h a l f b a k e r yWhy did I think of that?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Copyright does not cover inventions. Patents are out of reach for many. There needs to be some IP middle ground to protect the work of artists.
//I would very much like to rationally continue this discussion but I don't want to anger the author of this posting. Say the word [xaviergisz]
and I will post a separate idea and move any relevant annos to it.//
// If it's a solid patent, and the infringer has made millions of dollars? You'll have attorneys falling over themselves to take it on contingency.//
Not when that invention comes out of China it doesn't. From what I've seen, if the idea is good enough and has no prior art it doesn't make it to patent stage if you rely on attorneys.
We're all just manatees swimming with piranha.
— 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Sep 09 2014
[edit, delete]
Inventors' guild
http://www.inventon...t_supportgroups.asp
[MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 13 2014]
http://s68.photobuc...a/scan0002.jpg.html
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Sep 13 2014]
Oh the humanatee...
http://imgur.com/gallery/GSLEqwb
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Sep 17 2014]
O the human T
http://static10.byt...uman-alphabet-T.jpg
[pashute, Sep 17 2014]
First-to-file unconstitutional.
http://www.innovati...rm-unconstitutional
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Sep 20 2014]
Whoa! it's really not just me.
http://ohiopatleg.f...last_10_years-1.pdf
I wonder how many palms got greased... [2 fries shy of a happy meal, Sep 21 2014]
[Vernon]'s attempt to use copyright as a patent substitute
Copying SPARLVE and RSE
Mentioned in my anno [notexactly, Feb 14 2018]
[link]
|
| |
Anyone who is really interested in the discussion has probably read all the annos previously. |
|
| |
I suggest you should simply delete this copy-paste and replace with a short summary of the idea and why you think it is an improvement over the current system. You could also *summarise* and address the criticism you have already received. |
|
| |
What [xaviergisz] said. I'm not pounding my head
through that wall of text to find the grain of an idea
inside. |
|
| |
Somewhere in there was the mention of the difference between making a vague description of a concept, and doing the design work to actually make the concept work (and be manufacturable, operable, and maintainable). |
|
| |
My $.02 is that an invention is not made until it is made work. Words are just that. |
|
| |
I agree, that's why I built a working model before filing for a provisional.
Silly me. |
|
| |
I'm not sure what the intended idea is. |
|
| |
You're saying that you want something in between
patents and copyright, to
protect artwork? I'm pretty sure copyright (or
registered design - another of
many methods of protection) covers it. |
|
| |
If the point is that you want something which offers
the protection of a
patent but without the complexity and expense, and
without the requirement
to file before disclosing, then that's not going to
work, for the following
reasons: |
|
| |
(1) Complexity. Patents are legal documents, written
largely in legalese.
Any alternative document is also going to be have to
be very, very precisely
written or it will be open to challenge. |
|
| |
If you say in your patent "a braided cable about an
inch in diameter", I can
challenge that _my_ invention can use a non-braided
cable that's only half an
inch in diameter. A clever patent will specify
something like "a flexible
member composed of one or more strands of metal,
polymer or natural fibre,
the diameter if which is between 0.1 and 10 inches,
preferably between 0.4
and 2 inches, and most preferably 1 inch". And so
on. Patents are in legalese
for the same reason that software is written in
precise code. Anything less is
sloppy and vulnerable. Patent terms are chosen
because they have
established and precise meanings. A patent is,
fundamentally, a new law
relating to your invention and laws have to be
precisely drafted. |
|
| |
(2) Expense. Yes, patenting should be cheaper (and
it can be if you work at
it). However, what you are asking for is a document
which will stand up to
legal challenges, and which says "These are the
aspects that make this
invention original. There has been nothing identical
to this mentioned in
any book, magazine, conference, TV show, scientific
journal or web forum,
anywhere in the world, ever." That does not come
cheap. If you wanted
_me_ to be 100% sure that your idea was completely
original, it would take
me some hundreds of hours, even if I knew where
and how to search. |
|
| |
(3) Freedom to disclose before patenting. You're
pissed off that your
HalfBakery post prior-arted your invention - why
should your own description
count against you? The reason is simple: anyone can
spout a hundred ideas,
with little detail, and then wait to see if anyone else
turns one of them into
reality. Retrospectively claiming patent rights is
unfair on people who read
your idea in good faith and perhaps tried to
implement it. I'm not saying
that's what you did, but plenty of people (and
companies) would. A year's
grace is pretty generous. |
|
| |
Yes, patents are complex and expensive. I don't like
it either. But you are
asking for a document which, potentially, may allow
you to make hundreds of
thousands of dollars, and which has to withstand
legal challenges for twenty
years. Why would you expect that to be cheaper
than a new car? |
|
| |
//We're all just manatees swimming with piranha.//
You've misidentified the piranha. If you think patent
lawyers are the piranhas, think again. The piranhas
are the hundred other people who will try to rip off
your idea and invalidate or circumvent your patent.
Otherwise why would you need a well-drafted
patent? |
|
| |
Unfortunately, copyright will protect the words, not
the implementation. |
|
| |
Yeah, but the song is so catchy, people can't help but infringe the implementation. |
|
| |
//You're saying that you want something in between patents and copyright, to protect artwork?// |
|
| |
Yes. Seeing to it that credit is given where due in this digital age doesn't seem like too great a request to me.
