Did I say that? You are the second person to respond with this. I said I have to sell 100 just to break even from the filing fees. These are fees that go to pay peoples salaries for not doing a damned thing. That's why it's jacked. That's $10K that could be better spent marketing, advertising, or any other expense.
Proving the exact date of invention is very difficult. The mail to yourself idea is common, but frowned upon by some "experts" as being too easy to forge. Many places suggest the inventor's notebook. Keep your ideas in a notebook that is dated, with each page signed by two witnesses. Of course, that can still be forged as well, but that is what is usually suggested.
One other possibility is to file something called a Provisional Patent Application. These applications are not examined and will never become patents unless you file a Utility Patent Application. But the date you filed it is an official record then.
Third. That being said, I think the function to determine patentability should be a boolean one-time shot. So if it doesn't pass the patent for any reason (bad patent, improperly filed, not enough details, etc.) the cost for that patent doubles. There shouldn't be any "Please clarify section X" or "Section Y is too broad, please update"... we restart the process every time.
In a sense, the costs do increase when a patent application is rejected. If rejected, a patent attorney will have to correct it, spending $1000 and up in doing so. The actualy costs of filing a patent ($750), is miniscule compared to the attorney fees needed to file a patent ($5000 for simple inventions, usually much more).
The submitter of the application is "required" to do a search on their own for things that might constitute prior art, and include them in their application
Wrong. An applicant is not required to do any search at all. If an applicant has done a search, they are required to submit the results to the patent office (37 C.F.R. 1.56. Sorry, no direct link available). But there is no requirement for an inventor or applicant to perform a search.
but the patent office doesn't do its own search and reject applications that have already been done. Basically, this requirement is unenforceable, and the fact that the patent office doesn't do this search themselves is very likely the reason for most frivolous patents.
Wrong again. I know from first hand experience that the patent office does a search on every patent application that is examined. The frivolous problem is caused by what the other responder said, some of the patent examiners are not as qualified as they should be.
I'm sick of people with no clue spouting this shit in slashdot comments and getting modded up to propagate this incorrect information.
Repeat after me: You can patent things that have prior art.
You are talking about something different from what the original poster said. Two of the more important criteria to getting a patent are novelty and non-obviousness.
You are correct that a patent "only gives . . . exclusive rights on the claims that exceed the prior art." What I intended to respond to was the people here who automatically spout that something was already done in the prior art, without ever even reading the patent.
Or a system where large companies pay more anyway. Stop penalising the little guy!!
Small entities already pay less than large entities. For example, the filing fee for a small entity is only $375, compared to $750 for large entities. The definition of Small Entity is long, but, as a starting point, individuals and companies with fewer than 500 employees is considered a small entity.
3) Have a QUALIFIED examiner spend some time looking it over.
Examiners are assigned to the various units based on their qualifications. In other words, a chemist examines chemical patents, an electrical engineers examines circuit patents.
4) Have a certain public review periond (6 months?) that anyone can register complaints
That's the whole point of the publication process. Before 2000, patent applications remained secret until they were issued. Now, they are published 18 months after filing. The public can look at the applications and submit prior art references.
5) Review complaints (possible reject)
See above.
6) Have another, different qualified examiner check it out for an extended period of time.
It would be better if the PTO hired was a group of 40-50 people consisting of IP/patent professors and industry people who would be consulted whether the patents submitted are valid or just a time waste.
Did you read the article? There are 2900 examiners right now and they want to raise fees so they can hire 3500 more. How can adding 50 people possibly help with the backlog?
If you liked the cell phone from the first Matrix movie (the Nokia 8110), maybe you'll like the new phone for the Matrix sequels, the Samsung Matrix Phone. Here are some links:
programs which require you to enter a particular word or phrase from the manual every time you want to use it,
Do companies still use this? I remember having to do this for games in the 80s, but I haven't seen a game that had that "feature" in at least 15 years.
I guess Microsoft figures a lot of gamers will be upgrading their hardware when D3 comes out. If the XBox version is ready at the same time, those gamers might decide to buy themselves an XBox instead of sinking $300 into another new video card.
Playing an FPS on a controller sucks compared to playing with a keyboard/mouse combo. For that reason alone, I'd rather buy a new video card than an XBox. Plus, while there are $300 video cards, you can get pretty good results from a $200 card.
MS is specifically doing NOTHING in this matter, yet it is all an MS ploy to sell more XBox consoles"
Why is this difficult to u'stand?
