WTF.. is this real? Wait, how about the language itself.. As a Vulcan, why shouldn't I have the right to teach an English Literature class in Vulcan ?.. And why should I be forced to teach English Literature if I don't know it.. so how about I teach physics in my English literature class, in Vulcan?
And to the DOE and DOJ, I ask how about coming up with ideas that make sense? My civil right to mental clarity and logic is being violated.
Actually HIV may really be on its way out..modern treatments are to the point where you can live a normal healthy life and die of something else. Well as long as you maintain your health insurance anyway.
HIV will probably be cured over the next decade.. it will not be a single breakthrough though it will be gradual so it won't seem like you woke up one day and HIV is cured.. it'll be like 15 to 20 years from now while sitting on your couch you'll suddenly wonder "whatever happened to that disease everyone was afraid of, HIV?"
However, they must not be used to prosecute or investigate any crime or attempted crime other than serious assault, murder, and rape. It should not be used to fine people for littering or even peeing.
He owns 5% of Disney.. he owns much more for Disney.. he has done far less for Disney's stock price than what he has done for Apple.
I think if compensation was fair, Steve should own 20% to 40% of Apple.. yet he only owns less than 1% of it. Most founders of companies own well over 1% of the company they founded. Steve jobs increased the share price of Apple by 100. If you had $1000 in Apple in January of 1997.. today you will have $100,000. If you had $10,000 today you would have $1 million. Few publicly traded companies have ever offered a return like that in history.. Oracle is the only company that comes to mind.
Please, if we are going to have a witch hunt on fission.. let's at least put some money into nuclear fusion research. Yes Nuclear Fusion research has been progressing slow.. and yes some approaches to fusion have turned out to be much harder that previously anticipate (IEC, laser based fusion) however we shouldn't give up. There was a time when people who tried to build airplanes were ridiculed.. hell even one of the wright brothers sent a letter saying "airplanes will someday fly, but not for a thousand years".. that was in 1901. Three years later, they built a working airplane.
They didn't give up and they followed the science. Until the idea of nuclear fusion has been falsified by a consensus of scientists, basic research into it should be funded.
Now you may ask why government should fund it and not private investors. It's because the huge development time involved doesn't make it feasible for private investors. For example, if they build a large tokamak or laser facility.. the design specifications would have to be based on parameters known today. So to ensure others cannot copy their invention (in case someone leaks the innovative ideas), they would have to patent it. But then the patent clock of 20 years will start today.. and by the time the plant is built they will only have 5 years to recoup their investment cost. Meanwhile others who didn't have to do all the hard research will be able to make great profits. Extending patent terms will not resolve this issue because then you have the issue of other people not doing work in the field and also you may be giving extended patent terms to technologies that are esential to fusion but may stifle advancements in other fields if their patents were valid for long periods --for example if the fusion plant required advanced magnets... magnets are used in electric car motors as well. The other problems is that it provides a strategic advantage over enemy or potential enemy nations for the US to have leadership in all aspects of the technology. For example, the USA had to invest in rocket technology because the Soviet government was dumping huge amounts of capital into it --> and leadership in the space race was essential for victory in the Cold War. One other reason is that it's in the public interest that a corporation not have control of the fundamental technology.
So there are plenty of reasons why the USA should invest in fundamental technology. However the USA should not invest in the commercialization aspect of the technology (unless it's in the form of a loan for a capital intensive project like building the first few fusion plants).
You don't have to have the ability to replicate in order to be alive. For example worker bees can't reproduce, yet they may be considered alive. Also women past menopause and kids are alive yet they can't replicate. Or even some people who many not be fertile for whatever reason.
Also you can't make "ability" to evolve as part of the definition of life.
How does this make any sense? Patented and shelved? Why? Let me guess the established battery monopoly wouldn't want to allow this out right?
Umm why oesnt the established battery monopoly just buy out the patent and produce the battery? The better batteries we have the more electronics will be sold. And they can charge a higher price.. wouldnt you pay extra for more battery life?
Insurance.. these things are insured.. besides the experience building the telescope probably generated a lot of useful knowledge so all is not lost.. all is never lost in science.