There needs to be some form of protection for ideas between copyright and patent for artists who invent.
None of what I have conceived of and built is based on anything I have been taught. It is pure art. A suspended mobile that was built in-place and never touched ground, it was balanced and calibrated entirely by feel as a kinetic sculpture without math, and it is artwork I tell you.
"My" artwork! |
|
| |
Society does not have the right to deny my claim to it. Of course they can write laws saying so, (and have), but those laws are bullshit. There is 'no' prior art but mine.
I think that maybe they just all, in their greed a hundred or so years ago, forgot the whole prior 'art' part of intellectual property when it comes to inventing.
These laws stifle innovation. |
|
| |
I guess what I'm saying is that it ain't right Hoss.
It's time we get on making this shit right.
See, I hear what you're saying and all, but in the back of my head it just keeps translating as "let them eat cake... let them eat cake". Now... I don't know much history, so I'm like, doomed to repeat all kinds of it, but I'm bettin that you do know your fair share of the past and... well, you sure the side of let-them-eat-cake is the side that any of you want to be on? |
|
| |
//The piranhas are the hundred other people who will try to rip off your idea and invalidate or circumvent your patent. Otherwise why would you need a well-drafted patent?// |
|
| |
I know. A few of those took chunks too.
WTF is with your species anyway?... |
|
| |
You feel wronged by the patenting system. Fine, as far as you are concerned, you were. Many people here have tried to outline the difficulties with managing ideas versus inventions, prior art versus patents, disclosure in the public domain etc but you seem unable to see that any law has to draw a line in the sand and be workable. In your position, most of us would feel disillusioned and jaded as well, but at least try to be rational. |
|
| |
Vague references to "99%" and "1%", "let them eat cake" etc aren't really helping you here, and aiming those comments at members of this community is pretty shithouse behaviour. |
|
| |
"you sure the side of let-them-eat-cake is the side that any of you want to be on? " is so weak as to be laughable. No one here has said anything like that for starters and secondly I doubt we're on the brink of worldwide revolution on the basis of patent law. |
|
| |
What I find funny about the 99/1 % arguments is that there's no hard barrier. You talk about the 1%, but compared to others, you are in that 1%. What about those in the 2% percentile? The 5%? Are we expecting someone with a household income of $X to go off and behead his neighbour with an income of $X+$1 ? Are we taking tax brackets into account? What about exchange rates? |
|
| |
I'm definitely outside the 1% but I don't want to be part of any 99% group. They're all aimless idiots. |
|
| |
//"My" artwork! // If it's artwork, it's already covered by copyright. |
|
| |
Fundamentally, you want the protection a patent offers, but
cheaper. So, OK, that's a reasonable desire. Let's think about how
to implement it: |
|
| |
(1) You want a document verifying that you are the inventor. That
document will hopefully allow you to sue anyone copying your idea. |
|
| |
(2) For the avoidance of doubt in court, that document has to be
carefully worded. If it specifies the use of a particular material, or
a specific dimension, then someone can get around it by using a
different material or a different size. Conversely, if your document
is too broad, it would encompass other things that aren't reasonable.
So, it has to be very precisely worded to cover all variants of your
invention, without extending beyond that. The wording has to be
precise enough to withstand the challenges of very good lawyers
from a rival company. |
|
| |
(3) To confirm that you are the true first inventor, someone is going
to have to check. The patent lawyers you went to found your own
prior art easily. but, if they hadn't, they are going to have to check
the entire internet (including foreign language pages); all works of
science fiction that might mention something similar - in all
languages; all conference proceedings, in all languages; all popular
science magazines, in all languages - regardless of whether they're
on the web or not... in short, the search your patent lawyers did is
about 0.1% of a complete search. |
|
| |
(4) If you do get this document drafted, it's going to have to be
translated into the languages of any other countries where you want
it to apply. The translation is going to have to be as precise as the
original; Google Translate won't cut it. |
|
| |
(5) The document then has to be accepted by the relevant
authorities in any country you want it to apply. |
|
| |
Now, if you go through all those hoops, you will have more or less
what you want. And it will be called a patent. |
|
| |
//Vague references to "99%" and "1%", "let them eat cake" etc aren't really helping you here, and aiming those comments at members of this community is pretty shithouse behaviour// |
|
| |
Perhaps you are right. I mean, it's not like I actually think that humanity will rise up over the theft of my little toy or anything. I'm not "that" self-centered.
No, it's just one more teeny wee straw added to the camels back and what my gut is screaming at me.
I will keep these thoughts to myself if it causes discomfort. |
|
| |
Thank you all for the advice.
I am fully capable of, and will jump through all of societies' hoops to be able to keep what is already mine.