The Linux on the XBox crowd is so small that it is unimportant to MS. If they want to build up sales to XBox they wouldn't do so by doing nothing and hoping Linux users all buy an XBox. They have a lot better chance of increasing sales by, oh, I don't know, advertising maybe? Or getting the "killer app" that PS2 has (GTA3), but XBox doesn't. Maybe MS is ignoring the Linux community because they just don't care.
Why not take the logic of the XBox Linux people to the extreme: Since MS loses money each time someone buys an XBOX, every/.er should buy 2. That'll teach MS.:-)
JV: What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law.
More interesting quotes from that interview:
Right now, any professor can show a complete movie in his classroom without paying a dime--that's fair use. What is not fair use is making a copy of an encrypted DVD, because once you're able to break the encryption, you've undermined the encryption itself.
[Question]: Even if breaking the encryption is for a legitimate purpose, to make a back-up copy?
JV: But you've already got a DVD. It lasts forever. It never wears out. In the digital world, we don't need back-ups, because a digital copy never wears out. It is timeless.
The minute that you allow people to break an encryption, you lose all security. If anyone can do it under the rubric of fair use, how can we protect the artists?
Today, it's illegal to copy a videocassette. No one has a fair use to copy a videocassette. If you lose it, you get another one, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's what people have been doing for generations.
The Yahoo article is very confusing and doesn't give an accurate summary of the case. The title of the Slashdot article isn't accurate either, as Fox isn't suing, they sued a long time ago: the case finally made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was argued on April 2, 2003, with a decision to be expected by late June 2003. The case isn't quite a copyright case, it is a trademark case, with Fox claiming that Dastar is passing the video off as it's own. According to Dastar, these are the questions to be answered by the Supreme Court:
1. Does the Lanham Act protect creative works from
uncredited copying, even without a likelihood of consumer
confusion?
2. May a court applying the Lanham Act award twice
the defendant's profits for purely deterrent purposes?
Here is the Statement of the Case, telling the facts, from the perspective of Dastar:
In 1948, General Eisenhower completed his memoirs of
World War II. Pet. App. C at 42a-43a. The publisher, Doubleday,
granted exclusive television rights in the memoirs to Twentieth
Century Fox, which in turn arranged for Time Inc. to produce a
TV series based on the book. Id. at 9a. The TV series, entitled
Crusade in Europe, combined a soundtrack based on the book
with film footage from the U.S. Army, Navy, and Coast Guard,
the British Ministry of Information and War Office, the National
Film Board of Canada, and unidentified "Newsreel Pool
Cameramen." Id. at 10a, 13a; S.App. 23.
When the time came to renew its copyright in the TV series
in the 1970s, Fox failed to do so. Pet. App. C at 49a. Doubleday
did renew the book's copyright in its own name, claiming for
the first time that General Eisenhower composed his memoirs
as a work for hire. Id. at 43a.
By 1988, videotapes had swept the American market, and
it was evident that Fox's failure to renew the TV series copyright
was a blunder. Fox's cure was to reacquire the television rights
in the book - now including the right to produce a videotape.
Pet. App. B at 10a. Fox granted SFM Entertainment the right to
act as sales agent and distributor of the videotape series. Id.
SFM spent $75,000 to locate, restore, and put the TV series on
videotape. Id. at 11a. SFM gave New Line Home Video a
distribution license for the videotapes. Id.
In 1995, Dastar decided to expand its music business to
videotapes. Id. at 12a. Dastar learned that the 1948 TV series
was in the public domain, purchased a copy commercially, and
copied large parts of the series to make its own videotape series,
entitled Campaigns in Europe. Id. at 12a. The court found
that Dastar spent over $90,000 on its version. Id. at 19a-20a.
Dastar sold the seven-tape boxed set for $25 a set - substantially
less than respondents' version. Id. at 19a. Dastar copied from
the original TV series, as opposed to the New Line video set.
Pet. App. B at 12a-13a; Pet. App. C at 45a.
Dastar's version was a bit more than half as long as the
television series, and nearly an hour shorter than the New
Line videocassettes. Pet. App. B at 13a. Dastar's product
contained about thirty minutes of new footage, including a
new narrated opening title sequence and new narrated chapter
heading sequences. Dastar also substantially modified the
order of the footage it selected from the television series.
9th Cir. Excerpts of Record 1876-78, 1665 ("ER"); Pet. App.
B at 13a, 15a-16a. It created entirely new packaging and a
new title. Dastar's credits listed only Dastar and those of its
staff who actually produced its videos; they did not mention
Fox, New Line, or SFM. Pet. App. B at 18a.
