foolish assumptions appear. Really, you're a big ball of self-contradiction and it's hilarious.
What a shocker! Wrong again. You're the Texas Rangers of
Apparently they just got a good draft pick, because the sacrifice bunt to set up the steal worked perfectly.
It's sometimes a trick to get a retard who knows they are wrong to actually address the question directly, but you stack the bases right, and they set themselves up perfectly for you to knock em down. And believe me, it is perfectly obvious now why you were reluctant.
Exactly. They are NOT responsible for causing someone to want to patent something. Exactly as I said, and in DIRECT contradiction to what you said.
Okay, so if you aren't a retard, then you should be able to show me where I said that USPTO is responsible for someone wanting to patent something.
People wanting to patent something is the cause of things getting patented. I'm truly sorry that I had to explain that to you.
Yeah, you should be sorry that you revealed just how stupid you are regarding the patent process. Here's a multiple choice question:
Q: Why are there no patents on perpetual motion machines?
a) Nobody has ever wanted to patent a perpetual motion machine.
b) The USPTO rejects patent applications for perpetual motion machines.
The correct answer also reveals why what you said was stupid. People wanting to patent something is the cause of patent applications. The USPTO screening process is responsible for patent grants. Wanting a patent does not cause it to be patented! And before you say something equally retarded like "without the application there would be no grant", this is true, but it is also true that without the Big Bang there would be no grant. The Big Bang is not responsible for bad patents being granted. People making bad patent applications is not responsible for bad patents. USPTO granting the patent is the critical and necessary step and the failure of USPTO to screen bad patents is what is responsible for bad patents being granted. Again note: granted, NOT applied for.
But you go ahead and want yourself up some patents and see how that works. The USPTO is responsible for granting patents and for screening patents, and once again this is a matter of law. Patent applications are not the problem. Patent grants are. Patent grants are the sole responsibility of USPTO.
Also, your belief that USPTO should not be responsible for what patents are granted, basically that the de facto standard of today where all patents are granted and the courts will straighten them out, will be relevent in a minute.
Right. Because when you don't understand something, it's obviously everyone else's fault but yours.
No, but in this specific case, it is only one person's fault: Yours.
Here you are apparently unaware of the difference between 'can't' and 'won't'.
I'm well aware of the difference, and once I figured out how you think, it was a trivial task to get you to prove you know the difference by actually answering the fucking question, so the gambit worked. The funny part is that thusly, in the end, you neither can't nor won't.
"If it was so 'clearly obvious', why did it take until 1996 before anyone thought of it? Why didn't YOU patent it first, if it was so damn obvious to you?"
Why, if the idea were so obvious, were no measures, patenting or otherwise, taken to protect this so clearly obvious idea? Why should I care who owns the patent when whoever came up with the idea did not care enough about it to protect it in any way?
You can't possibly infer that any of these were the case, because AS YOU CLAIM TO ALREADY KNOW none of these things necessarily stop the new patent grant. So BASED ON WHAT YOU CLAIM TO ALREADY KNOW, you cannot possibly use the grant of the current patent to infer that it was not protected, or even not already patented! So once again we're left with the unlikely situation that you asked a question you already knew the answer to.
If they DID take pains to protect it, then what's the problem? The patent can be challenged and will be removed or reassigned to the proper inventor if proper measures were taken.
I like how the only question that you don't already claim to know the answer to is the one that is most distant from what you originally wrote. Is it clear how you failed to communicate? Honestly, have some self awareness. And now it's time to prov
You said that they 'didn't think to patent it' but failed to go any further about what they *did*.
And you assumed that meant nothing. Indicating it is you who is not aware of what else they could do.
I said that BEFORE your insane accusation.
No, read my second post again, BEFORE you started to insert references to non-patent forms of protection into your posts.
What's sad is your inability to admit that you were wrong.
What's sad is that you still can't explain your original statement and prove that it is not you who are wrong. Your retroactive statements -- which STILL show great ignorance about patents and prior art -- don't explain your original retarded comment. Because you can't do it, you know it was wrong and stupid, and you just can't admit it.