I question though; what happens to the intellectual property of those unable to jump through them?... and are those hoops designed to stimulate innovation or suppress it? |
|
| |
//You want a document verifying that you are the inventor. That document will hopefully allow you to sue anyone copying your idea.// |
|
| |
I 'am' the inventor. I want to license my intellectual property to the industry it pertains to in order to generate enough income to finish my education and pay the outrageous fees of ten thousand dollars per semester that mechanical and electrical engineering courses cost in this country. |
|
| |
It isn't just my widget that got ripped off. |
|
| |
Yes, you _probably_ are. I, personally, don't doubt
your honesty. Nor would you doubt the honesty of
anyone else claiming to have invented something. |
|
| |
However, I can't be _sure_ you're the inventor, and
nor can you, unless you've trawled all the available
literature. So, for example, have you checked hobby
and engineering magazines in Czech, from 1850 to
the present day? |
|
| |
//outrageous fees of ten thousand dollars per semester that mechanical and electrical engineering courses cost in this country// |
|
| |
Now that's something I can be sympathetic of. In my country, fees (and only fees, not living expenses or anything else) were of a similar magnitude, but could be loaned from the government at a fixed interest rate, to be paid off as a tax garnish proportional to income over a given threshold over a period of years. I did mech eng, and it took 8 years to pay off, but it was worth every penny. |
|
| |
Making it free would be rediculous, the current system (in my country) is I think an ideal balance between availability, and wanton spending. Of course, there's lots of wankers who think they should be able to spend their lives taking degrees "of interest" without any obligation to ever pay it back (and in fact many simply never pass the income threshold to pay it back, but that's different) - but we can ignore those people for expediency. |
|
| |
LIfe is fucked dude, and not just for you. I'm sorry that some ideas you have had (and which sound to be somewhat lucrative) are now beyond your control because of the proclivities of patent law. Irrespective of circumstance, and what could have been done different, that sucks. |
|
| |
//I can't be _sure_ you're the inventor, and nor can you, unless you've trawled all the available literature. So, for example, have you checked hobby and engineering magazines in Czech, from 1850 to the present day?// |
|
| |
I see where you're headed. Patent examiners can find things I can't. |
|
| |
I've been checking patent databases for the entire time I've been working on this thing as I thought of new search parameters, but no, I haven't Czeched that particular literature out.
It's too elegant an idea to be hard to find though, and unless it is classified, it would be in common use... it doesn't even work at all without the adaptations I had to devise as I went along. |
|
| |
The point is moot now anyway. |
|
| |
<replaces bunny ears, re-velcros tail> |
|
| |
//I've been checking patent databases for the entire
time I've been working on this thing// |
|
| |
Well, then probably nobody else has patented it,
assuming you've also checked the databases in other
countries where the filing might be in a different
language. |
|
| |
However, patent databases are only the tip of the
iceberg. As I mentioned, there are journals, books
(fiction and non-fiction), newspaper reports,
conference proceedings... in all possible languages. |
|
| |
Seriously, I do not doubt that this is your invention,
but you cannot be even reasonably sure that it hasn't
been invented before, without a much deeper
search. That's what a good patent lawyer will do
and, after he or she has done it, the patent
examiners will do it even more rigorously. |
|
| |
I do not have the required funds to purchase professional patent searches on the four novel aspects of my design.
I do not have the funds to then patent these novel concepts, and I do not have the funds to litigate against anyone who decides to infringe. |
|
| |
In short, I can't afford to purchase my own intellectual property. I do not have the time to learn all I would need to know about patent law while I crawl for eight to twelve hours a day to feed my family... and I shouldn't have to. No inventor should. |
|
| |
You keep saying that I do not need to purchase my own intellectual property. That is a lie. |
|
| |
The only way 'my' IP remains mine is to keep it safely tucked away in my own head, so that's where it will remain, along with the IP of every other inventor who can't afford the extortion.
So tell me, does this system stimulate innovation or pocketbooks? |
|
| |
It will cost me basically two years pay to "protect" my invention from infringement for only a single country and there is absolutely nothing in place to stop anyone from patenting my exact design in a country I can not afford to patent, or stealing that which I can not afford to fight in court. |
|
| |
This system is a joke written by lawyers to be laughed at by the wealthy. |
|
| |
If you can think of another way of looking at it I'm all ears.
... please, enlighten me. |
|
| |
[2-fries], I am with you and I agree - patenting is
prohibitively
expensive, and it should be cheaper. |
|
| |
How much cheaper? Well, maybe some. But at the
end of the
day it's difficult to produce a thorough and legally
strong
patent without a lot of work by people with a lot of
training.
And that costs. Buying a house (I mean the
conveyancing)
shouldn't cost much either, and nor should having a
good
defence lawyer in a criminal case, but it does. |
|
| |
One small correction: you said //there is absolutely
nothing
in place to stop anyone from patenting my exact
design in a
country I can not afford to patent//. That is
incorrect. Your
prior art prevents anyone, anywhere, from ever
patenting
your invention. |
|
| |
If you want to make patenting cheaper, how would
you go
about it? |
|
| |
(Note: that last question isn't meant to be
argumentative. I think it would be worthwhile to
consider the details. If you can suggest how to do
something which would be cheaper than a patent, we
can then think about whether it would actually
work.) |
|
| |
So let's buy a country and write our own patent law just the way it should be. One of the tiny little countries. Or Better yet buy just the patent office of a tiny little country. Got to be cheap. Just one or two good inventions fairly disclosed with a solid deal would make the scheme work fine. Where else are they gonna go? |
|
| |
That's probably a good idea. Persuading other
countries to respect your patents might be tricky. |
|
| |
//Buying a house (I mean the conveyancing) shouldn't cost much either, and nor should having a good defence lawyer in a criminal case, but it does.// |
|
| |
I am not buying a house. I already own it and am being told to pay up or hand it over to the state.
