Why not simply publish the spec in wikipedia and as many lists as possible (including your own web site).
That's probably the cheapest route, but the safest route (if all you want in terms of defense is publication rather than a war chest of patents for warding off lawsuits) is called a Statutory Invention Registration. It's cheaper than filing a patent, and it doesn't stake out any invention territory (meaning that if someone duplicates the invention laid out in the SIR, you can't sue them for infringement based on the SIR). But it will show up in the search tools used by US patent examiners, and it establishes a prior art date, so that it can easily be found by examiners for the purpose of rejecting future applications.
Actually, IBM did something similar back in the 70s - they published a series of Technical Disclosure Bulletins, where they disclosed a bunch of things they had come up with but that they weren't interested in patenting. They just didn't want anybody else patenting it and then suing them over it. The USPTO has all of that IBM stuff in its search databases as well.
Zapp Brannigan: The key to victory is discipline, and that means a well-made bed. You will practice until you can make your bed in your sleep. Fry: You mean while I'm sleeping in it? Zapp Brannigan: You won't have time for sleeping, soldier, not with all the bed-making you'll be doing.
The DMCA takedown rules should require a work to actually be infringing...
Actually, there are two important things to understand about the takedown rule:
One, the DMCA doesn't actually say, if you receive a takedown request, you have to take down X infringing work. Rather, it says, if you're a service provider, and you receive a takedown notice, at which point you take down X infringing work, you are granted a safe harbor from liability for the infringement (with some other conditions attached).
Two, the DMCA grants this safe harbor for material that actually infringes a copyright. A DRM circumvention tool appears not to count. Does this mean that the service provider is also granted a safe harbor if they take down a DRM circumvention tool? I don't know for certain (that's up to a judge), but the law isn't actually written to read that way.
By sending a takedown notice anyway, it's likely that Adobe intends not to sue the service provider as long as the takedown request is fulfilled (their lack of culpability would likely make a victory difficult and damages small, anyway). A service provider would be well-advised, though, that when they're served a takedown notice for a circumvention tool, they should comply with it the same as with regular infringing material, since being notified that you're hosting such a tool may lead to a finding of culpability later if you do nothing about it.
In other news, a giant robotic Neil deGrasse Tyson was seen bursting through the walls of the Illinois Capitol Building, saying, "Pluto is a Plutoid. You have 30 seconds to comply."
You have to show due diligence in reducing your invention to practice (usually meaning filing your application) from before they start using/selling their invention until you actually do reduce your invention to practice. Most patent trolls don't bother building what they are asserting, so camping on the idea to try to catch someone later will likely result in your application being rejected or your patent being invalidated.
It's much easier and safer to just invent something, get your patent, and then wait for someone else to just infringe on it the old fashioned way.
Actually, you have 1 year to file a patent application from when you offer a product for sale that uses what's claimed in the application. If you take longer than a year, then your own work would count as a reference against you under 35 USC 102(b).
If somebody did copy your work in the interim, and then they tried to use their copy to invalidate your patent, their copy would be a 102(a) reference (unless, of course, you waited more than a year afterwards to file your application). You would simply have to prove that you had conceived of the invention first, and either you reduced it to practice first, or you practiced due diligence in attempting to reduce it to practice from before the date of the 102(a) reference until you actually did reduce it to practice. Conception means (roughly) you had the full invention in your mind (or on paper, or whatever), and reduction to practice means (roughly) that either you built one, or you filed your application (which is considered "constructive reduction to practice"). Due diligence can be a pretty flexible thing, but it generally means no big vacations, no spending a month working on some other product when you could be working on the one involving the claimed subject matter, and definitely no sitting around on your invention while you wait for someone else to invent it also.
So, the mechanisms are already in place to prevent you from screwing yourself over, if, for some strange reason, putting a product on sale became a prerequisite to filing an application.
Suing individuals for ridiculous sums of money was like a playground bully beating up scrawny kids for their lunch money. It's easy, but there's not much profit in it.
Suing investors who can actually afford to mount a legal defense for similar sums of money is like trying to beat up the principal for his lunch money. And he's been itching to try out that new paddle.
I'm proud to be in the 1% of people who haven't been penetrated by Flash.
Flash was originally crafted with the best of intentions, I'm sure, but due to gross misuse by virtually everyone who's ever touched it, Flash has become a blight on the face of the Tubes. Whether it's noisy and annoying ads, embedded-but-not-linked video, site navigation without a plain HTML version, or malware-pushing securityless redirects, Flash has earned its rightful place in/dev/null.
The obviousness test relies upon prior art. If somebody does something, and nobody can show that any part of it has been done before, then surely it's not obvious?
I would think that the prosecution would have to prove that the person in the image was actually underage, or else the case would be dismissed by the judge for failing to make its prima facie case against the defendant.
Actually, a final rejection was made on the re-exam case, but Amazon filed an RCE (request for continued examination). Essentially, as long as Amazon is willing to (a) pay the fee and (b) make some sort of submission that merits further examination (e.g., amending the claims or presenting another prior art reference they want considered), they can keep the re-exam going until the cows come home. The next action after an RCE is usually non-final - it's a bit like starting the examination process over again.
