"Prior arts are patents also, and they may not have expired." Prior art can be anything, including a web page (I used one as such, I was pleased that it contained a date), a product sold, in short anything available to the public (irrespective of whether it was actually accessed) anywhere in the world.
Of course, they care about the prior art. Every applicant does. Ignoring it may mean spending thousands of dollars without a patent in return. Don't forget, patent applications are published after 18 months. That means that if you can't secure a patent, the published application may still contain information of value and you get nothing in return. Plus, the invention may not be necessarily on the market, so filing for the application will tell your competitors in any case what line of thinking/research you're following and what products may be in the pipeline.
Patent applications are open source avant la lettre, with applicants paying thousands of dollars to give an accurate written description that is shared with the whole wide world, available in free access databases.
Cool. As "Do no evil" Google provides customized search results (like Fox telling people only what they want to hear), they surely could provide Apple or the Patent office with search results that don't include prior art to Google's patents. Quite convenient. Hypothetically.
More seriously, as a patent attorney I already find Google's search facility very worthwhile, as it allows me to do an advance search before a particular date (the priority date or the filing date, to be more specific). This did result in finding prior art that is currently used in opposition proceedings to have a patent revoked. The system works (it is not copyright).
Or the people who drove it to extinction should be considered unfit because they clearly didn't' have the brain capacity to think that it is not wise to exhaust a source (i.e. handle not in a sustainable way). Unfortunately we can't punish them because they're already dead.
A parking lot of a hospital in the Netherlands has a system using ANPR. It is quite convenient when leaving the parking lot, as the barrier opens automatically. This worked about half the time, so the other half one still has to feed the ticket into a machine to prove you paid.
As to what constitutes stolen property. The information they leaked was legally obtained by the US government? Nothing surreptitiously obtained?
You would have preferred it if Wikileaks had returned the info to their rightful owners (foreign governments etc.) then? Because that is what you do with stolen property.
Well, it was information. Where is the Slashdot notion that no one got deprived of his information if that information is copied?
I think you have to agree with me that the Chinese government knew that China was ready to abandon North Korea. So, it was their secret too. And if China is an enemy, then Wikileaks leaked a secret of the enemy. They didn't have them as a source, but nevertheless it was a secret of theirs that got leaked.
The same goes for the other two. So, yes, secrets of "our enemies" were leaked.
Bert Who is rather amazed that people can talk about "our enemies" when they're not at war with them. What a worldview. Gasp
No, because it is still dependent on how he behaves after she takes her clothes off. If it is true that both women withdrew their complaints, he should be off the hook and threatening to storm an embassy doesn't seem to be too appropriate.
If this is on permanently, it still gives an incentive to drive carefully: It saves you money. Everyone benefits (including people who don't become casualties. Not that they will thank you for that, thankless bastards).
In the Science museum in Paris they have a wall with a crack that was closed when the museum was opened. They move the walls apart over the years by the same distance that Europe and America drift apart. There was quite a wide crack when I was there many years ago. By now you must be able to walk through it quite easily.
Would you be so kind and help humanity and post the gene sequence(s) we have to look for to make a diagnostic test for Alzheimer? After all, it is in nature isn't it? And this knowledge could help a lot of people, very well possible even you.
Thanks on behalf of humanity.
Bert PS For those that don't know that: The gene in its "natural habitat" isn't covered by a patent. It is only covered in isolated form or in a non-natural habitat (e.g. a human gene introduced into a plasmid).
"Exactly, Fair is fair. The government doesn't give you a monopoly on the street corner because you were fired from your job. Why should the government give any company a monopoly on an idea just because they spent a lot of money developing it?"
Strawman. If you look at the patent law (or the daily practice of the patent office), you'll see that having spent a lot of money is not a factor at all. It has to be New (doesn't matter where in the world it was publicly known to destroy a patent), and it has to be non-obvious.
People/companies applying for a patent PAY for SHARING a detailed description of their invention with the world without certainty that they'll get something (a patent) in return. The patent application gets published after 18 months (before grant).
"Each patent is a restriction on all humanity except the one who was granted exclusive ownership."
