Not necessarily. If the inclusion of x is both novel and not obvious, then the second patent would be valid. However, the holder of the second patent would not be able to practice the second approach (with X and Y) without the consent (i.e., license) from the original patent holder (owner of Y).
The summary is further wrong in that the "article" they are associating with the message specifically is referring to a physical article (e.g., a sweater). When you read the decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that essentially allowed this patent, it is clear that the "article" is "descriptive of an article to be procured, and [that] the article is associated with an event." A better summary of the claims would be to state that it is a reminder system that allows a person to scan in information from a product after an event has already been created, associate the article information (e.g., product description) with the event, and then send a reminder that includes event data and the article information. This may have been known in the art, but lets at least avoid the handwaving that is overly broad and not accurate that leads to the quick condemnation of the patent system.
To infringe, an infringer would have to produce a product that had every element of the claim listed below. Leave one thing off and you are clear of infringement.
1. A head-mounted device that is worn on a user's head and configured to integrate with a removable portable electronic device, comprising: a frame comprising a cavity that is configured to physically receive and carry the removable portable electronic device, wherein the frame places a display screen of the portable electronic device in front of the user's eyes, and wherein the display screen of the portable electronic device acts as the primary display screen of the head-mounted device such that the display screen of the portable electronic device is primarily used to view image based content when the head-mounted display device is worn on the user's head; a detection mechanism configured to alter the portable electronic device based on whether the removable portable electronic device is mounted on the frame; and an optical subassembly operative to: receive at least one image frame from the display screen of the portable electronic device, wherein the at least one image frame comprises the image based content; and adjust the image based content based at least in part on relative sizes of the display and the display screen of the portable electronic device.
Thank you for your insightful comment. Nothing is permanently being given away, instead a single purchaser will have the right to utilize and control the utilization and implementation the technology patented. The right of ownership will still be retained by NASA (and hence the U.S. Public).
I understand that your comment was focussing on the humor of the over-all theme, but in fact you would not be violating the patent. According to the patent claim (which defines the scope of the coverage) you would need to have a second trailer full of temperature control equpiment hooked to the first trailer with the computers. Below is claim 1 (typically the broadest in coverage):
A data center, comprising: at least one modular computing module, each including: a shipping container configured for transport via a transport infrastructure; and a plurality of computing systems mounted within the shipping container and configured to be shipped and operated within the shipping container; and a cooling module of a temperature control system, the cooling module including another of said shipping container, the cooling module being separate from the computing systems of the at least one modular computing module.
Please note that the claims requires a second shipping container with cooling module seperate from the computing system. Again I appologize for not focussing on the humor or your comment, but I thought it might be appropriate to provide a little insight into the situation.
I believe, that even with a first-to-file system you still have to prove that you invented the technolgy/invention. If there is a reference out there that show you did not invent the technology/invention because the invention is described in a prior art reference before the filing of the application, then the first-to-file individual will have a more difficult time proving that they were the inventor. Hence, prior art would still play a part in a first-to-file system.
You are correct to a point. Patent Applications can be withheld from public view as long as you specify in the begining of the process that you do not want you patent application to publish. By doing this though, you lose the ability to gain a patent in some foreign countries as they require application publication as part of their patenting procedure.
But you are missing one of the details in a previous post/the summary: namely, it is only published applications that are part of the peer review process. So, any information that the peer reviewers would see has already been published to the general public. Those applications that do not allow publication, will not be able to participate in the program.
Become a U.S. Patent Agent. Decent Pay. Great Benefits. But most importantly, with your experience you would be an excellent person to have reviewing IT related patents (and this includes reviwing software patents that should not be issued). The USPTO is constantly hiring, especially in the IT fields because of the backlog of cases. Further, once you become and agent, especially an agent with USPTO experience, you can basically write your own check to work anywhere in the U.S. prosecuting applications. All of this, while getting to see (by definition) cutting edge technology. Just my $.02 worth.