On a side note, after the RCE and before the subsequent non-final Office action, Amazon submitted an IDS (information disclosure statement, on which they list further references they wish to have considered) that was 36 pages long. That's not a 36-page reference - the list of references itself took 36 pages.
No. This wasn't a ruling on the merits of the case, but rather a ruling on a failure to follow the rules governing court cases. Someone else could file a suit against Google, and this time not suck at it, and the case would proceed, probably without making any reference to the case discussed above.
True, but the benefit of using the Punkbuster as a reference is that you eliminate any sort of unobviousness argument because the same reference teaches every limitation.
You'll also need a reference to cover finding the actual position and trajectory of the bullet. Maybe the description for the Punkbuster radar detector has something along those lines?
That's where the claims come in. The claims represent the boundaries of the "property" to which the patent lays claim. Forget about the abstract, forget about the detailed description - read the claims, and then use the specification to help you understand what the claims are talking about. Interpret the claims as broadly as is reasonable, given what the specification says.
The claims are shown here, and yes, there are a lot of them and they will make your head explode. Stick to the independent claims at first (the ones that don't say, for example, "The system of claim 1, wherein...").
The trouble with prior art on this one is that the patent is so old. It was issued at the end of 1991, and it just expired in the past couple of months. Some Slashdotters weren't even born yet when this patent was issued, much less filed. Plus, you're not arguing invalidity of a patent issued to some fly-by-night company that develops crap and files applications on it - this was Xerox, and they typically have/had their shit together.
In any case, good luck to the defendants on this one.
True to the cartoon series, the game will equip players with M-16s that fire lasers color-coded by which side the player is fighting for. No more running around scrounging for ammo, as players will start with an infinite supply. EA and Hasbro have also co-developed a unique auto-aim function, which guarantees that you'll always miss human targets, and their new patented Insta-Bail System ensures crew survival during tank and air battles.
So what? The Mafia is largely Italian, but that doesn't mean that most Italians are in the mob. It's quite possible that this group of criminals self-selected based in part upon race as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not simply publish the spec in wikipedia and as many lists as possible (including your own web site).
That's probably the cheapest route, but the safest route (if all you want in terms of defense is publication rather than a war chest of patents for warding off lawsuits) is called a Statutory Invention Registration. It's cheaper than filing a patent, and it doesn't stake out any invention territory (meaning that if someone duplicates the invention laid out in the SIR, you can't sue them for infringement based on the SIR). But it will show up in the search tools used by US patent examiners, and it establishes a prior art date, so that it can easily be found by examiners for the purpose of rejecting future applications.
Actually, IBM did something similar back in the 70s - they published a series of Technical Disclosure Bulletins, where they disclosed a bunch of things they had come up with but that they weren't interested in patenting. They just didn't want anybody else patenting it and then suing them over it. The USPTO has all of that IBM stuff in its search databases as well.
Yes, but they're all gold farmers.
Structured lighting techniques are, in general, well known. The question is more whether the specific technique they're claiming is known or not.
Zapp Brannigan: The key to victory is discipline, and that means a well-made bed. You will practice until you can make your bed in your sleep.
Fry: You mean while I'm sleeping in it?
Zapp Brannigan: You won't have time for sleeping, soldier, not with all the bed-making you'll be doing.
The DMCA takedown rules should require a work to actually be infringing...
Actually, there are two important things to understand about the takedown rule:
One, the DMCA doesn't actually say, if you receive a takedown request, you have to take down X infringing work. Rather, it says, if you're a service provider, and you receive a takedown notice, at which point you take down X infringing work, you are granted a safe harbor from liability for the infringement (with some other conditions attached).
Two, the DMCA grants this safe harbor for material that actually infringes a copyright. A DRM circumvention tool appears not to count. Does this mean that the service provider is also granted a safe harbor if they take down a DRM circumvention tool? I don't know for certain (that's up to a judge), but the law isn't actually written to read that way.
By sending a takedown notice anyway, it's likely that Adobe intends not to sue the service provider as long as the takedown request is fulfilled (their lack of culpability would likely make a victory difficult and damages small, anyway). A service provider would be well-advised, though, that when they're served a takedown notice for a circumvention tool, they should comply with it the same as with regular infringing material, since being notified that you're hosting such a tool may lead to a finding of culpability later if you do nothing about it.
In other news, a giant robotic Neil deGrasse Tyson was seen bursting through the walls of the Illinois Capitol Building, saying, "Pluto is a Plutoid. You have 30 seconds to comply."
You have to show due diligence in reducing your invention to practice (usually meaning filing your application) from before they start using/selling their invention until you actually do reduce your invention to practice. Most patent trolls don't bother building what they are asserting, so camping on the idea to try to catch someone later will likely result in your application being rejected or your patent being invalidated.
It's much easier and safer to just invent something, get your patent, and then wait for someone else to just infringe on it the old fashioned way.
