You have no idea what you are talking about...it is not aimed at people that don't have an HTPC, but the people who do and want a "better" interface. That being said, Yahoo Go! is not a better interface by any stretch.
Seeing as I had Meedio before it was taken by Yahoo and beaten into submission, I would like to comment on how it has changed and why it's useless. First, I preface all this by saying it is still labeled beta and unless they stripped out the customization code (which I highly doubt), it may find its way back in there. In that same breath however, I doubt that they will allow the type of customization Meedio allowed. Customization such as rearranging the menu, adding your own submenus, themes, customizing a certain screen of a theme, editing the library file dbs so you could manually add a field and then build a view to use in a theme. Beautiful things Meedio did. It had a USB-UIRT plugin that worked beautifully with my Harmony Remote and all was well.
Now Yahoo got their grubby paws on it and destroyed. Although the interface itself is indeed faster than Meedio was, the customization is completely gone and as was mentioned, it destroys some functionality.
NOTE: Those yucks at Yahoo must have left registry keys the same as Meedio because Go! destroyed my Meedio install so that I had to do a clean install, and even after that, my weather section is perpetually screwed (I have to find the key or something that is causing it to crash)
For all you out there....I am SURE now that Meedio has stopped releasing new versions, you will be able to find a hacked copy of Meedio out there. I suggest you do and try it out, you'll be impressed. I stress the urgency because the forums and the 3rd party plugin site is still up and running although I don't know for how long. http://www.meedio.com/MAID and http://www.meedio.com/forum.
Thanks for screwing up a good thing Yahoo!, yet another reason I will not touch your crap with a 12 foot pole.
That is the most STUPID comment I have read. You obviously don't read the/. articles and comments but merely comment in an attempt to sound funny. The current patent reform on the table would not do away with prior art, it would do away with first to invent in favor of a first to file system. Get it straight before you try to be funny.
Many of the slashdot community are well educated, some highly educated, individuals whom understand tech and I enjoy reading comments by, but every single time a patent issue is posted, 95% (I didn't do the actual math) of people posting are not only bitching about the patent itself, but then quickly follow it with a "DAMN the USPTO, DOWN WITH PATENTS!!!!"
I say to all of you, you are ignorant. Mod this flamebait, I don't care. To say because something is not perfect, that it should be dismantled and done away with is ridiculous. Yes, the patent system right now is not perfect. Yes, there needs to be reform. But are you really that dense and moronic to ignore the last 100 years of innovation that ultimately was started with the encouragement of innovation through the use of patents???
Secondly, for all of you who say "DAMN THE LAWYERS!" Once again, I point to your arrogance and lack of common sense. Do you really think that lawyers cause this??? You honestly believe that Creative, through NO idea of their own decided to try and patent these ideas?? No, that's right, a LAWYER walked in the door and gave them this brilliant idea. The poor, poor companies that are being swindled and deceived by the evil lawyers, what we will do?
Take a look at the companies first before damning attorneys. If the companies didn't want to patent ideas, there would be no need for the attorneys. Attorneys don't create this situations, companies and people do. Stop assuming the lawyers are ALWAYS the evil group. Sometimes they are, but most of the time, in these situations, the attorneys are merely carrying out the wishes of their employers. If an attorney says "No, this is ridiculous" but the client says "Do it", I will give you one guess as to the result and that is to no fault of the attorney.
Finally, I beg you, think before you speak. Many of you screaming about how bad things are, you sound like a whining 5-year-old child. How many of you that actual complain incessantly, know anything beyond what you hear about patents, their history, and what they have actually done for this country. I would bet not many. Yes, things need to change because technology is not the same as when the drafters wrote up the code governing patents, but to say it is useless and is causing problems. My opinion is that it is people like you spewing garbage about how bad things are without knowledge or even a hint of how to correct things as the problem. It's people like you who tell others of how bad things are and influence them to believe something based nothing more than in your lack of facts or knowledge to support your claim.
Try reading Hot Property (although it primarily deals with pirating) for the beginning chapters which describe exactly how important patents were to gaining independence from British dependency in the infancy of this country.
I wish there was a way on/. to filter out idiots. At least then, discussions on patent reform and pending patents would be somewhat worthwhile to open.