In criminal law if you can not afford a lawyer one is appointed to you. |
|
| |
// Your prior art prevents anyone, anywhere, from ever patenting your invention.// |
|
| |
// I'd go with the 'standing on the shoulders of giants' and doubt that anyone actually has a truly original thought.// |
|
| |
Well... I conceived of, built, and have an unopened registered envelope from a notary public around here somewhere verifying my claim to, the worlds first remote control dragonfly.
Date of origination is entirely my own and every mechanism not RC I devised and crafted by hand because I wasn't taught Jack shit.
Maybe it is somewhat easier to see past giant shoulders when you don't know about them.
That one theft alone has generated millions for the holder of the patent. |
|
| |
That is only one of several ways I've learned now how to not keep my intellectual property.
I dispute your claim of shoulder standing. The shoulders, like the bootstraps, are my own sir. |
|
| |
Is that statement still vain if it's true? |
|
| |
My date of origination paperwork, unlike the patent for my dragonfly, is not worth the paper it is printed on... unless you want to buy it from me?
Let's start the bidding at forty grand, forty, forty five... fity, who'll gi'mme fity? |
|
| |
This idea is original as well, and doesn't exist as a design in nature.
The other augmentations I have dreamt up to make it work are also novel.
...and every one of the toys I've ever built was designed only to generate enough capital to learn the things I need to know in order to build the things I "actually" want to make and the world needs. |
|
| |
It's not that I can't learn what I need without the tuition fees... it's the time taken from earning a living needed to do so. My family should not have to sacrifice for me to lay claim to what I already own, period.
So it's time to fix this shit. |
|
| |
//How much cheaper? Well, maybe some. But at the end of the day it's difficult to produce a thorough and legally strong patent without a lot of work by people with a lot of training, and that costs.//
// If you want to make patenting cheaper, how would you go about it?// |
|
| |
When I am elected Benevolent Planetary Dictator there will be; |
|
| |
One open source world-wide database of patents.
One binding planetary IP law with embargos against non-compliant countries.
Losing litigants will assume court costs. |
|
| |
Problems solved... well our inventors' problems anyway, the lawyers, not so much.
Date of origination of original concepts will be binding. Anything else is a crock of shit. |
|
| |
So... like I said my original concepts will remain in my head until I am in a position to comply with this current extortion system.
Which is sad, because there is every chance that I may die in the interim and ideas are the one thing a man can take to his grave with him. |
|
| |
Sad.
Sad greedy little men. |
|
| |
//When I am elected Benevolent Planetary Dictator
there will be; |
|
| |
One open source world-wide database of
patents.// |
|
| |
Agreed. That's almost the case now, in that all (I
think, but I am not 100% sure) patents are freely
available online. |
|
| |
//One binding planetary IP law with embargos
against non-compliant countries.// |
|
| |
Agreed - patents should be worldwide. The PCT is a
move in that direction, but not far enough. |
|
| |
//Losing litigants will assume court costs.// Again,
probably fair (I'm not sure how it works at present).
But, if you had a patent on your invention, and were
unsuccessful in suing somebody who you thought had
infringed it, would you want to pay their costs? |
|
| |
But, basically, I agree with your points. |
|
| |
Howevertheless, they would not solve your two
recent problems which were (a) prior art against your
patent and (b) the cost of patenting. (A truly
international system would reduce the total cost of
patenting worldwide, but would increase the cost of
the single international patent, if only because it
would have to be translated into many languages.) |
|
| |
//I really don't get how people (americans especially)
overlook the debt they owe to all the technological
giants and soldiers// |
|
| |
You undermine your own argument, [bigs]. By your
definition, there _are_ no giants - just a succession of
little men standing on each other's shoulders. |
|
| |
Newton didn't pluck the laws of motion out of thin
air, for example. He built on the emerging
mathematical interpretation of the natural world, on
work done by artillerymen and others, on
astronomical observations... Personally, I'd still say
Newton was pretty gigantic, but you can't have it
both ways. |
|
| |
// Its extremely arrogant. Just think of all the things that go into a remote controlled insect.// |
|
| |
I suppose it is arrogant, but the design could have been a wind up toy just as easily as rc and the only patent infringement on that design was something from the age of dirigibles, and simply another example of how their estimate of first-to-invent due to no prior art only affects 1 in every 2.7 million applications is false.
Just how many original concepts does one guy have to pull out of thin air for it to count anyway? |
|
| |
//Losing litigants will assume court costs.// Again, probably fair (I'm not sure how it works at present). But, if you had a patent on your invention, and were unsuccessful in suing somebody who you thought had infringed it, would you want to pay their costs?// |
|
| |
At present court costs are used as a weapon by both submarine patenteurs and infringers to win out-of-court settlements through a war of attrition.
Bigger bank-book wins.