Fox, SFM, and New Line filed a lawsuit charging
violations of the Copyright Act, alleging infringement of the
copyright in General Eisenhower's book (not the expired
copyright in the television series).1 In an amended complaint,
they added a claim for violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1125(a)(1) (2000), based on the inclusion of Dastar and its
personnel in the credits and the failure to mention Fox and
the other res
Besides, recording in itself is made possible for everyone due to computer technologies.
But it still takes studio time and that costs money. Sure, you can use Pro Tools and a Mac to make a recording, but without a proper studio, natural instruments (drums, pianos, guitars) will sound like crap.
What the record label system does allow is people to make albums. I'm a Dream Theater fan. They are in the studio for months making their albums. Do you think they would be able to make that album without the record label advancing the costs? They only sell about 100,000 per album, and they tour to relatively small arenas (5000 capacity). Where do they make their money?
This is off-topic, but is related to copyrights and music, so I thought I'd post this here. The White Stripes are a fairly popular group, whose previous album featured a song, The Union Forever that contained lyrics from the movie Citizen Kane. (You can view the lyrics here.)Now they face a potential lawsuit from the unauthorized use of the lyrics.
From a legal standpoint, it is fairly clear, The White Stripes copied the lyrics and gave no credit and no royalties to the actual author. What is interesting is the moral or even economic dilemma: The White Stripes almost certainly did nothing to harm the movie Citizen Kane. In fact, they probably inspired some people to watch the movie who otherwise would not have watched it. Economically, the products are non-competing, as one who wants to watch a movie will not susbstitute a song for the movie, and vice versa.
I've had my HP32S since 1988. Only one battery change. I got sick of buying a new calculator every school year, so I got the HP, and it lasted me through my entire college career. I still have it at work. If I need to quickly add numbers, I use the HP instead of my Clie or the MS calculator program because the tactile feel is just great.
If you're that lazy that it's cost effective to purchase such a remote, you really need to get outside. You can buy a pair of nice rollerbaldes or a small home gym for the price of that remote.
Remote controls are not just for lazy people. It's to control your equipment. Not sure if you've noticed, but most a/v equipment today have features that can only be controlled via remote control.
The reason for a universal remote is to control numerous devices with one control. I only have a generic universal remote. But instead of having to fumble with a remote for each of my DVD, cable box, TV, and VCR. I just use one remote and switch among the various devices.
Shift the tax burden from the elite onto the rabble
The rich pay the majority of the taxes in the US. Not the poor.
Weaken the federal government as much as possible, while keeping the military as strong as possible. This is done by starving the government of funding (except for military spending, of course), and by doing away with any and all government regulations.
The Federal government is larger than ever. Dispite what you say the federal government keeps on growing, even when under Republican control. And nearly everything is subject to some kind of government regulation.
Television has played a vital role in the dumbing down of the American mass mind.
Off on another tangent, I guess. How the hell can anyone think the parent comment was brilliant and well spoken, when it is full of lies and half-truths.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no requirement to get a patent.
One other possibility is to file something called a Provisional Patent Application. These applications are not examined and will never become patents unless you file a Utility Patent Application. But the date you filed it is an official record then.
In a sense, the costs do increase when a patent application is rejected. If rejected, a patent attorney will have to correct it, spending $1000 and up in doing so. The actualy costs of filing a patent ($750), is miniscule compared to the attorney fees needed to file a patent ($5000 for simple inventions, usually much more).
Wrong. An applicant is not required to do any search at all. If an applicant has done a search, they are required to submit the results to the patent office (37 C.F.R. 1.56. Sorry, no direct link available). But there is no requirement for an inventor or applicant to perform a search.
but the patent office doesn't do its own search and reject applications that have already been done. Basically, this requirement is unenforceable, and the fact that the patent office doesn't do this search themselves is very likely the reason for most frivolous patents.
Wrong again. I know from first hand experience that the patent office does a search on every patent application that is examined. The frivolous problem is caused by what the other responder said, some of the patent examiners are not as qualified as they should be.
Already done.
NO IT'S NOT!
I'm sick of people with no clue spouting this shit in slashdot comments and getting modded up to propagate this incorrect information. Repeat after me: You can patent things that have prior art.
You are talking about something different from what the original poster said. Two of the more important criteria to getting a patent are novelty and non-obviousness.
You are correct that a patent "only gives . . . exclusive rights on the claims that exceed the prior art." What I intended to respond to was the people here who automatically spout that something was already done in the prior art, without ever even reading the patent.
Small entities already pay less than large entities. For example, the filing fee for a small entity is only $375, compared to $750 for large entities. The definition of Small Entity is long, but, as a starting point, individuals and companies with fewer than 500 employees is considered a small entity.