Posted on Tuesday was a perfect compliment to this story Stereoscopic Viewing.
In THAT article it talked aboout independent stereoscopic viewing without the use of glasses. Further if you read the article and then view the albeit large, but nice, 40mb clip from it, you would see that at one point they are projecting an image onto a wall (or any surface would work I would imagine) and the image was completely 3D and adjusted to the viewing angle of the person watching. Now, I couldn't explain exactly how they are doing this, but the demo shows a couple of people who look like they are in a basement using what look like standard lcd projectors (I could be wrong).
Bottom line, all the gripes about 3D everyone is talking about are being addressed, and not only being addressed, but with some progress coupled with it.
Take into account the previous article, and the industry's new attitude towards 3D, we might actually have something here!
WBM doesn't charge for this use if I am not mistaken (haven't taken a look at WBM for a while). Look at WBM as a sort of library in a sense. Although are doing is keeping an available archive for public use. The same thing as someone holding a million old editions of a newspaper (sort of like microfilm).
If WBM starting charging for the service, it might get messy, but considering they could attempt to justify it as charging for the service not the information, they could probably avoid copyright infringement. Essentially, copyrights and the like protect the owners interest in profiting from the information among other things. If in fact, WBM does not profit but is merely maintaining an archive, they will survive a threat of copyright infringement much the way a library would.
First I would like to apologize for the spelling atrocities I committed in my first post. (Slightly embarrassing) I shouldn't be trying to post while at work I guess. Shame on me.
In response to your post:
Once again, I turn to the misconceptions made by the average/. poster. I will gladly concede to someone who brings to the table some evidence of this alleged abuse. Usually what gets posted is an assumption of what is actually happening. Look through previous/. posts. Usually, someone actually takes the time to go out and review the patent and we find that somewhere within it there is SOME sort of validity or something worth protecting. Not always is it the agenda of the big corporations to throw "caltrops" down as you suggest. Because something may seem obvious to YOU doesn't make it obvious in general.
On/., the people who post are all technologically savvy. Some are frighteningly intelligent. Most can understand the patent and say "DUH!!" when they read the claims being made. Well, patents by definition are supposed to be written so that someone of the same level of skill would not only be able to understand it, but be able to reproduce it. The fact that it may be obvious to you does not articulate the meaning of "obvious" used by the USPTO. Different, albeit similar, meanings.
This same argument is had whenever a post about code that someone wrote is posted. There is always someone who says, "Well, I know that. He didn't do anything innovative." Perhaps true, but he was the first one to publish it and take credit for "explaining" it to others.
Like I said previously, it's not that I think the patent system is perfect. I know it is flawed, but abandoning it or attempting to penalize certain groups or classes (meaning corporations or large entities) will do nothing but hurt the system even more. In a country like ours with innovation happening at a frightening rate, there has to be some sort of system to protect those whom are the first to create, or first to prove they have created.
I go back to my original plea: If you want to point out the cons, do it from a factual standpoint. Don't stand on the outside and point fingers and create ridiculous schemes for rectifying the situation. Bring some sort of basis along with it and wow me with your reasoning.
The problem with the patent system isn't necessarily the system itself, but those who criticize it, but have absolutely no idea how it really works, and then proceeds to DEMAND change!
First off, I HIGHLY doubt that is how it happened. You're oversimplyfying the process. That is the problem with those who are incredibly defensive against software patents. I am not saying I am all for them. I am not necessarily convinced that the current process or mechanism right now for the them is perfect but I do think in some form, they should be present.
I find it sort of discouraging that so many intelligent people are on/., but somany oversimplyfy when it comes to patents in order to further a ridiculous conception of patents. To say that someone chances "one word" is a ridiculous assumption. Granted, sometimes on rare instances, that may be the case, but hardly the norm. If you don't like patents that is your opinion and a respected one at that. But don't make oversimplified decriptions of processes in place that you think you can easily solve.
The USPTO does the best it can in most regards, with the massive amounts of submissions it receives on a daily basis. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they receive millions of applications monthly. They handle all those applications to the best of their ability. Whether you want to admit it or not, what they do is pretty amazing even as flawed as it is.