There are already provisions for this. For 99% of other stuff.. 20 years (actually up to 21) is far too long of a period to have a monopoly on something.. especially given how most things that are patented probably shouldnt have been granted a patent. For example in 1994 someone got a patent for putting HTML on CDROMS. That's right if you put an HTML file on a CD and distributed it you'd be in violation.. a company called Acacia did that.
Yes there will always be exceptions.. just because evolution can produce a Dodo bird once in a while doesn't mean it can't produce great things as well.
Lou Gerstner.. IBM didn't make him buy a huge chunk of the company.. hell the dude couldnt even operate a computer.. he was the former CEO of Nabisco... but he turned things around at IBM.. so no huge financial stake isn't the answer. In fact it may lead to greed-based short term decisions.
Steve Jobs.. he owns more of Disney than he does of Apple.. and took a $1 salary. Obviously his main motive wasn't money..rather making Apple the greatest company in the history of the world.
There are plenty of other examples as well. Financial carrots aren't necessarily best. And also, the most important factor is the horse, not the carrot.
Yeah sorry to the people who have to see it again.. I reckon it's relevant twice. Since this bill needs to be zapped - thought there is virtually no chance of it. There's very little awareness about it.
The next hope is the Supreme Court which if properly educated should throw out the First To File nonsense which is clearly unconstitutional.
Very few patents are for actual original innovations that warrant an up to 21 year monopoly (1 year from disclosure plus 20 from filing date). Let me give you an example.. the concept of a magnetic breakaway safety mechanism for power cords was invented in the 1990's for deep fryers (though it may actually have a longer history than that). In the early 2000s, Apple got a patent for the same concept when applied to electronic devices. Does Apple really deserve a 21 year monopoly for copying an idea that someone else came up with.. just because they added the word "electronics devices" ?
There should be standards for obviousness.. for example if it's a combination of a two things.. one of which recently came into existence.. then there is no reason for the patent issuance.. since it's likely an obvious idea to combine the two. Also for patent interference (when two people file a patent on the same thing before either has publicly disclosed it), the patent should be denied. Why? because if two people can come up with the idea around the same time that means it's probably not a great idea in the first place -- most likely it's an inevitable evolution.
Everytime a new device comes out people will rush to the patent office to file claims. For example when a new flying car comes out.. people will rush to file a patent on "GPS in flying cars" or maybe even ridiculous things like "doors in flying cars". A company in 1994, Acacia, got a patent on HTML in CDROMs and started trying to sue everyone who made CDROMS that have HTML code in it (sounds crazy, but google it).
OK, now there's that.. now here is something scarier.. the America Invents Act.. which is very shortly due to become law (its in the reconciliation process). The new law redefines what an inventor is (in order to get around the US Constitution which says only inventors can have patents).. by defining inventor to be anyong who independently comes up with an idea. So that means that if you come with an idea before me, and can even prove it.. say you posted in online (somewhere which doesn't count as printed publication).. I can still get the patent for your idea.. as long as I 1) File for the and pay the patent fee first and 2) state that I came up with the idea independently (though after you).
Not only that think about all the stuff out there that has not been patented.. for example.. In computer science.. the Bubble sort (to be honest I am not sure if it's patented.. but there are other algorithms out there of equal value that haven't).. today maybe many apps on mobile phones may be implementing bubble sort in mobile phones applications.. but nobody got the patent on it.. I can file for a patent on "using the bubble sort patent in a mobile phone app".. similarly I can go through all the computer science books and start patenting all the various algorithms by appending "on a mobile device" to it. The pay off will be huge and it will all be legal. Heck maybe I can patent the Bubble sort itself.. by claiming that I independently came up with it!
Of course, I sound ridiculous right ? How could they really be making such a dumb law? And why (it's to take away the burden from the patent office for having to google for prior art because a lot of patents were being overturned in lawsuits when it turned out that a simple google search would have brought up prior art.. thus humiliating the patent office). Read it for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Invents_Act
LOL.. you couldn't point out a single error in my analysis so you went after a few pedantic and irrelevant details.
"You get a monopoly that lasts between patent issuance and the end of a 20 year period starting from the earliest claimed priority date." -- "earliest claimed priority date" --> I assume you mean filing date.. because that's what the law states --- so how is this different than a 20 year monopoly? And it can actually be 21 years.. because you have a year from the date you publish an idea to file the patent... so the clock on when people are barred from making that idea (aka your monopoly) technically can start one year before you file the patent.. which then starts the 20 year clock.