If the loser had to pay costs you would see a massive drop in frivolous claims and corporate infringers would no longer be able to use the legal system with impunity as their own personal playground. |
|
| |
//Howevertheless, they would not solve your two recent problems which were (a) prior art against your patent and (b) the cost of patenting. (A truly international system would reduce the total cost of patenting worldwide, but would increase the cost of the single international patent, if only because it would have to be translated into many languages.)// |
|
| |
On the contrary, it would solve both.
Since the existing prior art is my own public disclosure, I would have date of origination on lock-down, and date-of-origination is everything. Much like the Halfbakery... but with entirely workable concepts.
The costs of acquiring "protection" for an idea would be keeping up on your inventors guild dues.
All other trades and professions have unions or guilds to protect their rights from just this sort of blatant money-grabbing bullshit... why not inventors? |
|
| |
When the entire system is transparent and open source translation costs will greatly decrease.
Lawyers would be needed only for litigation, as it should be. |
|
| |
I do not have to pay to claim any other form of art as my own work.
I should not have to pay to claim these works either. Intellectual property is just that; property. They do not have the right to force people to pay in order to claim their own thoughts and inventions.
It's a con people, and, God help me, but I am "SO" allergic to con-men!
We're all just caught up in an existing and archaic system and don't question whether it's right or not. |
|
| |
Either way.
I'd best get back to my crawling now.
These gold streets aren't going to pave themselves y'know... |
|
| |
//Since the existing prior art is my own public
disclosure, I would have date of origination on lock-
down// |
|
| |
I have to disagree - prior art should prevent a patent,
if that prior art is older than a certain grace period.
Putting an idea in the public domain and leaving it
there (which is, of course, what happens with most
ideas) means that others are free to exploit it. It's
unfair to return to the idea later and say, actually
guys I'm taking this one back. A one year grace
period is pretty generous, though it's unfortunate in
this case that you weren't aware of the risk. |
|
| |
//When the entire system is transparent and open
source translation costs will greatly decrease.// |
|
| |
The current system _is_ transparent _and_ open
source. You can view all existing patents. The patent
office (in the UK, and doubtless in the US) offers
guidelines on preparing a patent. There are endless
books on how to patent things. How "transparent and
open" do you want it? And why would transparency
reduce translation costs? |
|
| |
// do not have to pay to claim any other form of art
as my own work.
I should not have to pay to claim these works
either.// I sort of agree, but there is a difference.
In the case of art, what is protected is a particular
combination of words, or a particular image. It's very
easy (usually) to define what constitutes copyright
violation. Also, the chances of inadvertently
duplicating a previous artwork are very small, in
general. |
|
| |
In the case of inventions, yes, it would be very easy
to claim "copyright" for a particular implementation
of your idea. But what if someone makes something
that uses some of your principles but with a different
geometry - is that a violation? Or uses your idea to
solve a different problem? What if your device was
made from plastic to work in water, and they build
something out of wood to work in air? To protect an
invention,
you first need to define it very carefully. That is
what a patent does, and is most of the reason why
patents are so weirdly worded. |
|
| |
//All other trades and professions have unions or
guilds to protect their rights from just this sort of
blatant money-grabbing bullshit... why not
inventors?// I'm pretty sure there are groups and
workshops for inventors that deal with IP. It would
be good to have an organization that spread
patenting costs between inventors - with revenues
from early patents helping to pay for later ones. |
|
| |
If you Google "inventors' guild", you'll get a few hits
(including <link>), but I have no idea if they're any
use. |
|
| |
// It's unfair to return to the idea later and say, actually guys I'm taking this one back. A one year grace period is pretty generous, though it's unfortunate in this case that you weren't aware of the risk.// |
|
| |
How so? The concept did not exist before I thought it up and originated with me. I'm not taking anything 'back', if someone wants to run with the invention then credit to the inventor is due, even if only in the form of recognition of that origination.
The "grace period" is the biggest joke of the lot! The only function I see it performing is to start the extortion clock ticking, and allow patent-trolls, from other countries without this grace, to beat 'actual' inventors to the punch. |
|
| |
There should be no 'risk' involved in publishing 'my' art.
It's a con. |
|
| |
//How "transparent and open" do you want it? And why would transparency reduce translation costs?// |
|
| |
Why... transparent and open enough that it does not cost one dime more than my inventors' union dues of course.
There are many individuals who would like nothing better than to nail infringers to the wall and would find it a fine hobby.
Same with translation. I'm sure many people would like to earn side income by translating between languages they know. As an open source project there would suddenly be tens of thousands more translations occurring than today... and it wouldn't cost anything close to two hundred bucks an hour either.
Access to this growing translated database would be covered again by the union dues. |
|
| |
// It's very easy (usually) to define what constitutes copyright violation. Also, the chances of inadvertently duplicating a previous artwork are very small, in general// |
|
| |
Really? How small do you think the chances are of 'not' duplicating someone's prior art?
How difficult is it to verify violation of something with no prior art in this day and age? |
|
| |
//different geometry - is that a violation? Or uses your idea to solve a different problem? What if your device was made from plastic to work in water, and they build something out of wood to work in air? To protect an invention, you first need to define it very carefully. That is what a patent does, and is most of the reason why patents are so weirdly worded.// |
|
| |
Did Phillips not own the rights to his screwdriver head shape no matter the material it was made from?