I don't mean this to be flame-bait, but it seems that everytime a patent issue comes up on/. there are handfuls of people spouting the same thing. "It's too easy to get a patent", "Punish the big companies trying to patent what they have", "The system should be done away with because...". Then usually followed by a misconceived idea of how it actually works.
Realize its not perfect, but don't assume it's not needed. And also realize that a rule affecting a business will affect an individual inventor. So don't think you can "punish" and "correct" the situation without in some adversely affecting the innocent inventor. Everything has a pro and con. If you want to talk about the con fine, but at least acknowledge the pros.
Just a sidenote, I am in law school now and will be taking Patent and Trade Secret Law in the fall, so then I might be able to lend more insight.
I didn't know he allegedly refused to return source code. If that IS the case, then yes, the company is partialy justified. If they asked for the code back, did not give a reasonable time frame for action on his part, they are still in the wrong and a good lawyer should be able to display that.
It all boils down to whether he
1. Refused to return code
2. Posted the code for others
3. His claims were meritorius and thus HMS's actions were maliciousP.
If 1, is wrong, HMS is screwed. If 2 is also wrong, even worse. If 3 is correct, hello counter-suit.
There are some things I feel you are overlooking in your analysis. I did not read his employee agreement and true to suit it probably has a section about the disclosing of trade secrets and probably a restrictive covenant in terms of future employment.
The problem is that you are not necessarily understanding "misappropriation of trade secrets". At the point the search was conducted against him, he had committed no crime. He had disclosed nothing except to the people he worked for. You cannot misappropriate trade secrets within your own company. (Granted, large company, different sectors, MAYBE) All he did was give the company an opportunity to explain their actions and/or adjust. His mere threat of talking to a lawyer gives no rise to a cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets.
As for "smear[ing]" the company's name, that is ridiculous. I once again go back to the fact that he talked to them first. One of two things could happen, they could easily respond by justifying their actions legally, or he was right, and he wouldn't be "smearing" their name.
Their actions reek of foul play. It makes me think everything he alleged was true. Why the hoopla. If he was wrong, he gave them the opportunity to talk to him, they chose to go after him.
Bottom line, he "legally" did NOTHING wrong. He merely made his superiors aware of a crime within his company. They chose to go after him without acknowledging the letter.
My bet, this goes to trial, their claim will get bounced for no foundation for the cause of action and if he has a good lawyer, should be able to counter-sue and recoup legal fees as well as damages. Hell, I bet he could even get some sort of constructive defamation.
Yep! Haha....I am still learning the MPEP and all of 35 USC, I have to refresh myself a little. I am taking the patent bar hopefully in a few weeks so we'll see.
Sorry if some of my comments are off, finished finals not to long ago and brain has fully "reset" yet.
BTW - Compulawyer, I would like to contact you and ask you a few questions if you wouldn't mind?
It seems, as compulawyer stated, that something that is present in the public domain should not be in jeopardy. Even under this new bill, prior art should still stay in full force (SHOULD). Meaning that if MS files a patent for a bit of code and the patent examiner conducts a PROPER search, he should find the existing code in the public domain.
Depending on who posted the code and when, the examiner will determine if it qualifies as prior art. If it does, prior art will preclude MS from filing for a patent. Also, the open and obvious standard in play in the patent system prevents obvious derivatives of something as well as obvious combinations of previous work. This should calm those who are worried about minor improvements to open source that would then be patentable. Currently, the novel standard must be satisfied to be eligible for a patent.
Also, the original author, of say something in the public domain, has the right to a patent one year from publication. Publication is a very open term in the eyes of the USPTO and can be proved in numerous ways. If a year has lapsed, it will be considered prior art not only to new filers, but to the original inventor himself (in otherwise, it would prevent the true owner from filing).
If you have the code under copyright and it is published, likely it will be considered as prior art when the other entity files for the patent.
Under the current rules, that would definitely happen. You would have one year from time of publication to file for a patent, although I don't know how having a copyright would factor in off the top of my head. My assumption would be that if it is copyrighted by one entity another can't patent it, not sure though.