What about faxes? A fax is for transmitting printed matter or images by electronic means. Does this mean that any letter that is scanned into an electronic format is now considered an e-mail upon transmission? I think that defining a term "ambiguous" (email in this case) that has a specific meaning to justify a specific outcome is a very slippery slope that the justices should avoid.
Actually, the 20 years is currently from the time of filing whereas the previous time limit of 17 years was from issuance. The new system was made in an attempt to prevent submarine patents that would languish in the patent office for years due to procedural maneuvering on the part of the applicant. Typically, these applicants would then wait until the invention was being used by the public to then comply with the necessary rules to have the patent issue. These types of maneuvers greatly extended the 'effective' life of the patent.
Don't state/federal legislative members (both House and Senate) take an oath to uphold the applicable constitution when they take office? It would seem that the knowingly passing of a law that requires the Court system to determine the constitutionality of the law would be in direct conflict with this oath. Congressmen are on equal footing with the judicial system in determining whether a law is constitutional (if the legislative body doesn't like the courts' decisions, change the law). We, the citizenry, need to hold the legislative branch accountable to their responsibility.
Not in the U.S. for a utility patent. A design patent is limited to 14 years. Applications for a utility patent filed before June 8, 1995 have a patent term of 17 years from issuance or 20 years from filing, whichever is greater. This is of course subject to the paying the necessary maintenance fees. Anything after June 8, 1995 has a patent term (subject to necessary maintenance fees) of 20 years from the filing date.
Nope. Only the creditor can cancel the debt. Hence the relief from the sum owed is now considered income to the debtor. It is a potentially nasty revenge for the creditor.
NTP is being portrayed as the bad guy in this situation (and they very well might be). No one is reporting the number of companies that NTP approached regarding licensing the technology. Who knows how many companies looked at the technology covered and decided that they could improve upon it. Instead, it is simply reported that NTP is stalking a company that has produced a product that is profitable. And whether or not it was NTP that sued RIM for allegedly infringing the contested patents, or the original patent holder, someone would have. Some attorney would have given his left arm to be able to sue RIM and secure a 30%+ commission.
The term "Patent Trolls",from the article, is highly inflammatory and counter productive to the argument. These "Trolls" are simply reallocating the risk associated with introducing a new invention to the market. Instead of the single/small inventor bearing the burden of introducing the product to market, the investors share the burden amongst many who are willing to accept the risk. This financial support of the inventor fulfills the purpose and policy of a patent law, namely to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." Small/Single inventors receive a sum of money equivalent to what they believe the inventions is worth, and a more effective marketing team (with the financial resources necessary to be successful) now owns and promotes an invention that would have likely languished in a portfolio because of a lack of exposure to the public.
actually, not all wood pulp used for the manufacturing of paper is created by trees specifically designed to become paper products. Many trees are used for lumber and the remainder of the tree (that portion that is too small to cut into dimmensional lumber) is turned into wood pulp that is then manufactured into paper. Further, the wood pulp market sustains the cutting of smaller trees, specifically in markets where pulp mills are already built and supply is low (i.e., California)
That is not the way the system works. They develop a process and hope a percentage of the chips manufactured meet the criteria to be a high end chip, the remainder are sold then at the lower end of the scale. The process variation creates the difference between a high end chip and a low end chip, not the product started at the beginning of the line.
This is the reason AMD is developing a new fab. The better the fab, the greater number of high end chips are produced from the same process. If it was as simple as simply putting more high end parts into the production line then there would be no low-end line.
You lump all religions in the same basket. There as many definitions of religion and being religious as there are individuals. This over simplification is just as indicative of a closed, i.e. overly religious, mind as the individual that denies that there may be things in the bible that are not necessarily accurate.
There are many people of faith that have devoted their lives to the improvement of science and continue to do so. Some of the greatest inventions have come during times that some would consider overly religious (the entire Victorian era comes to mind). It is only those that are short sighted that believe that the creative nature of man will not win out over those destined to remain in the past. Change and innovation will continue.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. If the inclusion of x is both novel and not obvious, then the second patent would be valid. However, the holder of the second patent would not be able to practice the second approach (with X and Y) without the consent (i.e., license) from the original patent holder (owner of Y).