That shoehorn example.. there is a simple way to test if your idea deserves a patent (20 year monopoly).
The patent judge should ponder these questions:
1. How long have shoehorns been around? decades? 2. How long has teflon been around? decades? 3. Also, has anyone previously thought of expressly making the shoehorn out of a material that reduces the slippage against socks? (you cannot get a patent by simply changing the material presumably unless there is a novel functional purpose of it)
If shoehorns and teflon have been around for a long time.. but nobody thought of putting them together.. then we can safely say your idea is novel & non-obvious. But if shoehorns or teflon were only invented a year or two ago.. then your idea is probably not that novel.. maybe it's like someone trying to patent the idea of GPS in flying cars right after the flying car gets invented.
First off, that's not true.. all the inventor has to do is to show proof that he showed the corporation his invention (this is standard.. he'll have an NDA).
Anyway, under the new law.. the Big Corporation will not only get to use Independent Inventor Guy's invention for free but they would be able to prevent Independent Inventor Guy from even making and selling his OWN invention.
What this also means is that whenever a new type of device comes out... trolls can rush to the patent office to try to patent everything under the sun "when applied to a XYZ device".. If someone invents a flying car.. the first person to rush to the patent office and file a patent for "GPS device in a flying car" will get the patent. "Door on flying car"..patent granted. "Bubble sort algorithm used in a computer system in a flying car".. patent granted.
Or even today they can scour the patent office for software patents and just apply the words "tablet device" or "mobile device" to it since many things don't have device specific patents even today. Hello riches.
"(You wouldn't believe how many inventors claim to have written the idea up on the back of a napkin that they wish they kept.)"
Actually the USPTO themselves said it was not that many. How can ambush tactics work, how would you know what the other guy invented until after he files a patent or publishes it? Patent interference should be dealt with simply.. if two people invented the idea before the idea was publicly disclosed, that means it's an obvious idea. Patent Denied to BOTH parties.
After idea publication, if someone claims they wrote an idea on a napkin before someone else, but can't prove the date.. Patent Denied.. thanks for the fee.
"The solution that works for the deep fryer is not necessarily the right solution or the best solution for every superficially similiar problem."
But it IS the same idea -- Apple's patent is broad so you can't even change the connector shape etc. They nicely got a broad patent on any electronic device that uses the concept of a magnetic breakaway power cord. You are telling me that Apple deserves a 21 year monopoly for being the first to apply the idea to protecting laptops instead of fryers? Nobody else would have thought of using a magnetic breakaway on laptops within 20 years (btw once you get that idea the implementation is obvious easy for anyone skilled in the art.. its just a connector with a magnet in it!).
It's nothing magical beyond what if you went up to any connector designer and said simply "hey I need a magnetic connector for my laptop power cord".. it's something anyone can make.
First off, there is an easy way to deal with patent interference.. that is.. don't grant the patent to either party. If there is a patent interference that means the idea itself may not be brilliant.. so why does someone deserve a 21 year monopoly on it?
Also, no.. this is not to help the USPTO in interference cases.. that's the claim.. but it's not true.. there are very very few interference cases a year. Think about it, they are knowingly redefining the term "inventor".. I could understand (sort of).. if the law said they shall not consider unpublished material as proof of invention time.. but instead.. they are trying to push the notion that a person who independently comes up with an idea is also an "inventor" of something done before him and therefore eligible for patent rights. Do you realize how dangerous that is? You don't think corporations and high powered attorneys can't use that?
You tell me, if you come up with the wheel independently.. are you the inventor of it.. simply because nobody before you patented it? Now granted wheel is a bad example since every human has seen one.. but there are many examples in computer science of algorithms that you may come up with that someone may have discovered before you and may or may not even be in wide usage without being patented (say it's in a lib file). If you happen to come up with it independently, you deserve a 20 year monopoly?
Slashdot Mirror
WTF .. is this real? Wait, how about the language itself .. As a Vulcan, why shouldn't I have the right to teach an English Literature class in Vulcan ? .. And why should I be forced to teach English Literature if I don't know it .. so how about I teach physics in my English literature class, in Vulcan?
