And if he is convicted of the crime is he still refered to in a semi-anonymous way, or do they give the name? Would it be "Today Santa C. was convicted of...", or "Today, Mr Sinter Klaas, a Dutch native visiting germany for the holidays, was found guilty of..."
If someone is willing to use the invention after it falls into the public domain after only two years, then it was valuable, they just were too fucking cheap to pay the inventor and figured that two years wasn't too long since it would take most of that to arrange a production line for the product. Corporations get profit, small inventors get screwed and disalusioned. Glad you are on the side of the Corps and want to stifle innovation by all but the large corporations. By the way, while a patent is in force, you can improve on it even if you don't hold the original patent. Since it has to be disclosed as part of the filing everyone is free to improve upon it, it's just that to use your improvement, the manufacturer would have to pay both parties a license fee. BTW not all license fees are in money.
Yes, but it does so by giving the creator monopoly control of the invention for a fixed period of time but requiring that the invention be made public. Whether they can successfully exploit the invention or not is immaterial. If you take away that motivation by saying that patents revert to the public domain in an extremely short timeframe if they aren't successfully exploited, more inventors will treat their inventions as simple trade secrets which are protected by law and do not revert to the public domain. Someone would have to steal the trade secret and publicize it to make it public domain, but then the whistleblower would be subject to civil and criminal prosecution. This is a step backwards if you ask me.
Patent law is in dire need of reform, but patent laws are supposed to foster creativity by giving the inventors a chance to profit from them, whether it is emotionally, socially, or monetarily.
Just ask Billy Joe whatshisname in Oklahoma what happens when your activities damage utility property in a right of way. Back in 1988-89 he was enlarging an irrigation canal, or cleaning it out, or whatever, and pulled up one of the main fibre trunks between the east and west coasts. I forget how many millions of dollars in fines he was slapped with. I think a lot of it was overturned on appeal, but...
I love ELPs music, but I would have expected offtopic, or interesting, or possibly even troll from a totally stoned mod, but funny? No accounting for taste I guess.
BTW that tune comes from an album with absoultly the best title.
Actually, I have several right of ways besides the normal local utility feeders through some property I own. When I had some fencing placed on part of the property I had the uprights placed in sleeves so that if they ever needed to dig up the utilities buried there the fence can be easily disassembled. If they can't easily remove the objects in the right of way, they will destroy them, and they have no legal obligation to compensate you since it's a known right of way.
Patent review processes that work. Patent reviewers that are skilled in the field of the patent being reviewed. Adjusting patent law back to the point where the patented idea must be nonobvious and nontrivial. Streamline the dispute process, for both sides of the dispute. I could go on, but it's lunch time.
I didn't. I was asking if that was going to be the situation if they allowed full deregulation of the telecommunications industry? If we didn't allow other companies to trench in their infrastructure, there would still be monopolies in many many places, just monopolies without regulation.
By the way, they have to compensate you, but utilities can and do use eminent domain laws to get governments to allow them to trench infrastructure through peoples property quite often. I'm not sure where you're from, but in the U.S. it's far from an unknown practice.
So, if you live in one of the areas where Verizon is the monopoly for access, should they at least have to pay for the lubricant?
On the other point you make of total deregulation, how many sets of wire/fibre should be strung on poles and trenched through peoples yards? I already have four rights of way trenched through the property I own. Now I have to let several other companies trench their infrastructure through my property? No way.
I read the article. I don't remember that. I remember him saying that the existing system needed to be overhauled severly, but not abolished as the GP says.
But some poor bastard, erm I mean citizen, in Australia shouldn't have to pay money to barristers to plead a case to overturn a patent, even a minipatent or whatever they call them, so that he can make an item based on a 5000+ year old concept. I know the wheel patent was done as a protest, but plenty of other stupid ideas are done with the express purpose of extorting money from innocent people in a legal manner. Patents are important, but the law in Australia, and the proposed law in the U>S> are asinine and harmful.