For each patent, the patentee PAID a significant amount of money to give YOU an accurate description (the patent) of exactly how the invention works, so you don't have to repeat the arduous work involved to do that all yourself.
In return he gets a monopoly yes, but it is limited in time, and he even has to pay to maintain the monopoly so it doesn't exist any longer than necessary. The monopoly is also limited to a territory (country), so you are 100% free to do it anywhere else without paying a dime.
The patent gets published after 18 months, even if the product isn't on the market) allowing anyone to learn from the invention and improve on it. That is promoting innovation, not stifling it.
In short, your remark is in good slashdot fashion when it comes to patents nonsense.
As to the circular saw, what you report on is opposition to make the stop mandatory without a FRAND. That link shows politics at work. Nothing to do with the patent system. Without patent system, I think there would have been cries about manufacturers leaching from Gass's idea. Gass could make the licensing terms more reasonable if he's concerned with the health of people. He would have made up a lower fee with numbers (imagine all the sales he's missing now, including the one to you because you obviously didn't buy one of his machines).
To the contrary. The purpose of patents is to spread information, which is what we as a society get in return for a temporary monopoly as a reward for the inventor. For an all you can eat link on any (technical ) subject go here: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/
Please note that what you can find on this site is patent applications. They are (or will) not necessarily granted. If the patent is granted but not for your country, is expired or the owner stopped paying renewal fees and the patent lapsed, you can use this info free of charge!
Slashdot Mirror
You want to police to be respectable, not put their own interest first, and to abide by the law themselves.
Bert
"Prior arts are patents also, and they may not have expired."
Prior art can be anything, including a web page (I used one as such, I was pleased that it contained a date), a product sold, in short anything available to the public (irrespective of whether it was actually accessed) anywhere in the world.
Bert
I use it frequently. What's your problem? Perhaps I can give a tip that helps (or it may indeed suck).
Bert
Of course, they care about the prior art. Every applicant does. Ignoring it may mean spending thousands of dollars without a patent in return. Don't forget, patent applications are published after 18 months. That means that if you can't secure a patent, the published application may still contain information of value and you get nothing in return. Plus, the invention may not be necessarily on the market, so filing for the application will tell your competitors in any case what line of thinking/research you're following and what products may be in the pipeline.
Patent applications are open source avant la lettre, with applicants paying thousands of dollars to give an accurate written description that is shared with the whole wide world, available in free access databases.
Bert
Cool. As "Do no evil" Google provides customized search results (like Fox telling people only what they want to hear), they surely could provide Apple or the Patent office with search results that don't include prior art to Google's patents. Quite convenient. Hypothetically.
More seriously, as a patent attorney I already find Google's search facility very worthwhile, as it allows me to do an advance search before a particular date (the priority date or the filing date, to be more specific). This did result in finding prior art that is currently used in opposition proceedings to have a patent revoked. The system works (it is not copyright).
Bert
Patent law: Making inventions open source long before the term was coined.
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP
You're not baffled.
Bert
Or the people who drove it to extinction should be considered unfit because they clearly didn't' have the brain capacity to think that it is not wise to exhaust a source (i.e. handle not in a sustainable way). Unfortunately we can't punish them because they're already dead.
Bert
A parking lot of a hospital in the Netherlands has a system using ANPR. It is quite convenient when leaving the parking lot, as the barrier opens automatically. This worked about half the time, so the other half one still has to feed the ticket into a machine to prove you paid.
Bert
As to what constitutes stolen property. The information they leaked was legally obtained by the US government? Nothing surreptitiously obtained?
You would have preferred it if Wikileaks had returned the info to their rightful owners (foreign governments etc.) then? Because that is what you do with stolen property.
Well, it was information. Where is the Slashdot notion that no one got deprived of his information if that information is copied?
Bert
I think you have to agree with me that the Chinese government knew that China was ready to abandon North Korea. So, it was their secret too. And if China is an enemy, then Wikileaks leaked a secret of the enemy. They didn't have them as a source, but nevertheless it was a secret of theirs that got leaked.