And to the DOE and DOJ, I ask how about coming up with ideas that make sense? My civil right to mental clarity and logic is being violated.
Actually HIV may really be on its way out ..modern treatments are to the point where you can live a normal healthy life and die of something else. Well as long as you maintain your health insurance anyway.
HIV will probably be cured over the next decade .. it will not be a single breakthrough though it will be gradual so it won't seem like you woke up one day and HIV is cured .. it'll be like 15 to 20 years from now while sitting on your couch you'll suddenly wonder "whatever happened to that disease everyone was afraid of, HIV?"
The keyboard should flexible-ish and built into the tablet pc's cover.
Umm, on the incurable front there's still Hepatitis C, HPV (thanks to Michele Bachmann), and good ol' Herpes to worry about.
However, they must not be used to prosecute or investigate any crime or attempted crime other than serious assault, murder, and rape.
It should not be used to fine people for littering or even peeing.
Sorry it's not the money.
He owns 5% of Disney .. he owns much more for Disney .. he has done far less for Disney's stock price than what he has done for Apple.
I think if compensation was fair, Steve should own 20% to 40% of Apple .. yet he only owns less than 1% of it. Most founders of companies own well over 1% of the company they founded. Steve jobs increased the share price of Apple by 100. If you had $1000 in Apple in January of 1997 .. today you will have $100,000. If you had $10,000 today you would have $1 million. Few publicly traded companies have ever offered a return like that in history .. Oracle is the only company that comes to mind.
Please, if we are going to have a witch hunt on fission .. let's at least put some money into nuclear fusion research. Yes Nuclear Fusion research has been progressing slow .. and yes some approaches to fusion have turned out to be much harder that previously anticipate (IEC, laser based fusion) however we shouldn't give up. There was a time when people who tried to build airplanes were ridiculed .. hell even one of the wright brothers sent a letter saying "airplanes will someday fly, but not for a thousand years" .. that was in 1901. Three years later, they built a working airplane.
They didn't give up and they followed the science. Until the idea of nuclear fusion has been falsified by a consensus of scientists, basic research into it should be funded.
Now you may ask why government should fund it and not private investors. It's because the huge development time involved doesn't make it feasible for private investors. For example, if they build a large tokamak or laser facility .. the design specifications would have to be based on parameters known today. So to ensure others cannot copy their invention (in case someone leaks the innovative ideas), they would have to patent it. But then the patent clock of 20 years will start today .. and by the time the plant is built they will only have 5 years to recoup their investment cost. Meanwhile others who didn't have to do all the hard research will be able to make great profits. Extending patent terms will not resolve this issue because then you have the issue of other people not doing work in the field and also you may be giving extended patent terms to technologies that are esential to fusion but may stifle advancements in other fields if their patents were valid for long periods --for example if the fusion plant required advanced magnets ... magnets are used in electric car motors as well. The other problems is that it provides a strategic advantage over enemy or potential enemy nations for the US to have leadership in all aspects of the technology. For example, the USA had to invest in rocket technology because the Soviet government was dumping huge amounts of capital into it --> and leadership in the space race was essential for victory in the Cold War. One other reason is that it's in the public interest that a corporation not have control of the fundamental technology.
So there are plenty of reasons why the USA should invest in fundamental technology. However the USA should not invest in the commercialization aspect of the technology (unless it's in the form of a loan for a capital intensive project like building the first few fusion plants).
You don't have to have the ability to replicate in order to be alive. For example worker bees can't reproduce, yet they may be considered alive. Also women past menopause and kids are alive yet they can't replicate. Or even some people who many not be fertile for whatever reason.
Also you can't make "ability" to evolve as part of the definition of life.
How does this make any sense? Patented and shelved? Why? Let me guess the established battery monopoly wouldn't want to allow this out right?
Umm why oesnt the established battery monopoly just buy out the patent and produce the battery? The better batteries we have the more electronics will be sold. And they can charge a higher price .. wouldnt you pay extra for more battery life?
That was an excellent rebuttal .. wish I had modding power to + it.
Insurance .. these things are insured .. besides the experience building the telescope probably generated a lot of useful knowledge so all is not lost .. all is never lost in science.