The result of natural selection frequently isn't the "best" solution but rather whatever happens to work.
Exactly, and it's a popular misconception that evolution is always about the "best" and anything that is 1% "better" is going to dominate. Which simply isn't true, or our appendix would have vanished long ago. The fact is that appendicitis isn't enough of a problem to select against it strongly. The appendix just doesn't help, so the genes to maintain it aren't selected for either, resulting in the slowly fading vestigal organ.
To emphasize this fact, I like to describe natural selection not as "survival of the fittest" but rather "survival of the sufficiently fit".
Thus "contrarywise". I'm struggling to think of why you think I was implying a relation.
You even said "The whole reason these submarine patents become problems is because someone did think of it, but didn't think to patent it." This DOES NOT SAY that they are taking a bunch of other measures to protect their invention. It says they did not think to patent it. That infers that they were either unaware of the patent system (unlikely) or they didn't care enough to protect their invention. You didn't say that they couldn't afford to patent it, or that the man was keeping them from patenting it somehow, or that they didn't WANT to patent it. You said they didn't THINK to patent it. If that wasn't what you meant, you should have said something different.
Once again you "infer" that because someone doesn't patent something, that they don't care to protect their invention at all. That is an utterly retarded inference. No I DID NOT SAY they took a bunch of measures to protect their invention. I ASSUMED that anyone reading the statement would have the three brain cells in their head to rub together and produce a bunch of hypothetical situations. I DID NOT assume you were so retarded that you would see the absence of a statement, and make the most stupid inference about what wasn't said possible. If as you pretend you were already aware of the many reasons someone wouldn't think to patent something, then you could have picked any of those reasons instead of assuming the most retarded thing possible.
But now I realize that's pretty much how you work. You make yourself look retarded through retarded assumptions, then turn around and say "Oh, I didn't mean that! You just didn't tell me not to assume that!" Well why did you assume in the first place, moron?
It's not a contradiction. In fact, it was within the SAME POST and was what, one or two sentences later?
It contradicts every previous post wherein you displayed complete ignorance of any method of protecting inventions that wasn't a patent.
I mean, your first post was " Why didn't YOU patent it first, if it was so damn obvious to you?" again displaying a mentality that equates patents with invention. You haven't given any alternative interpretation for this, you've only said that, retroactively, everything you said that LOOKED like you didn't know shit actually was agreeing with me.
Instead of talking about your retarded inferences, can you actually talk about what YOU mean? What was "Why didn't YOU patent it first, if it was so damn obvious to you?" supposed to mean?
So the USPTO is responsible for other people deciding to patent something which is already patented? Perhaps they don't provide a good enough screening process but they did not cause the person to want to patent anything. They also are not responsible for knowing psychically that someone else thought of something first. To think that they would be able to know that the person applying for the patent heard about it from someone else and did not think of it is ludicrous. That is the whole point of having a legal remedy for someone else doing this.
USPTO is responsible for granting or rejecting patent applications. They are responsible for the screening process. They are responsible for the step between someone wanting a patent, and their receiving the patent. Just because someone wants a patent does not absolve the USPTO of their responsibility of determining whether that patent should be granted!
Also, when you say "knowing psychically that someone else thought of something first", I hope to god this is just another case of you picking the most retarded thing to say possible, even though you know that USPTO can and has done actual research to determine this in the past? This ties in to the methods of protecting your invention that don't involve patents, btw. You are aware of those, right, and how this ties in to the USPTO application process, right? You keep saying you are, but I'm not seeing any evidence.
I don't think that assigning causes which
I'll just let you answer you.
That's only an answer if you are still clinging to the retarded and wrong notion that the only way to protect your idea is to patent it.
I thought you said you knew that wasn't true?
Can you actually demonstrate that you are actually aware that this isn't true by not making logical connections that require it to be true? Honestly, claiming you know something then immediately displaying ignorance about it is pretty damn sad.