The predominance of legalese serves only to place intellectual property beyond the reach of the riff-raff since this system encourages nothing but back-biting-bitchery, and indeed rewards such behaviour. |
|
| |
// If you Google "inventors' guild", you'll get a few hits (including <link>), but I have no idea if they're any use.// |
|
| |
I'm not talking about isolated groups, I'm talking about a united world wide inventors union. Where "protection" is not determined entirely by an inventors' monetary wealth but their creative wealth. |
|
| |
\\Hardened spring steel, coiling it to make an energy store, precision tools. All that and more need to be invented before you can make a particular wind up toy.\\ |
|
| |
Yes, of course, and royalties on all of those past invented things is paid as part of the cost of their purchase aren't they? |
|
| |
The holder of the patents on my dragonfly is not the inventor. He is only the man wealthy enough to steal it from me. |
|
| |
Your current system encourages nothing but silence.
You have no idea who the inventors in society are, the data needed to determine this is completely skewed by the rules and procedures which were originally designed to prevent the actions it now praises. |
|
| |
The legalised extortion and theft of intellectual property. |
|
| |
//The concept did not exist before I thought it up
and originated with me. I'm not taking anything
'back'// |
|
| |
Millions of people come up with millions of ideas, and
generally broadcast them. By default, if you do that,
I'd say it's fair game. It would be courteous of
someone using the idea to acknowledge the inventor,
but if they've put it out there and let it sit for over a
year without seeking a patent, I'd say it's fair game. |
|
| |
In the course of my work, I come up with various
ideas. In general, these get published as papers (if
they're any good), and are then in the public domain.
If I think they're commercially relevant, then they get
patented through my employer before I publish.
Quite a few times, something has turned out to be
commercially useful that I didn't originally recognize
as such, and then it's too late. |
|
| |
//Really? How small do you think the chances are of
'not' duplicating someone's prior art?// (with respect
to detecting copyright violation). The odds of two
writers independently using the same sentence of
more than 10 words is negligible. But that was not
the point I was making. My point was that the mere
_existence_ of a piece of writing or a sculpture is, in
itself, the definition of the copyrighted material.
With an invention, the physical embodiment of that
invention is not a definition of the invention. You
need properly-crafted words to explain what is
inventive and what is merely incidental (like the size
or colour). |
|
| |
//The predominance of legalese serves only to place
intellectual property beyond the reach of the riff-raff
since this system encourages nothing back-biting-
bitchery, and indeed rewards such behaviour.// |
|
| |
To an extent you're right, but you're not doing
yourself many favours by wearing the hair shirt. The
legalese is, for the most part, used because certain
phrases have certain precise definitions. If I say
"some channels", someone else can argue that _their_
version has 20 channels, which is clearly more than
"some channels". Therefore, the patent should
phrase it as "a plurality of channels, numbering
between 2 and 100, and preferably between 3 and 6"
or somesuch. The wording of a patent, adhering to
accepted formulae, has a far better chance of
standing up in court than some vague phrase. |
|
| |
//The holder of the patents on my dragonfly is not
the inventor. He is only the man wealthy enough to
steal it from me. // |
|
| |
Now you're gibbering. If you've disclosed publicly,
then _nobody_ else can patent your idea. Only _you_
can patent it, as long as you do it within a year of
disclosing. Sheesh. |
|
| |
Bottom line: (a) patents are expensive; some of that
expense could and should be reduced. (b) a patent is
your defense against competitors, and should be
well-built; would you fly in an aeroplane that a friend
put together by guesswork? (c) rule 001.1 of
inventing is: if you think it's valuable, don't share it
with the world until you've at least started the
patent process. Even if your degree course doesn't
teach you that, it's not wildly beyond the limits of
common sense. |
|
| |
Incidentally, the initial steps in the patent process
are not complicated, not very expensive, and don't
particularly need a lot of legal assistance. That
initial filing gives you an even longer grace period in
which to develop and market your idea. |
|
| |
Oh, and there's a typo in the title (itellectual). |
|
| |
I finished building the dragonfly and sketched it sometime before Jan. 7 1998. [link]
I know the sketch proves nothing, it is just one of the pieces of paper in that un-opened envelope. I also have copies of every email correspondence with the patent search company which stalled me with their promises until their product came out of China... at which point no lawyer would touch it with a ten foot pole which basically makes the whole debacle Chapter Three or so in the How To Lose IP 101 course book I seem to be inadvertently writing. |
|
| |
2 Fries, dude, seriously, stop. You are being an
insufferable bore. You are being 'that' guy. You are
burning through goodwill and respect at a fast pace. |
|
| |
Every single person here has posted an idea that, had
they invested sufficient time and money, could have
been a profitable invention. Every single person here
has experienced hardship, disappointment, and
regret. No one else laments endlessly about what
could have been. |
|
| |
We are here to discuss inventions. We are not here to
listen to vague references to awesome inventions
that you thought of but don't want to share. |
|
| |
I need the Reader's Digest Version of this. I'm not at all
following the debate. But I love 2 fries. That's all. |
|
| |
I get that it's not something anyone wants to hear. Important issues rarely are. Sorry I gotta be 'that' guy and bring it up. I am also sorry that it sounds like I'm a wanna-be megalomerchantiac.