Good patents are already rewarded: they are enforceable and can be licensed. Bad patents can be challenged.
1) flat-out-reject anything that's already patented.
That is what the patent office does already.
2) reject anything with prior art
Already done.
3) Have a QUALIFIED examiner spend some time looking it over.
Examiners are assigned to the various units based on their qualifications. In other words, a chemist examines chemical patents, an electrical engineers examines circuit patents.
4) Have a certain public review periond (6 months?) that anyone can register complaints
That's the whole point of the publication process. Before 2000, patent applications remained secret until they were issued. Now, they are published 18 months after filing. The public can look at the applications and submit prior art references.
5) Review complaints (possible reject)
See above.
6) Have another, different qualified examiner check it out for an extended period of time.
All examiners have a supervisor.
Did you read the article? There are 2900 examiners right now and they want to raise fees so they can hire 3500 more. How can adding 50 people possibly help with the backlog?
Unfortunately, very few details about the features of the phone.
Do companies still use this? I remember having to do this for games in the 80s, but I haven't seen a game that had that "feature" in at least 15 years.
Playing an FPS on a controller sucks compared to playing with a keyboard/mouse combo. For that reason alone, I'd rather buy a new video card than an XBox. Plus, while there are $300 video cards, you can get pretty good results from a $200 card.
Why is this difficult to u'stand?
The Linux on the XBox crowd is so small that it is unimportant to MS. If they want to build up sales to XBox they wouldn't do so by doing nothing and hoping Linux users all buy an XBox. They have a lot better chance of increasing sales by, oh, I don't know, advertising maybe? Or getting the "killer app" that PS2 has (GTA3), but XBox doesn't. Maybe MS is ignoring the Linux community because they just don't care.
Why not take the logic of the XBox Linux people to the extreme: Since MS loses money each time someone buys an XBOX, every /.er should buy 2. That'll teach MS. :-)
Just checking to make sure I'm properly in tune with the hive mind
Keep working, young grasshopper. Soon, you'll realize that it is spelled Micro$oft.
You will be assimilated.
More interesting quotes from that interview:
Here is the Statement of the Case, telling the facts, from the perspective of Dastar:
But it still takes studio time and that costs money. Sure, you can use Pro Tools and a Mac to make a recording, but without a proper studio, natural instruments (drums, pianos, guitars) will sound like crap.
What the record label system does allow is people to make albums. I'm a Dream Theater fan. They are in the studio for months making their albums. Do you think they would be able to make that album without the record label advancing the costs? They only sell about 100,000 per album, and they tour to relatively small arenas (5000 capacity). Where do they make their money?
From a legal standpoint, it is fairly clear, The White Stripes copied the lyrics and gave no credit and no royalties to the actual author. What is interesting is the moral or even economic dilemma: The White Stripes almost certainly did nothing to harm the movie Citizen Kane. In fact, they probably inspired some people to watch the movie who otherwise would not have watched it. Economically, the products are non-competing, as one who wants to watch a movie will not susbstitute a song for the movie, and vice versa.
Just curious as to /.ers opinions on the matter.
Not in the US. It is specifically allowed by the Audio Home Recording Act.
I've had my HP32S since 1988. Only one battery change. I got sick of buying a new calculator every school year, so I got the HP, and it lasted me through my entire college career. I still have it at work. If I need to quickly add numbers, I use the HP instead of my Clie or the MS calculator program because the tactile feel is just great.
Remote controls are not just for lazy people. It's to control your equipment. Not sure if you've noticed, but most a/v equipment today have features that can only be controlled via remote control.
The reason for a universal remote is to control numerous devices with one control. I only have a generic universal remote. But instead of having to fumble with a remote for each of my DVD, cable box, TV, and VCR. I just use one remote and switch among the various devices.
The remote control is only $400. It obviously isn't intended for people whose entire A/V system is $400
The rich pay the majority of the taxes in the US. Not the poor.
Weaken the federal government as much as possible, while keeping the military as strong as possible. This is done by starving the government of funding (except for military spending, of course), and by doing away with any and all government regulations.
The Federal government is larger than ever. Dispite what you say the federal government keeps on growing, even when under Republican control. And nearly everything is subject to some kind of government regulation.
Television has played a vital role in the dumbing down of the American mass mind.
Off on another tangent, I guess. How the hell can anyone think the parent comment was brilliant and well spoken, when it is full of lies and half-truths.
It was FedEx, and the business was called ZapMail. Here is a link to the article you may be thinking of.