I turn on the laser, wait a few years or so, then I shift the beam a few degrees. In that one or two seconds I shift that beam, altering the direction it points past a certain distance by a light-year or so, does that beam (knowing it will "bend" if perceived from outside my vantage point) point suddenly move faster than light and travel a few light years in just a few seconds?
Yes, you could make the dot of your laser pointer on some distant object appear to move faster than the speed of light by waving your pointer back and forth.
The reason I say "appear", and the reason this doesn't violate Relativity, is because the dot is not really moving. The dot is not really an object; it is not a collection of glowing matter/photons that moves along the distant surface as you wave the laser pointer. It is merely the point at which the laser pointer beam hits a surface. Relativity does not constrain logical reference points in that way.
The only thing that is actually moving, the photons coming out of the laser pointer, are travelling at c. You're just changing the trajectory of those photons.
Oh, right, if you're lucky you can pick between the cable company and the phone company. So the "choice" most people get around here is between AT&T or Time Warner. Now which one do you pick if you don't want to support needless censorship on behalf of the media industry?!
That's true, but photons do have momentum, and this is the concept by which solar sails work. My first problem with the radiometer trick was the idea that the momentum of photons would be sufficient to overcome the friction of the axle -- when you turn on a lightbulb, do you get pummeled to the ground? No, because photons have tiny amounts of momentum.
Whats funny is if the sun imploded you would never know (except for the loss of light of course) because you would be the same distance from the center of mass with the same total mass.
Contrarywise, if the sun exploded then we would notice as soon as the sphere of exploded solar mass expanded past our orbit, at which point we would drift away from our orbit.
Look, I even gave you free ammo by forgetting to hit 'preview'! Your lucky day!
... Are you seriously trying to state that inventors don't know about the patent system?"
I went by what you said. I said that what you said was illogical. You said that what I said (which was what you said) was illogical. Thanks for agreeing with me!
No, I never said that, I never said anything about someone patenting something they never heard of. You completely hallucinated the bit about "patenting something without knowing it exists", and by starting from this illogical and hallucinatory statement, you reverse-engineered your way to what I actually said, and what I actually said wasn't illogical in the least. So no, I'm not agreeing with you, unless you are saying you are an idiot who can't read, in which case I do agree completely.
Straw man. I certainly did NOT say that. I said that they were most likely NOT IGNORANT of patents. Learn to read.
Yes you did.
Me: "Your equation of "thought of it" with "patent it" is really exemplary of the problem."
You: "How can someone patent something without thinking of it unless the original inventor did not patent it themselves?
Inference: You can conceive of no reason why someone wouldn't patent an invention other than not knowing about the patent system.
If the inference is wrong and you were aware of other reasons but for some reason chose to say the above instead, then you displayed deliberate stupidity by picking this ludicrous statement. Just so you know, deliberate stupidity is the same as real stupidity, only more pathetic and sad.
Hmm. Kind of shoots your theory down, doesn't it? Isn't that EXACTLY what Franklin did? And didn't I just give as advice exactly what he did? And didn't you use him as an example? So if my advice is so bad, why are you using as an example someone who took it?
First you said " If you want to invent something but not patent it, you should probably keep it to yourself." and that is utterly stupid advice, and that's what I replied to saying so. You're right though, I should have read more carefully, knowing you would start to contradict yourself as the inevitable back-pedalling began.
Well, then you should have no fear. The gubmint will step in and shut down those nasty people. Right? Right?
If it comes up in a lawsuit, then yeah, they probably will. One of the problems is that it requires a lawsuit to get the issue decided.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion. Obviously patenting things that are already patented is EXACTLY the same as patenting something that hasn't been patented yet. That last sentence was sarcasm.
It's not completely irrelevant, because the root problem with the USPTO is the cause of both things being patented which already are, and things being patented that had already been invented by another inventor. The system is oblivious to both cases. If you can't see the relevance of a common root cause, then you should probably never take a job in engineering (or anything else that involves real-world problem solving).