Actually, you have 1 year to file a patent application from when you offer a product for sale that uses what's claimed in the application. If you take longer than a year, then your own work would count as a reference against you under 35 USC 102(b).
If somebody did copy your work in the interim, and then they tried to use their copy to invalidate your patent, their copy would be a 102(a) reference (unless, of course, you waited more than a year afterwards to file your application). You would simply have to prove that you had conceived of the invention first, and either you reduced it to practice first, or you practiced due diligence in attempting to reduce it to practice from before the date of the 102(a) reference until you actually did reduce it to practice. Conception means (roughly) you had the full invention in your mind (or on paper, or whatever), and reduction to practice means (roughly) that either you built one, or you filed your application (which is considered "constructive reduction to practice"). Due diligence can be a pretty flexible thing, but it generally means no big vacations, no spending a month working on some other product when you could be working on the one involving the claimed subject matter, and definitely no sitting around on your invention while you wait for someone else to invent it also.
So, the mechanisms are already in place to prevent you from screwing yourself over, if, for some strange reason, putting a product on sale became a prerequisite to filing an application.
Suing individuals for ridiculous sums of money was like a playground bully beating up scrawny kids for their lunch money. It's easy, but there's not much profit in it.
Suing investors who can actually afford to mount a legal defense for similar sums of money is like trying to beat up the principal for his lunch money. And he's been itching to try out that new paddle.
Every time I've had a bank error in my favor, I only collected $100.
...legislate from the bench.
Seriously, where's the statutory basis for this new property right? Or did they pull all of this stuff directly out of their ass?
I'm proud to be in the 1% of people who haven't been penetrated by Flash.
Flash was originally crafted with the best of intentions, I'm sure, but due to gross misuse by virtually everyone who's ever touched it, Flash has become a blight on the face of the Tubes. Whether it's noisy and annoying ads, embedded-but-not-linked video, site navigation without a plain HTML version, or malware-pushing securityless redirects, Flash has earned its rightful place in /dev/null.
The obviousness test relies upon prior art. If somebody does something, and nobody can show that any part of it has been done before, then surely it's not obvious?
I would think that the prosecution would have to prove that the person in the image was actually underage, or else the case would be dismissed by the judge for failing to make its prima facie case against the defendant.
Actually, a final rejection was made on the re-exam case, but Amazon filed an RCE (request for continued examination). Essentially, as long as Amazon is willing to (a) pay the fee and (b) make some sort of submission that merits further examination (e.g., amending the claims or presenting another prior art reference they want considered), they can keep the re-exam going until the cows come home. The next action after an RCE is usually non-final - it's a bit like starting the examination process over again.
On a side note, after the RCE and before the subsequent non-final Office action, Amazon submitted an IDS (information disclosure statement, on which they list further references they wish to have considered) that was 36 pages long. That's not a 36-page reference - the list of references itself took 36 pages.
Wouldn't it be easier (and safer) to just not run red lights?
No. This wasn't a ruling on the merits of the case, but rather a ruling on a failure to follow the rules governing court cases. Someone else could file a suit against Google, and this time not suck at it, and the case would proceed, probably without making any reference to the case discussed above.
What, you think pharma spammers are actually selling their wares legally?
I only have fake mod points today, so I fake modded you down.
True, but the benefit of using the Punkbuster as a reference is that you eliminate any sort of unobviousness argument because the same reference teaches every limitation.
You'll also need a reference to cover finding the actual position and trajectory of the bullet. Maybe the description for the Punkbuster radar detector has something along those lines?
That's where the claims come in. The claims represent the boundaries of the "property" to which the patent lays claim. Forget about the abstract, forget about the detailed description - read the claims, and then use the specification to help you understand what the claims are talking about. Interpret the claims as broadly as is reasonable, given what the specification says.
The claims are shown here, and yes, there are a lot of them and they will make your head explode. Stick to the independent claims at first (the ones that don't say, for example, "The system of claim 1, wherein...").
The trouble with prior art on this one is that the patent is so old. It was issued at the end of 1991, and it just expired in the past couple of months. Some Slashdotters weren't even born yet when this patent was issued, much less filed. Plus, you're not arguing invalidity of a patent issued to some fly-by-night company that develops crap and files applications on it - this was Xerox, and they typically have/had their shit together.
In any case, good luck to the defendants on this one.
True to the cartoon series, the game will equip players with M-16s that fire lasers color-coded by which side the player is fighting for. No more running around scrounging for ammo, as players will start with an infinite supply. EA and Hasbro have also co-developed a unique auto-aim function, which guarantees that you'll always miss human targets, and their new patented Insta-Bail System ensures crew survival during tank and air battles.
Rated E for everyone!
Have you considered dressing up as a minstrel and playing some music? Apparently, that's worked before.
I dunno. The reference I found on the topic indicated a high risk of being eaten by your companions when the weather turns cold.
So what? The Mafia is largely Italian, but that doesn't mean that most Italians are in the mob. It's quite possible that this group of criminals self-selected based in part upon race as well.