There are already provisions for this. For 99% of other stuff .. 20 years (actually up to 21) is far too long of a period to have a monopoly on something .. especially given how most things that are patented probably shouldnt have been granted a patent. For example in 1994 someone got a patent for putting HTML on CDROMS. That's right if you put an HTML file on a CD and distributed it you'd be in violation .. a company called Acacia did that.
Yes there will always be exceptions .. just because evolution can produce a Dodo bird once in a while doesn't mean it can't produce great things as well.
Lou Gerstner .. IBM didn't make him buy a huge chunk of the company .. hell the dude couldnt even operate a computer .. he was the former CEO of Nabisco ... but he turned things around at IBM .. so no huge financial stake isn't the answer. In fact it may lead to greed-based short term decisions.
Steve Jobs .. he owns more of Disney than he does of Apple .. and took a $1 salary. Obviously his main motive wasn't money ..rather making Apple the greatest company in the history of the world.
There are plenty of other examples as well. Financial carrots aren't necessarily best. And also, the most important factor is the horse, not the carrot.
Boeing has supercomputers but even they wouldn't produce a kite without wind tunnel tests.
Yeah sorry to the people who have to see it again .. I reckon it's relevant twice. Since this bill needs to be zapped - thought there is virtually no chance of it. There's very little awareness about it.
The next hope is the Supreme Court which if properly educated should throw out the First To File nonsense which is clearly unconstitutional.
It's called the "America Invents Act" and it stands to make the patent system 100x worse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Invents_Act
Very few patents are for actual original innovations that warrant an up to 21 year monopoly (1 year from disclosure plus 20 from filing date). Let me give you an example .. the concept of a magnetic breakaway safety mechanism for power cords was invented in the 1990's for deep fryers (though it may actually have a longer history than that). In the early 2000s, Apple got a patent for the same concept when applied to electronic devices. Does Apple really deserve a 21 year monopoly for copying an idea that someone else came up with .. just because they added the word "electronics devices" ?
There should be standards for obviousness .. for example if it's a combination of a two things .. one of which recently came into existence .. then there is no reason for the patent issuance .. since it's likely an obvious idea to combine the two. Also for patent interference (when two people file a patent on the same thing before either has publicly disclosed it), the patent should be denied. Why? because if two people can come up with the idea around the same time that means it's probably not a great idea in the first place -- most likely it's an inevitable evolution.
Everytime a new device comes out people will rush to the patent office to file claims. For example when a new flying car comes out .. people will rush to file a patent on "GPS in flying cars" or maybe even ridiculous things like "doors in flying cars". A company in 1994, Acacia, got a patent on HTML in CDROMs and started trying to sue everyone who made CDROMS that have HTML code in it (sounds crazy, but google it).
OK, now there's that .. now here is something scarier .. the America Invents Act .. which is very shortly due to become law (its in the reconciliation process). The new law redefines what an inventor is (in order to get around the US Constitution which says only inventors can have patents) .. by defining inventor to be anyong who independently comes up with an idea. So that means that if you come with an idea before me, and can even prove it .. say you posted in online (somewhere which doesn't count as printed publication) .. I can still get the patent for your idea .. as long as I 1) File for the and pay the patent fee first and 2) state that I came up with the idea independently (though after you).
Not only that think about all the stuff out there that has not been patented .. for example .. In computer science .. the Bubble sort (to be honest I am not sure if it's patented .. but there are other algorithms out there of equal value that haven't) .. today maybe many apps on mobile phones may be implementing bubble sort in mobile phones applications .. but nobody got the patent on it .. I can file for a patent on "using the bubble sort patent in a mobile phone app" .. similarly I can go through all the computer science books and start patenting all the various algorithms by appending "on a mobile device" to it. The pay off will be huge and it will all be legal. Heck maybe I can patent the Bubble sort itself .. by claiming that I independently came up with it!
Of course, I sound ridiculous right ? How could they really be making such a dumb law? And why (it's to take away the burden from the patent office for having to google for prior art because a lot of patents were being overturned in lawsuits when it turned out that a simple google search would have brought up prior art .. thus humiliating the patent office). Read it for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Invents_Act
LOL .. you couldn't point out a single error in my analysis so you went after a few pedantic and irrelevant details.