I have no idea. I didn't tell them not to come crying to someone who doesn't understand the situation and gives terrible advice. I told them not to come crying to me.
Equivalent statements. Most people are exposed to the concept in algebra class.
I said that if you do nothing to protect your invention I don't want to hear you crying about it.
Which, given how this whole thing was predicated by you saying "why didn't they patent it?!" strongly indicates you thought patents were the only protection. And if not, then that strongly indicates that this whole thread was your retarded pointless babbling.
I mean seriously, it's pretty hilarious. If you really WERE aware that 1) some people invent things and don't patent them despite knowing about patents and 2) you don't need to patent your invention to protect it from being
I went by what you said. I said that what you said was illogical. You said that what I said (which was what you said) was illogical. Thanks for agreeing with me!
... Are you seriously trying to state that inventors don't know about the patent system?"
No, I never said that, I never said anything about someone patenting something they never heard of. You completely hallucinated the bit about "patenting something without knowing it exists", and by starting from this illogical and hallucinatory statement, you reverse-engineered your way to what I actually said, and what I actually said wasn't illogical in the least. So no, I'm not agreeing with you, unless you are saying you are an idiot who can't read, in which case I do agree completely.
Straw man. I certainly did NOT say that. I said that they were most likely NOT IGNORANT of patents. Learn to read.
Yes you did.
Me: "Your equation of "thought of it" with "patent it" is really exemplary of the problem."
You: "How can someone patent something without thinking of it unless the original inventor did not patent it themselves?
Inference: You can conceive of no reason why someone wouldn't patent an invention other than not knowing about the patent system.
If the inference is wrong and you were aware of other reasons but for some reason chose to say the above instead, then you displayed deliberate stupidity by picking this ludicrous statement. Just so you know, deliberate stupidity is the same as real stupidity, only more pathetic and sad.
Hmm. Kind of shoots your theory down, doesn't it? Isn't that EXACTLY what Franklin did? And didn't I just give as advice exactly what he did? And didn't you use him as an example? So if my advice is so bad, why are you using as an example someone who took it?
First you said " If you want to invent something but not patent it, you should probably keep it to yourself." and that is utterly stupid advice, and that's what I replied to saying so. You're right though, I should have read more carefully, knowing you would start to contradict yourself as the inevitable back-pedalling began.
Well, then you should have no fear. The gubmint will step in and shut down those nasty people. Right? Right?
If it comes up in a lawsuit, then yeah, they probably will. One of the problems is that it requires a lawsuit to get the issue decided.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion. Obviously patenting things that are already patented is EXACTLY the same as patenting something that hasn't been patented yet. That last sentence was sarcasm.
It's not completely irrelevant, because the root problem with the USPTO is the cause of both things being patented which already are, and things being patented that had already been invented by another inventor. The system is oblivious to both cases. If you can't see the relevance of a common root cause, then you should probably never take a job in engineering (or anything else that involves real-world problem solving).
I have no idea. I didn't tell them not to come crying to someone who doesn't understand the situation and gives terrible advice. I told them not to come crying to me.
Equivalent statements. Most people are exposed to the concept in algebra class.
I said that if you do nothing to protect your invention I don't want to hear you crying about it.
Which, given how this whole thing was predicated by you saying "why didn't they patent it?!" strongly indicates you thought patents were the only protection. And if not, then that strongly indicates that this whole thread was your retarded pointless babbling.
I mean seriously, it's pretty hilarious. If you really WERE aware that 1) some people invent things and don't patent them despite knowing about patents and 2) you don't need to patent your invention to protect it from being patented by other people then that means:
"Why didn't YOU patent it first, if it was so damn obvious to you?" have a point? What were you actually trying to say in your first post? Because what you actually said was retarded.
Why should anyone believe your statement that they lack cognition and memory?
Well they asked the plants if they had cognition and memory, and the plants said "no". Then they asked if they meant they didn't have either or just didn't have both, and the plant said "both of what?" So there ya go.