Under the new bill as proposed, as explained to me earlier, the new bill has a mechanism to prevent "finders" from patenting existing information like that. If you both came up with the code individually, you posted it first and declared it first, but the other made it to the office first, you screwed.
Oh, I understand how it would work under the classic rules, going to the court of inteferences, but I am wonder under this new bill if that would change. Because it seems that the first to file is specifically meant to avoid the type of scenario you listed. Meaning first to file, no matter who can prove what, gets the filing date.
BTW - like your sig. Former techie here in law school to become a patent attorney!
China doesn't circumvent or ignore intellectual property laws. In fact, I happen to know for a fact that a specific law school in Chicago, John Marshall Law School, which is very well-known IP (specifically patent), runs a joint program with China in IP.
I don't think an industrial country can effectively function without some sort of intellectual property and/or patent type of system in place. Especially in a country like the US where we are all SOOO ethical in terms of recognizing who has rights to what.
I don't necessarily think the patent system is "broke", but tune ups are definitely needed. I believe that there is at least one section of 35 USC (man, can't remember the section number) that since its inception, only one word has changed.
Bottom line, this bill may attempt to help balance some issues, but it is far from the place we need to be. For now, we must just accept the system and work within it and recognize that it is a necessary evil in the innovate society we live in.
I see. Did you look at the proposed bill to get this information. From the brief look I took at it, I didn't see a differentiation between actual inventors and "finders", for lack of a better term.
I didn't know that the bill explicitly provided for that situation. That being said, it makes it a little more sound, but I agree with you, it does not help the independent inventor.
Does the bill make mention of how prior art will be affected if any. It still seems to me that in the situation you laid out, under current rules, if Smith posted an article or some sort of publication concerning the invention, that would be considered prior art. It seems prior art is not only a mechanism to prevent open and obvious inventions but also to deter people from stealing ideas. By allowing the first to file provision, you can't necessarily deal with prior art in the same manner.
This is my concern with this reform.
The prior art search and requirement under section 102 seems that it would be pointless. If I am the first to file something, EVEN though I didn't invent it first, what the hell is the point of even doing a prior art search. There is none.
This will, as it seems on its face, not only change who can receive the patent, but also change a large chunk of the MPEP (Manual of Patent Examiner Procedures) which dictates how patents are to be researched before being issued.
What this will effectively do is limit prior art ONLY to issued patents. If it is not an issued patent, even if it has been published, disclosed, or even in a pending status, it will not prevent someone from filing.
Finally, provisional applications would be useless now as well because provisionals are used to hold a date. I believe (not 100% sure) that provisionals are published. If that is the case, any company with oodles of cash could rummage through provisional apps which are actually filed yet, file them, and screw whoever filed the provisional.
All in all, it seems as if this bill is more sweeping then they allude to. This could change much more than opposition requests and who can file, but also the way patents are examined.
Okay....
Thanks for stating that patents are f'd. Now I would like you to follow that with a solution to doing away with them. Or is not being able to protect anything you created fine?
I know, let's make EVERYTHING public domain. You want to talk about financial catastrophe, your comment and the associated fix you are indirectly suggesting begs it.
Slashdot Mirror
Seeing as I had Meedio before it was taken by Yahoo and beaten into submission, I would like to comment on how it has changed and why it's useless. First, I preface all this by saying it is still labeled beta and unless they stripped out the customization code (which I highly doubt), it may find its way back in there. In that same breath however, I doubt that they will allow the type of customization Meedio allowed. Customization such as rearranging the menu, adding your own submenus, themes, customizing a certain screen of a theme, editing the library file dbs so you could manually add a field and then build a view to use in a theme. Beautiful things Meedio did. It had a USB-UIRT plugin that worked beautifully with my Harmony Remote and all was well.
Now Yahoo got their grubby paws on it and destroyed. Although the interface itself is indeed faster than Meedio was, the customization is completely gone and as was mentioned, it destroys some functionality.