I was asked how I would go about fixing things and an elected planetary dictatorship is about the only thing that would do it.
I am just humbly offering my services in that regard, not that there aren't people better suited to the task. |
|
| |
//Every single person here has experienced hardship, disappointment, and regret. No one else laments endlessly about what could have been.//
Is that what I've been doing here for the last twelve years? |
|
| |
I didn't just dream these inventions up, I built them, and they work. |
|
| |
Do you honestly think that an international cooperative union of inventors is a bad Idea?
If so, why?
Is the open source patent translation database a bad idea? Why?
Is it wanting to discuss these subjects that makes me a bore? |
|
| |
Is that 'not' discussing inventions? |
|
| |
Yes [bigsleep] I think that patents are just a big business tool. Only big businesses and wealthy individuals can afford to cover their asses on a large scale. Most ideas aren't worth bothering with, (you throw the little one's back).
When an idea is innovative enough though with applications in many industries and can be covered with a very broad patent with no prior art, it 'will' be stolen from any small business or average wealth individual. |
|
| |
The protection offered is an illusion.
Belonging to a union would fix this problem. |
|
| |
Maybe create a worldwide inventors' pension, the way Westinghouse so generously allowed Tesla to live his last years in a Manhattan hotel and feed pigeons. |
|
| |
M'yes, quite.
Let's see what Tesla's thoughts on the subject might have been: |
|
| |
"Perhaps it is better in this present world of ours that a revolutionary idea or invention instead of being helped and patted, be hampered and ill-treated in its adolescence — by want of means, by selfish interest, pedantry, stupidity and ignorance; that it be attacked and stifled; that it pass through bitter trials and tribulations, through the heartless strife of commercial existence. So do we get our light. So all that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed — only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle." |
|
| |
...I wonder if he still felt that way while collecting his toenail clippings? |
|
| |
//No one else laments endlessly about what could have been.// |
|
| |
Well, I don't know about you, but I do sometimes. But not so much when people are watching. |
|
| |
And thank you, [fries], for putting in that missing "n". It had bee buggig me. |
|
| |
From [link] #5 apparently I'm not the only one. |
|
| |
"The abandonment of a system that ensures that the first person to invent retains proprietary interest in the invention appears to be contrary to the Constitution as well the equitable principles upon which U.S. common law system is based." |
|
| |
Funny though, how prominent intellectual property professional organizations, such as the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the American Bar Associations' Section on Intellectual Property Law and the American Intellectual Property Law Association have all publicly endorsed the proposal. Furthermore, the National Academy of Science and the Federal Trade Commission both issued reports on the patent system preliminary to the current proposed legislation, similarly endorsing the changes. |
|
| |
I am right on this. They do not have either the right to force us to purchase our own thoughts from them or to force our silence with penalties. |
|
| |
Excellent find, [2 fries]? But what happened in Canada? Did they come running when America took out the leash? |
|
| |
Canada did away with First-to-invent first in 1998. It affects very few inventors so I don't think anyone really noticed that our rights were getting flushed. I know that I was a bit too busy to notice anyway. |
|
| |
While I am profoundly ashamed of some of my actions in my little drama here, I am not at all sorry that the topic arose other than the way it did. |
|
| |
Are the rights to our own original thoughts commodities we must purchase or remain silent about under penalty of confiscation?
Are our kids thoughts commodities they must purchase? |
|
| |
It's, like... important folks.
Think about it. |
|
| |
//The second major change dropping disclosure of 'best mode' I'm not so sure about. This makes it all too easy for random patents to be filed that *will* infringe proper inventions made for a purpose.// |
|
| |
"Proper" inventions?!?
If someone only has claim to date of origination of an invention and no actual patent then only a fraction of the royalties for such a concept would be due, which would actually facilitate the use and distribution of these concepts while cutting out the ability of corporations to patent for the purpose of suppression.
You'll have to excuse me, but I have bit of twubble feewing sowwy fo the po stwuggwing indutwiawists. |
|
| |
<shrugs> I'm just learning all this stuff but the whole thing stinks something fierce to me.
I am also finding it more than a little bit surreal that I was attempting to create no-prior-art inventions in the same years that these two countries were respectively changing their laws to prevent me from claiming them as my own. |
|
| |
I know that neither of these changes are in any way a personal attack, but the coincidence of being in the middle of this crap both times is kind of weirding me out a bit. |
|
| |
... and that takes some doing. |
|
| |
The grace period must be abolished along with first-to-file.
A person illiterate, mentally challenged, destitute, ignorant of the law, and/or all-of-the-above should not be subjected to forfeiture of their original intellectual property based on any criteria other than its date of origination.
The inventor is the inventor.