It is not logical to say that someone can patent something without knowing it exists. If that person did not think of it, then they had to see it somewhere. If they saw it somewhere, and get it patented, then we can assume that the original inventor(s) did not patent it
So by starting with an illogical scenario that is not what I was describing, you eventually work your way through the logic to what I was actually getting at. Congratulations!
As to WHY they didn't patent it...what does that matter?
Mostly because you somehow conceived the inane concept that people don't patent because they are ignorant of the existence of patents. Apparently you had no idea why someone wouldn't get a patent on something, and was aiming to inform you. It will also become relevent to your advice regarding not patenting:
If you want to invent something but not patent it, you should probably keep it to yourself. If you don't, someone else might 1. think of it themselves and patent it or 2. hear about it somehow, which will have to involve you telling someone about it, and patent it.
Which would have completely defeated the purpose of Franklin not patenting his stove in the first place. Your advice is terrible. And not just in Ben's case.
If you keep your invention to yourself, then truly independent discovery is more likely, as should be obvious. If you keep your invention to yourself, and someone finds out about it anyway, steals it, then patents it, then you won't have any proof that you actually invented it first. Dissimenating information about your idea is important because it provides this evidence.
You are basically saying "I have no sympathy for people who do nothing to protect their ideas... But if you don't want to patent, don't do anything to protect your ideas!" That's very foolish.
Do you think that patents are the only way inventions are protected, and that if an inventor doesn't get a patent then everyone else is free to steal their idea and patent it? Or do you just normally give advice in direct opposition to your stated moral position?
Do you really want to get into things in this world that don't work how they are 'supposed to work'? Seriously? You should be more concerned with how things ACTUALLY work than how they are 'supposed to' work. Especially where money is involved.
I just gave you an example where it did ACTUALLY work that way. And by "supposed to work" I meant "as a matter of law". I do hope you think that it is the responsibility of "someone else", aka the government, to "protect them", when such protection is a matter of law.
The problems with the patent office that prevent it from working that way today also break a lot of other aspects of patent law as well. The office's mentality of "grant the patent and let the courts sort out any problems" has resulted in things getting patented that were already patented. Patent law is so screwed up now because the USPTO has gotten a free pass to ignore the law. That doesn't just affect people who don't patent their inventions, obviously.
The point is that YOU have to do SOMETHING to protect YOUR invention. If you don't, don't come crying to me about it.
Why would anyone come crying to someone who doesn't understand the situation and gives terrible advice? Just so you know, the SOMETHING doesn't have to be getting a patent.
You keep making inane assumptions. First that inventing and patenting were the same, then that anyone who doesn't patent an invention must not know about patents, and finally that if you don't get a patent then you are doing nothing to protect your invention. All of those assumptions are wrong, and that's why you are too.
So...I think you have a logical breakdown here. How can someone patent something without thinking of it unless the original inventor did not patent it themselves?
Nothing gets past you. Now how is that a logical breakdown exactly? There are plenty of reasons why someone would not patent their invention despite obviously knowing that patents exist. They may not be able to afford the fees, they may believe the idea is too obvious to be patentable (and without being able to afford a patent lawyer this is difficult to determine), they may simply not want to patent the idea and put it behind a government-enforced monopoly in the first place. Despite what you may think, none of these things entitles another party to then steal the idea and then patent it, either ethically or more importantly legally.
Benjamin Franklin, for example, invented the Franklin Stove which was much more efficient at heating rooms without filling the room with smoke. He did not patent it because he wanted to make it as easy as possible for everyone to use it. Someone else came along and made an improvement to the Franklin Stove, and he patented his improvement. The original Franklin Stove, however, was still not covered by any patents and anyone was free to make it. This is how it is supposed to work.
Had this other person tried to patent the Franklin Stove, and tried to sue someone for making one, then the defendent would have been able to have that patent invalidated by proving that it was Franklin who invented it, not the patent holder. You cannot steal someone's idea and claim patent protection on it merely because the person you stole it from did not patent it themselves. You do not have to patent an invention.