NOTE: Those yucks at Yahoo must have left registry keys the same as Meedio because Go! destroyed my Meedio install so that I had to do a clean install, and even after that, my weather section is perpetually screwed (I have to find the key or something that is causing it to crash)
For all you out there....I am SURE now that Meedio has stopped releasing new versions, you will be able to find a hacked copy of Meedio out there. I suggest you do and try it out, you'll be impressed. I stress the urgency because the forums and the 3rd party plugin site is still up and running although I don't know for how long. http://www.meedio.com/MAID and http://www.meedio.com/forum.
Thanks for screwing up a good thing Yahoo!, yet another reason I will not touch your crap with a 12 foot pole.
That is the most STUPID comment I have read. You obviously don't read the /. articles and comments but merely comment in an attempt to sound funny. The current patent reform on the table would not do away with prior art, it would do away with first to invent in favor of a first to file system. Get it straight before you try to be funny.
I say to all of you, you are ignorant. Mod this flamebait, I don't care. To say because something is not perfect, that it should be dismantled and done away with is ridiculous. Yes, the patent system right now is not perfect. Yes, there needs to be reform. But are you really that dense and moronic to ignore the last 100 years of innovation that ultimately was started with the encouragement of innovation through the use of patents???
Secondly, for all of you who say "DAMN THE LAWYERS!" Once again, I point to your arrogance and lack of common sense. Do you really think that lawyers cause this??? You honestly believe that Creative, through NO idea of their own decided to try and patent these ideas?? No, that's right, a LAWYER walked in the door and gave them this brilliant idea. The poor, poor companies that are being swindled and deceived by the evil lawyers, what we will do?
Take a look at the companies first before damning attorneys. If the companies didn't want to patent ideas, there would be no need for the attorneys. Attorneys don't create this situations, companies and people do. Stop assuming the lawyers are ALWAYS the evil group. Sometimes they are, but most of the time, in these situations, the attorneys are merely carrying out the wishes of their employers. If an attorney says "No, this is ridiculous" but the client says "Do it", I will give you one guess as to the result and that is to no fault of the attorney.
Finally, I beg you, think before you speak. Many of you screaming about how bad things are, you sound like a whining 5-year-old child. How many of you that actual complain incessantly, know anything beyond what you hear about patents, their history, and what they have actually done for this country. I would bet not many. Yes, things need to change because technology is not the same as when the drafters wrote up the code governing patents, but to say it is useless and is causing problems. My opinion is that it is people like you spewing garbage about how bad things are without knowledge or even a hint of how to correct things as the problem. It's people like you who tell others of how bad things are and influence them to believe something based nothing more than in your lack of facts or knowledge to support your claim.
Try reading Hot Property (although it primarily deals with pirating) for the beginning chapters which describe exactly how important patents were to gaining independence from British dependency in the infancy of this country.
I wish there was a way on /. to filter out idiots. At least then, discussions on patent reform and pending patents would be somewhat worthwhile to open.
Posted on Tuesday was a perfect compliment to this story Stereoscopic Viewing. In THAT article it talked aboout independent stereoscopic viewing without the use of glasses. Further if you read the article and then view the albeit large, but nice, 40mb clip from it, you would see that at one point they are projecting an image onto a wall (or any surface would work I would imagine) and the image was completely 3D and adjusted to the viewing angle of the person watching. Now, I couldn't explain exactly how they are doing this, but the demo shows a couple of people who look like they are in a basement using what look like standard lcd projectors (I could be wrong). Bottom line, all the gripes about 3D everyone is talking about are being addressed, and not only being addressed, but with some progress coupled with it. Take into account the previous article, and the industry's new attitude towards 3D, we might actually have something here!
If WBM starting charging for the service, it might get messy, but considering they could attempt to justify it as charging for the service not the information, they could probably avoid copyright infringement. Essentially, copyrights and the like protect the owners interest in profiting from the information among other things. If in fact, WBM does not profit but is merely maintaining an archive, they will survive a threat of copyright infringement much the way a library would.
In response to your post: /. poster. I will gladly concede to someone who brings to the table some evidence of this alleged abuse. Usually what gets posted is an assumption of what is actually happening. Look through previous /. posts. Usually, someone actually takes the time to go out and review the patent and we find that somewhere within it there is SOME sort of validity or something worth protecting. Not always is it the agenda of the big corporations to throw "caltrops" down as you suggest. Because something may seem obvious to YOU doesn't make it obvious in general.