The summary is further wrong in that the "article" they are associating with the message specifically is referring to a physical article (e.g., a sweater). When you read the decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that essentially allowed this patent, it is clear that the "article" is "descriptive of an article to be procured, and [that] the article is associated with an event." A better summary of the claims would be to state that it is a reminder system that allows a person to scan in information from a product after an event has already been created, associate the article information (e.g., product description) with the event, and then send a reminder that includes event data and the article information. This may have been known in the art, but lets at least avoid the handwaving that is overly broad and not accurate that leads to the quick condemnation of the patent system.
To infringe, an infringer would have to produce a product that had every element of the claim listed below. Leave one thing off and you are clear of infringement. 1. A head-mounted device that is worn on a user's head and configured to integrate with a removable portable electronic device, comprising: a frame comprising a cavity that is configured to physically receive and carry the removable portable electronic device, wherein the frame places a display screen of the portable electronic device in front of the user's eyes, and wherein the display screen of the portable electronic device acts as the primary display screen of the head-mounted device such that the display screen of the portable electronic device is primarily used to view image based content when the head-mounted display device is worn on the user's head; a detection mechanism configured to alter the portable electronic device based on whether the removable portable electronic device is mounted on the frame; and an optical subassembly operative to: receive at least one image frame from the display screen of the portable electronic device, wherein the at least one image frame comprises the image based content; and adjust the image based content based at least in part on relative sizes of the display and the display screen of the portable electronic device.
Thank you for your insightful comment. Nothing is permanently being given away, instead a single purchaser will have the right to utilize and control the utilization and implementation the technology patented. The right of ownership will still be retained by NASA (and hence the U.S. Public).
I understand that your comment was focussing on the humor of the over-all theme, but in fact you would not be violating the patent. According to the patent claim (which defines the scope of the coverage) you would need to have a second trailer full of temperature control equpiment hooked to the first trailer with the computers. Below is claim 1 (typically the broadest in coverage):
A data center, comprising: at least one modular computing module, each including: a shipping container configured for transport via a transport infrastructure; and a plurality of computing systems mounted within the shipping container and configured to be shipped and operated within the shipping container; and a cooling module of a temperature control system, the cooling module including another of said shipping container, the cooling module being separate from the computing systems of the at least one modular computing module.
Please note that the claims requires a second shipping container with cooling module seperate from the computing system. Again I appologize for not focussing on the humor or your comment, but I thought it might be appropriate to provide a little insight into the situation.
I believe, that even with a first-to-file system you still have to prove that you invented the technolgy/invention. If there is a reference out there that show you did not invent the technology/invention because the invention is described in a prior art reference before the filing of the application, then the first-to-file individual will have a more difficult time proving that they were the inventor. Hence, prior art would still play a part in a first-to-file system.
Did no one else think of Soylent Green when the originally read the headline?
You are correct to a point. Patent Applications can be withheld from public view as long as you specify in the begining of the process that you do not want you patent application to publish. By doing this though, you lose the ability to gain a patent in some foreign countries as they require application publication as part of their patenting procedure.
But you are missing one of the details in a previous post/the summary: namely, it is only published applications that are part of the peer review process. So, any information that the peer reviewers would see has already been published to the general public. Those applications that do not allow publication, will not be able to participate in the program.
Become a U.S. Patent Agent. Decent Pay. Great Benefits. But most importantly, with your experience you would be an excellent person to have reviewing IT related patents (and this includes reviwing software patents that should not be issued). The USPTO is constantly hiring, especially in the IT fields because of the backlog of cases. Further, once you become and agent, especially an agent with USPTO experience, you can basically write your own check to work anywhere in the U.S. prosecuting applications. All of this, while getting to see (by definition) cutting edge technology. Just my $.02 worth.
What about faxes? A fax is for transmitting printed matter or images by electronic means. Does this mean that any letter that is scanned into an electronic format is now considered an e-mail upon transmission? I think that defining a term "ambiguous" (email in this case) that has a specific meaning to justify a specific outcome is a very slippery slope that the justices should avoid.