"You get a monopoly that lasts between patent issuance and the end of a 20 year period starting from the earliest claimed priority date." -- "earliest claimed priority date" --> I assume you mean filing date .. because that's what the law states --- so how is this different than a 20 year monopoly? And it can actually be 21 years .. because you have a year from the date you publish an idea to file the patent ... so the clock on when people are barred from making that idea (aka your monopoly) technically can start one year before you file the patent .. which then starts the 20 year clock.
That shoehorn example .. there is a simple way to test if your idea deserves a patent (20 year monopoly).
The patent judge should ponder these questions:
1. How long have shoehorns been around? decades?
2. How long has teflon been around? decades?
3. Also, has anyone previously thought of expressly making the shoehorn out of a material that reduces the slippage against socks? (you cannot get a patent by simply changing the material presumably unless there is a novel functional purpose of it)
If shoehorns and teflon have been around for a long time .. but nobody thought of putting them together .. then we can safely say your idea is novel & non-obvious. But if shoehorns or teflon were only invented a year or two ago .. then your idea is probably not that novel .. maybe it's like someone trying to patent the idea of GPS in flying cars right after the flying car gets invented.
Last I checked, extortion in any form for any purpose was illegal .. so no .. you can't do that unless you don't mind going to prison.
First off, that's not true .. all the inventor has to do is to show proof that he showed the corporation his invention (this is standard .. he'll have an NDA).
Anyway, under the new law .. the Big Corporation will not only get to use Independent Inventor Guy's invention for free but they would be able to prevent Independent Inventor Guy from even making and selling his OWN invention.
What this also means is that whenever a new type of device comes out ... trolls can rush to the patent office to try to patent everything under the sun "when applied to a XYZ device" .. If someone invents a flying car .. the first person to rush to the patent office and file a patent for "GPS device in a flying car" will get the patent. "Door on flying car" ..patent granted. "Bubble sort algorithm used in a computer system in a flying car" .. patent granted.
Or even today they can scour the patent office for software patents and just apply the words "tablet device" or "mobile device" to it since many things don't have device specific patents even today. Hello riches.
"(You wouldn't believe how many inventors claim to have written the idea up on the back of a napkin that they wish they kept.)"
Actually the USPTO themselves said it was not that many. How can ambush tactics work, how would you know what the other guy invented until after he files a patent or publishes it? Patent interference should be dealt with simply .. if two people invented the idea before the idea was publicly disclosed, that means it's an obvious idea. Patent Denied to BOTH parties.
After idea publication, if someone claims they wrote an idea on a napkin before someone else, but can't prove the date .. Patent Denied .. thanks for the fee.
"The solution that works for the deep fryer is not necessarily the right solution or the best solution for every superficially similiar problem."
But it IS the same idea -- Apple's patent is broad so you can't even change the connector shape etc. They nicely got a broad patent on any electronic device that uses the concept of a magnetic breakaway power cord. You are telling me that Apple deserves a 21 year monopoly for being the first to apply the idea to protecting laptops instead of fryers? Nobody else would have thought of using a magnetic breakaway on laptops within 20 years (btw once you get that idea the implementation is obvious easy for anyone skilled in the art .. its just a connector with a magnet in it!).
It's nothing magical beyond what if you went up to any connector designer and said simply "hey I need a magnetic connector for my laptop power cord" .. it's something anyone can make.
First off, there is an easy way to deal with patent interference .. that is .. don't grant the patent to either party. If there is a patent interference that means the idea itself may not be brilliant .. so why does someone deserve a 21 year monopoly on it?
Also, no .. this is not to help the USPTO in interference cases .. that's the claim .. but it's not true .. there are very very few interference cases a year. Think about it, they are knowingly redefining the term "inventor" .. I could understand (sort of) .. if the law said they shall not consider unpublished material as proof of invention time .. but instead .. they are trying to push the notion that a person who independently comes up with an idea is also an "inventor" of something done before him and therefore eligible for patent rights. Do you realize how dangerous that is? You don't think corporations and high powered attorneys can't use that?
You tell me, if you come up with the wheel independently .. are you the inventor of it .. simply because nobody before you patented it? Now granted wheel is a bad example since every human has seen one .. but there are many examples in computer science of algorithms that you may come up with that someone may have discovered before you and may or may not even be in wide usage without being patented (say it's in a lib file). If you happen to come up with it independently, you deserve a 20 year monopoly?