Once again, I turn to the misconceptions made by the average
On /., the people who post are all technologically savvy. Some are frighteningly intelligent. Most can understand the patent and say "DUH!!" when they read the claims being made. Well, patents by definition are supposed to be written so that someone of the same level of skill would not only be able to understand it, but be able to reproduce it. The fact that it may be obvious to you does not articulate the meaning of "obvious" used by the USPTO. Different, albeit similar, meanings.
This same argument is had whenever a post about code that someone wrote is posted. There is always someone who says, "Well, I know that. He didn't do anything innovative." Perhaps true, but he was the first one to publish it and take credit for "explaining" it to others.
Like I said previously, it's not that I think the patent system is perfect. I know it is flawed, but abandoning it or attempting to penalize certain groups or classes (meaning corporations or large entities) will do nothing but hurt the system even more. In a country like ours with innovation happening at a frightening rate, there has to be some sort of system to protect those whom are the first to create, or first to prove they have created.
I go back to my original plea: If you want to point out the cons, do it from a factual standpoint. Don't stand on the outside and point fingers and create ridiculous schemes for rectifying the situation. Bring some sort of basis along with it and wow me with your reasoning.
The problem with the patent system isn't necessarily the system itself, but those who criticize it, but have absolutely no idea how it really works, and then proceeds to DEMAND change!
I find it sort of discouraging that so many intelligent people are on /., but somany oversimplyfy when it comes to patents in order to further a ridiculous conception of patents. To say that someone chances "one word" is a ridiculous assumption. Granted, sometimes on rare instances, that may be the case, but hardly the norm. If you don't like patents that is your opinion and a respected one at that. But don't make oversimplified decriptions of processes in place that you think you can easily solve.
The USPTO does the best it can in most regards, with the massive amounts of submissions it receives on a daily basis. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they receive millions of applications monthly. They handle all those applications to the best of their ability. Whether you want to admit it or not, what they do is pretty amazing even as flawed as it is.
I don't mean this to be flame-bait, but it seems that everytime a patent issue comes up on /. there are handfuls of people spouting the same thing. "It's too easy to get a patent", "Punish the big companies trying to patent what they have", "The system should be done away with because...". Then usually followed by a misconceived idea of how it actually works.
Realize its not perfect, but don't assume it's not needed. And also realize that a rule affecting a business will affect an individual inventor. So don't think you can "punish" and "correct" the situation without in some adversely affecting the innocent inventor. Everything has a pro and con. If you want to talk about the con fine, but at least acknowledge the pros.
I didn't know he allegedly refused to return source code. If that IS the case, then yes, the company is partialy justified. If they asked for the code back, did not give a reasonable time frame for action on his part, they are still in the wrong and a good lawyer should be able to display that.
It all boils down to whether he
1. Refused to return code
2. Posted the code for others
3. His claims were meritorius and thus HMS's actions were maliciousP. If 1, is wrong, HMS is screwed. If 2 is also wrong, even worse. If 3 is correct, hello counter-suit.
The problem is that you are not necessarily understanding "misappropriation of trade secrets". At the point the search was conducted against him, he had committed no crime. He had disclosed nothing except to the people he worked for. You cannot misappropriate trade secrets within your own company. (Granted, large company, different sectors, MAYBE) All he did was give the company an opportunity to explain their actions and/or adjust. His mere threat of talking to a lawyer gives no rise to a cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets.
As for "smear[ing]" the company's name, that is ridiculous. I once again go back to the fact that he talked to them first. One of two things could happen, they could easily respond by justifying their actions legally, or he was right, and he wouldn't be "smearing" their name.
Their actions reek of foul play. It makes me think everything he alleged was true. Why the hoopla. If he was wrong, he gave them the opportunity to talk to him, they chose to go after him.
Bottom line, he "legally" did NOTHING wrong. He merely made his superiors aware of a crime within his company. They chose to go after him without acknowledging the letter.
My bet, this goes to trial, their claim will get bounced for no foundation for the cause of action and if he has a good lawyer, should be able to counter-sue and recoup legal fees as well as damages. Hell, I bet he could even get some sort of constructive defamation.
