...Sort of.
Patent number 6,368,227, filed November 17, 2000, and granted April 9, 2002: Method of swinging on a swing:
"A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other."
It's for real:
>You've not read the patents, have you? They were original and significant, and I am not aware of any
>relevant prior art.
There is one point that seems to be missing, and it IS relevant to NTP not having any product.
I don't know if Patent law has changed, but when I went to apply for a patent about 15 years ago, I discovered that there was a requirement that my patented invention be "reduced to practice" - that is, I had to have a working prototype within a certain amount of time after filing the patent, or I would lose the right to the patent.
Might that be the basis of the possibility that NTP's patents were not valid - the fact that NTP failed to "reduce to practice" their "invention"?
>Most people crying at funerals aren't nearly as sad for the person as they are for themselves, having
>lost the person.
I see - so, IOW, they're being self-centered...
>For those who are familiar with my typical rants and raves on Slashdot, this post isn't much different. >I'm the sole anti-copyright activist in most threads, and it doesn't hurt me to see copyright failing >Hollywood after decades of them abusing their power.
Copyright protects the little guy as much as, or perhaps more than, the big guys. Let's say I make a really good movie on my own, and there is no copyright protection: That means that the BIG distribution companies can pick up my movie, package it their own way, and use their massive marketing engine to make $millions off it while I sit back and get nothing.
Hollywood's problem isn't copyright laws, it's the fact that the people running things have no interest in taking chances on new, unproven talent - they'd rather rehash the same old crap over and over. And they're so out of touch (Yes, Clooney, you ARE out of touch) that when people stop going to see their shitty remakes of shitty old movies (or TV shows - when is CHiPS the movie coming out?), they can't understand why...
Slashdot Mirror
...Sort of. Patent number 6,368,227, filed November 17, 2000, and granted April 9, 2002: Method of swinging on a swing: "A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other." It's for real:
>You've not read the patents, have you? They were original and significant, and I am not aware of any >relevant prior art. There is one point that seems to be missing, and it IS relevant to NTP not having any product. I don't know if Patent law has changed, but when I went to apply for a patent about 15 years ago, I discovered that there was a requirement that my patented invention be "reduced to practice" - that is, I had to have a working prototype within a certain amount of time after filing the patent, or I would lose the right to the patent. Might that be the basis of the possibility that NTP's patents were not valid - the fact that NTP failed to "reduce to practice" their "invention"?
>Most people crying at funerals aren't nearly as sad for the person as they are for themselves, having >lost the person. I see - so, IOW, they're being self-centered...
>For those who are familiar with my typical rants and raves on Slashdot, this post isn't much different.
>I'm the sole anti-copyright activist in most threads, and it doesn't hurt me to see copyright failing
>Hollywood after decades of them abusing their power.
Copyright protects the little guy as much as, or perhaps more than, the big guys. Let's say I make a really good movie on my own, and there is no copyright protection: That means that the BIG distribution companies can pick up my movie, package it their own way, and use their massive marketing engine to make $millions off it while I sit back and get nothing.
Hollywood's problem isn't copyright laws, it's the fact that the people running things have no interest in taking chances on new, unproven talent - they'd rather rehash the same old crap over and over. And they're so out of touch (Yes, Clooney, you ARE out of touch) that when people stop going to see their shitty remakes of shitty old movies (or TV shows - when is CHiPS the movie coming out?), they can't understand why...