Which is 4 years that you get to strangle your competitors with an even more nebulous set of patent claims. Most small companies can't have a legal pillow held over their face for four years and still come out breathing. This is much more prone to abuse than the existing system from the way the article reads. Also they only apply if the invention is "in the market", whatever that means. Does it mean that if you're not a company, or if you don't charge for the invention/product it is not eligible for protection?
Many distros have a U.S, and a non-U.S. version of the distributions. TMany of the Non-U.S. versions have hinting turned on, but the U.S. versions can't due to patent encumbrances.
Well, under the improvements catagory, I want Google, or someone, to pay off whoever needs to be paid off to allow font rendering hints to be legal un the U. S. I use Linux on all but one of my computers at home, and my biggest gripe is that web pages and documents don't display as prettily as under Windows. Yes, this is fairly minor, but it bugs me. I want the function and flexibility that I get from Linux, and I want pretty too.
Yes. I remember. The mechanism for that innovation was to grant a limited time monopoly. This was to allow the inventor time to attempt to capitalize on their invention by either producing it, or licensing it. Notice the license part? He doesn't need to produce a product. If someone else wants to use the patented item, they have to pay a license. Because of the limited time frame, the inventor would be forced to attempt to invent new things to continue gettinmg income in the future once the patent falls into the public domain.
No. The successful geeks get the hot women because they have MONEY! For some women, and men also, anyone looks attractive with a 500 Million dollar account balance.
By the way, her name is Temple Grandin, not Gradin, and she has several books out on Aspergers. Her books can be interesting, but there are better one in my opinion.
That's all it takes to get rid of the furry little monsters? internet, internet, internet! I do hope Bob Barker is happy that I'm doing my part to keep down the unwanted pet population.
(When reading the preceeding, please substitute Stewies voice for the default sound of a donkey braying that you usually hear.)
Slashdot Mirror
And if he is convicted of the crime is he still refered to in a semi-anonymous way, or do they give the name? Would it be "Today Santa C. was convicted of...", or "Today, Mr Sinter Klaas, a Dutch native visiting germany for the holidays, was found guilty of..."
If someone is willing to use the invention after it falls into the public domain after only two years, then it was valuable, they just were too fucking cheap to pay the inventor and figured that two years wasn't too long since it would take most of that to arrange a production line for the product. Corporations get profit, small inventors get screwed and disalusioned. Glad you are on the side of the Corps and want to stifle innovation by all but the large corporations. By the way, while a patent is in force, you can improve on it even if you don't hold the original patent. Since it has to be disclosed as part of the filing everyone is free to improve upon it, it's just that to use your improvement, the manufacturer would have to pay both parties a license fee. BTW not all license fees are in money.
Yes, but it does so by giving the creator monopoly control of the invention for a fixed period of time but requiring that the invention be made public. Whether they can successfully exploit the invention or not is immaterial. If you take away that motivation by saying that patents revert to the public domain in an extremely short timeframe if they aren't successfully exploited, more inventors will treat their inventions as simple trade secrets which are protected by law and do not revert to the public domain. Someone would have to steal the trade secret and publicize it to make it public domain, but then the whistleblower would be subject to civil and criminal prosecution. This is a step backwards if you ask me.
Patent law is in dire need of reform, but patent laws are supposed to foster creativity by giving the inventors a chance to profit from them, whether it is emotionally, socially, or monetarily.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I believe you meant to say that libraries are being bent over the rock and having hard items placed in a sensitive place. ;)
Just ask Billy Joe whatshisname in Oklahoma what happens when your activities damage utility property in a right of way. Back in 1988-89 he was enlarging an irrigation canal, or cleaning it out, or whatever, and pulled up one of the main fibre trunks between the east and west coasts. I forget how many millions of dollars in fines he was slapped with. I think a lot of it was overturned on appeal, but...
I love ELPs music, but I would have expected offtopic, or interesting, or possibly even troll from a totally stoned mod, but funny? No accounting for taste I guess.
BTW that tune comes from an album with absoultly the best title.
Modded funny? It's the lyrics from Emerson, Lake, and Palmers Karn Evil 9. Sheesh.