The same goes for the other two. So, yes, secrets of "our enemies" were leaked.
Bert
Who is rather amazed that people can talk about "our enemies" when they're not at war with them. What a worldview. Gasp
Wow. Balanced article. Swedes are great.
Bert
Don't you think he'd leak the radiation?
Bert
No, because it is still dependent on how he behaves after she takes her clothes off. If it is true that both women withdrew their complaints, he should be off the hook and threatening to storm an embassy doesn't seem to be too appropriate.
Bert
If this is on permanently, it still gives an incentive to drive carefully: It saves you money. Everyone benefits (including people who don't become casualties. Not that they will thank you for that, thankless bastards).
Bert
Excellent! So, you can't get fat from all those candy bars because the vending machine will stop selling them to you.
Bert
It is like killing all cancer cells 100% by shooting the patient.
There's probably company stuff on it that shouldn't be zero'd.
Bert
Not sure whether you're joking. I know I was: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1667889/
Bert
You can view that in the cinema right now.
Scratch
Full disclosure: I was in the movie
In the Science museum in Paris they have a wall with a crack that was closed when the museum was opened. They move the walls apart over the years by the same distance that Europe and America drift apart. There was quite a wide crack when I was there many years ago. By now you must be able to walk through it quite easily.
Bert
Your mobile iPhone 5 will shortly look like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct1_r_61sk8
Bert
the hose isn't necessary. Just the rubber would do, I guess.
Bert
Would you be so kind and help humanity and post the gene sequence(s) we have to look for to make a diagnostic test for Alzheimer? After all, it is in nature isn't it? And this knowledge could help a lot of people, very well possible even you.
Thanks on behalf of humanity.
Bert
PS For those that don't know that: The gene in its "natural habitat" isn't covered by a patent. It is only covered in isolated form or in a non-natural habitat (e.g. a human gene introduced into a plasmid).
"Exactly, Fair is fair. The government doesn't give you a monopoly on the street corner because you were fired from your job. Why should the government give any company a monopoly on an idea just because they spent a lot of money developing it?"
Strawman. If you look at the patent law (or the daily practice of the patent office), you'll see that having spent a lot of money is not a factor at all. It has to be New (doesn't matter where in the world it was publicly known to destroy a patent), and it has to be non-obvious.
People/companies applying for a patent PAY for SHARING a detailed description of their invention with the world without certainty that they'll get something (a patent) in return. The patent application gets published after 18 months (before grant).
Bert
"Each patent is a restriction on all humanity except the one who was granted exclusive ownership."
For each patent, the patentee PAID a significant amount of money to give YOU an accurate description (the patent) of exactly how the invention works, so you don't have to repeat the arduous work involved to do that all yourself.
In return he gets a monopoly yes, but it is limited in time, and he even has to pay to maintain the monopoly so it doesn't exist any longer than necessary. The monopoly is also limited to a territory (country), so you are 100% free to do it anywhere else without paying a dime.
The patent gets published after 18 months, even if the product isn't on the market) allowing anyone to learn from the invention and improve on it. That is promoting innovation, not stifling it.
In short, your remark is in good slashdot fashion when it comes to patents nonsense.
As to the circular saw, what you report on is opposition to make the stop mandatory without a FRAND. That link shows politics at work. Nothing to do with the patent system. Without patent system, I think there would have been cries about manufacturers leaching from Gass's idea. Gass could make the licensing terms more reasonable if he's concerned with the health of people. He would have made up a lower fee with numbers (imagine all the sales he's missing now, including the one to you because you obviously didn't buy one of his machines).
Bert
"A lot of the problem we have out here is a lack of common sense."
As the saying goes: The problem with common sense is that it isn't very common.
Bert
To the contrary. The purpose of patents is to spread information, which is what we as a society get in return for a temporary monopoly as a reward for the inventor. For an all you can eat link on any (technical ) subject go here: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/
Please note that what you can find on this site is patent applications. They are (or will) not necessarily granted. If the patent is granted but not for your country, is expired or the owner stopped paying renewal fees and the patent lapsed, you can use this info free of charge!
Bert