I didn't even know they existed in this world of secretarial computer experts and "computer enthusiasts".
"Have you tried Microsoft's Music Manager?"
Every single time you open a music file. Not to mention the relentless resetting of file associations.
Sorry if some of my comments are off, finished finals not to long ago and brain has fully "reset" yet.
BTW - Compulawyer, I would like to contact you and ask you a few questions if you wouldn't mind?
Depending on who posted the code and when, the examiner will determine if it qualifies as prior art. If it does, prior art will preclude MS from filing for a patent. Also, the open and obvious standard in play in the patent system prevents obvious derivatives of something as well as obvious combinations of previous work. This should calm those who are worried about minor improvements to open source that would then be patentable. Currently, the novel standard must be satisfied to be eligible for a patent.
Also, the original author, of say something in the public domain, has the right to a patent one year from publication. Publication is a very open term in the eyes of the USPTO and can be proved in numerous ways. If a year has lapsed, it will be considered prior art not only to new filers, but to the original inventor himself (in otherwise, it would prevent the true owner from filing).
Under the current rules, that would definitely happen. You would have one year from time of publication to file for a patent, although I don't know how having a copyright would factor in off the top of my head. My assumption would be that if it is copyrighted by one entity another can't patent it, not sure though.
Under the new bill as proposed, as explained to me earlier, the new bill has a mechanism to prevent "finders" from patenting existing information like that. If you both came up with the code individually, you posted it first and declared it first, but the other made it to the office first, you screwed.
Oh, I understand how it would work under the classic rules, going to the court of inteferences, but I am wonder under this new bill if that would change. Because it seems that the first to file is specifically meant to avoid the type of scenario you listed. Meaning first to file, no matter who can prove what, gets the filing date. BTW - like your sig. Former techie here in law school to become a patent attorney!
I don't think an industrial country can effectively function without some sort of intellectual property and/or patent type of system in place. Especially in a country like the US where we are all SOOO ethical in terms of recognizing who has rights to what.
I don't necessarily think the patent system is "broke", but tune ups are definitely needed. I believe that there is at least one section of 35 USC (man, can't remember the section number) that since its inception, only one word has changed.
Bottom line, this bill may attempt to help balance some issues, but it is far from the place we need to be. For now, we must just accept the system and work within it and recognize that it is a necessary evil in the innovate society we live in.
I see. Did you look at the proposed bill to get this information. From the brief look I took at it, I didn't see a differentiation between actual inventors and "finders", for lack of a better term.
I didn't know that the bill explicitly provided for that situation. That being said, it makes it a little more sound, but I agree with you, it does not help the independent inventor.
Does the bill make mention of how prior art will be affected if any. It still seems to me that in the situation you laid out, under current rules, if Smith posted an article or some sort of publication concerning the invention, that would be considered prior art. It seems prior art is not only a mechanism to prevent open and obvious inventions but also to deter people from stealing ideas. By allowing the first to file provision, you can't necessarily deal with prior art in the same manner.
This is my concern with this reform. The prior art search and requirement under section 102 seems that it would be pointless. If I am the first to file something, EVEN though I didn't invent it first, what the hell is the point of even doing a prior art search. There is none. This will, as it seems on its face, not only change who can receive the patent, but also change a large chunk of the MPEP (Manual of Patent Examiner Procedures) which dictates how patents are to be researched before being issued. What this will effectively do is limit prior art ONLY to issued patents. If it is not an issued patent, even if it has been published, disclosed, or even in a pending status, it will not prevent someone from filing. Finally, provisional applications would be useless now as well because provisionals are used to hold a date. I believe (not 100% sure) that provisionals are published. If that is the case, any company with oodles of cash could rummage through provisional apps which are actually filed yet, file them, and screw whoever filed the provisional. All in all, it seems as if this bill is more sweeping then they allude to. This could change much more than opposition requests and who can file, but also the way patents are examined.
Okay.... Thanks for stating that patents are f'd. Now I would like you to follow that with a solution to doing away with them. Or is not being able to protect anything you created fine? I know, let's make EVERYTHING public domain. You want to talk about financial catastrophe, your comment and the associated fix you are indirectly suggesting begs it.