Actually, I have several right of ways besides the normal local utility feeders through some property I own. When I had some fencing placed on part of the property I had the uprights placed in sleeves so that if they ever needed to dig up the utilities buried there the fence can be easily disassembled. If they can't easily remove the objects in the right of way, they will destroy them, and they have no legal obligation to compensate you since it's a known right of way.
Patent review processes that work. Patent reviewers that are skilled in the field of the patent being reviewed. Adjusting patent law back to the point where the patented idea must be nonobvious and nontrivial. Streamline the dispute process, for both sides of the dispute. I could go on, but it's lunch time.
I didn't. I was asking if that was going to be the situation if they allowed full deregulation of the telecommunications industry? If we didn't allow other companies to trench in their infrastructure, there would still be monopolies in many many places, just monopolies without regulation. By the way, they have to compensate you, but utilities can and do use eminent domain laws to get governments to allow them to trench infrastructure through peoples property quite often. I'm not sure where you're from, but in the U.S. it's far from an unknown practice.
Stupid people with mod points?
So, if you live in one of the areas where Verizon is the monopoly for access, should they at least have to pay for the lubricant?
On the other point you make of total deregulation, how many sets of wire/fibre should be strung on poles and trenched through peoples yards? I already have four rights of way trenched through the property I own. Now I have to let several other companies trench their infrastructure through my property? No way.
I read the article. I don't remember that. I remember him saying that the existing system needed to be overhauled severly, but not abolished as the GP says.
But some poor bastard, erm I mean citizen, in Australia shouldn't have to pay money to barristers to plead a case to overturn a patent, even a minipatent or whatever they call them, so that he can make an item based on a 5000+ year old concept. I know the wheel patent was done as a protest, but plenty of other stupid ideas are done with the express purpose of extorting money from innocent people in a legal manner. Patents are important, but the law in Australia, and the proposed law in the U>S> are asinine and harmful.
Which is 4 years that you get to strangle your competitors with an even more nebulous set of patent claims. Most small companies can't have a legal pillow held over their face for four years and still come out breathing. This is much more prone to abuse than the existing system from the way the article reads. Also they only apply if the invention is "in the market", whatever that means. Does it mean that if you're not a company, or if you don't charge for the invention/product it is not eligible for protection?
Way nore abusive if you ask me.
I thought Cory was a Canadian living in London. What does the FBI have to do with Canada or London?
Many distros have a U.S, and a non-U.S. version of the distributions. TMany of the Non-U.S. versions have hinting turned on, but the U.S. versions can't due to patent encumbrances.
Well, under the improvements catagory, I want Google, or someone, to pay off whoever needs to be paid off to allow font rendering hints to be legal un the U. S. I use Linux on all but one of my computers at home, and my biggest gripe is that web pages and documents don't display as prettily as under Windows. Yes, this is fairly minor, but it bugs me. I want the function and flexibility that I get from Linux, and I want pretty too.
Yes. I remember. The mechanism for that innovation was to grant a limited time monopoly. This was to allow the inventor time to attempt to capitalize on their invention by either producing it, or licensing it. Notice the license part? He doesn't need to produce a product. If someone else wants to use the patented item, they have to pay a license. Because of the limited time frame, the inventor would be forced to attempt to invent new things to continue gettinmg income in the future once the patent falls into the public domain.
Nah. It's just NAZIs are just possesive of their "riding on dinosaurs", not to be confused with their "climbing on dinosaurs."
No. The successful geeks get the hot women because they have MONEY! For some women, and men also, anyone looks attractive with a 500 Million dollar account balance.
By the way, her name is Temple Grandin, not Gradin, and she has several books out on Aspergers. Her books can be interesting, but there are better one in my opinion.
Here you go. :) ;)
That's all it takes to get rid of the furry little monsters? internet, internet, internet! I do hope Bob Barker is happy that I'm doing my part to keep down the unwanted pet population.
(When reading the preceeding, please substitute Stewies voice for the default sound of a donkey braying that you usually hear.)