China does have patents. Otherwise a humorous post.
"The school doesn't NEED your self centered, obnoxious ass around anyway"
Yes, we would hate for the obnoxious, self centered profs to be forced to compete with mere students for the title of "ass"
Actually the "For Deposit Only" should come before/above the signature to avoid the cheque from becoming bearer paper.
Actually, the 20 years is currently from the time of filing whereas the previous time limit of 17 years was from issuance. The new system was made in an attempt to prevent submarine patents that would languish in the patent office for years due to procedural maneuvering on the part of the applicant. Typically, these applicants would then wait until the invention was being used by the public to then comply with the necessary rules to have the patent issue. These types of maneuvers greatly extended the 'effective' life of the patent.
Don't state/federal legislative members (both House and Senate) take an oath to uphold the applicable constitution when they take office? It would seem that the knowingly passing of a law that requires the Court system to determine the constitutionality of the law would be in direct conflict with this oath. Congressmen are on equal footing with the judicial system in determining whether a law is constitutional (if the legislative body doesn't like the courts' decisions, change the law). We, the citizenry, need to hold the legislative branch accountable to their responsibility.
Not in the U.S. for a utility patent. A design patent is limited to 14 years. Applications for a utility patent filed before June 8, 1995 have a patent term of 17 years from issuance or 20 years from filing, whichever is greater. This is of course subject to the paying the necessary maintenance fees. Anything after June 8, 1995 has a patent term (subject to necessary maintenance fees) of 20 years from the filing date.
Nope. Only the creditor can cancel the debt. Hence the relief from the sum owed is now considered income to the debtor. It is a potentially nasty revenge for the creditor.
NTP is being portrayed as the bad guy in this situation (and they very well might be). No one is reporting the number of companies that NTP approached regarding licensing the technology. Who knows how many companies looked at the technology covered and decided that they could improve upon it. Instead, it is simply reported that NTP is stalking a company that has produced a product that is profitable. And whether or not it was NTP that sued RIM for allegedly infringing the contested patents, or the original patent holder, someone would have. Some attorney would have given his left arm to be able to sue RIM and secure a 30%+ commission.
The term "Patent Trolls" ,from the article, is highly inflammatory and counter productive to the argument. These "Trolls" are simply reallocating the risk associated with introducing a new invention to the market. Instead of the single/small inventor bearing the burden of introducing the product to market, the investors share the burden amongst many who are willing to accept the risk. This financial support of the inventor fulfills the purpose and policy of a patent law, namely to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." Small/Single inventors receive a sum of money equivalent to what they believe the inventions is worth, and a more effective marketing team (with the financial resources necessary to be successful) now owns and promotes an invention that would have likely languished in a portfolio because of a lack of exposure to the public.
actually, not all wood pulp used for the manufacturing of paper is created by trees specifically designed to become paper products. Many trees are used for lumber and the remainder of the tree (that portion that is too small to cut into dimmensional lumber) is turned into wood pulp that is then manufactured into paper. Further, the wood pulp market sustains the cutting of smaller trees, specifically in markets where pulp mills are already built and supply is low (i.e., California)
That is not the way the system works. They develop a process and hope a percentage of the chips manufactured meet the criteria to be a high end chip, the remainder are sold then at the lower end of the scale. The process variation creates the difference between a high end chip and a low end chip, not the product started at the beginning of the line. This is the reason AMD is developing a new fab. The better the fab, the greater number of high end chips are produced from the same process. If it was as simple as simply putting more high end parts into the production line then there would be no low-end line.
You lump all religions in the same basket. There as many definitions of religion and being religious as there are individuals. This over simplification is just as indicative of a closed, i.e. overly religious, mind as the individual that denies that there may be things in the bible that are not necessarily accurate. There are many people of faith that have devoted their lives to the improvement of science and continue to do so. Some of the greatest inventions have come during times that some would consider overly religious (the entire Victorian era comes to mind). It is only those that are short sighted that believe that the creative nature of man will not win out over those destined to remain in the past. Change and innovation will continue.