Credit will be given where credit is due and anything else is theft no matter how the laws are twisted. |
|
| |
I may be coming across as a whiny little prick about this, but, whiny little prick or not, I demand that our children and grandchildren not have to wade through this same bureaucratic horseshit to retain their rights that I am having to. |
|
| |
Any elected official who is not in it for the next generation is a disgrace to their office and a con-man plain and simple. |
|
| |
// I may be coming across as a whiny little prick about this, but,
whiny little prick or not, I demand that our children and
grandchildren not have to wade through this same bureaucratic
horseshit to retain their rights that I am having to.// |
|
| |
No, you're not coming across as especially whiny, but to be honest
you're coming across a little as someone who is frothing at the
mouth due - at least partially - to misunderstandings. Take a deep
breath. |
|
| |
The main problem you're up against, as I understand it, is that your
disclosure over a year ago makes it impossible for you (_or anyone
else_) to patent your invention. For reasons I've stated before, I
think that this is fair enough - if you put an idea out there and leave
it for year or more before indicating that you value it, anyone else
has a reasonable right to pick it up and make it work. |
|
| |
I don't think the "first to invent versus first to patent" issue is the
main issue here. |
|
| |
Oh I'm quite calm, even jovial again at times, just disgusted.
See, it's not just 'my' grandkids' rights I'm worried about, it's 'yours' too.
<aside> that's like, kinda my schtick... <aside> |
|
| |
// The main problem you're up against, as I understand it, is that your disclosure over a year ago makes it impossible for you (_or anyone else_) to patent your invention. For reasons I've stated before, I think that this is fair enough - if you put an idea out there and leave it for year or more before indicating that you value it, anyone else has a reasonable right to pick it up and make it work. // |
|
| |
It's not "my" problem. It is a basic human right being taken away and it is going to be the problem of North Amerca's "governments". (small g)
For reasons I've stated before, it is anything but fair.
This law will be overturned as unconstitutional and it is only a matter of time. Please see latest [link]. My gut tells me that it will not do me personally a lick of good though, as I'll be trapped in this sort of limbo state caught between the decisions of others, but I'm getting used to that believe it or not. |
|
| |
The inventor is the inventor.
Credit where it's due.
An individuals original thoughts are not the commodity of another. |
|
| |
Period. Learn it. Live it.
Eventually it will be colloquially referred to as the three rules of whoabotics.
You'll see.
History will brand any officials who willingly sell out the rights of their descendants to be fools. |
|
| |
I don't worry overmuch about being thought a fool myself, because people just seem to think the darndest things don't they? |
|
| |
//For reasons I've stated before, it is anything but
fair.// (re. disclosure preventing patenting). |
|
| |
[2-fries], I have prior-arted myself (technically my
employer) out of several patents. |
|
| |
BUT I disagree with you. If you have an idea, put it
on a public forum, and leave it for a year before you
decide it's valuable, that's tough. A year is enough
time to realise that an idea is worth protecting, and
to take steps to protect it. |
|
| |
In cases where I've prior-arted myself, it's usually
been much more than year. I've had an idea,
published it (as a scientific paper), and not had the
sense to realise that it might later become
commercially valuable. That's my failing. |
|
| |
You can't put something out there for everyone to
admire, then just demand a year later that you have
exclusive rights to it that you want to take back. I've
made expensive mistakes that way myself, but in
spite of that I still believe that a year's grace is long
enough and generous. |
|
| |
// You can't put something out there for everyone to admire, then just demand a year later that you have exclusive rights to it that you want to take back. I've made expensive mistakes that way myself, but in spite of that I still believe that a year's grace is long enough and generous. // |
|
| |
I disagree.
If a person is the first to think of a thing, or build a thing, why then then they are the first person to think of that thing, or build that thing aren't they?
... and those original thoughts and constructions will be acknowledged, without confiscation upon registered time-stamped public disclosure... for free, as a basic human right. |
|
| |
Y'know, the way the wording was meant when the constitutions of these two countries were written.
Whatever con you fell for is soon to no longer apply in the US, and Canada will have to follow suit and revoke their own unconstitutional outlook IP rights. |
|
| |
I took in all of your earlier annos [bigsleep]. |
|
| |
// You may lay claim to being first, but how do you really know ? What happens if there is a genuine 'I thought of it first!' argument ? It only really matters if you've spent way more than the cost of a patent on the invention and then you get into legal fees to really sort out who was first.// |
|
| |
Exactly.
Those are the problems nicely outlined.
What are 'your' solutions to them? |
|
| |
How does anyone really know who thought of what first when first-to-invent no longer exists? Why, one can only know who-can-afford at that point.
...and that's the point we're at now, the very thing that both the constitutions of the US and Canada as they pertain to inventions are supposed to protect against... so I guess we'll find out together. |
|
| |
The inventor is the inventor.
Credit where it is due.
A persons original thoughts are not another persons' commodity. |
|
| |
Basic human rights.
You'll see. |
|
| |
So does this mean that from now on you're only going to keep talking about this over and over, but never post any more halfbaked ideas for fear of screwing yourself out of patent rights? |
|
| |
Both things would be a shame. |
|
| |
//those original thoughts and constructions will be
acknowledged, without confiscation upon registered
time-stamped public disclosure... for free, as a basic
human right.// |
|
| |
OK, so you want some sort of documentation that you
are first to invent. That (very roughly) is what a
patent is. |
|
| |
However, you need to claim that right within a
reasonable timeframe of disclosing your invention. |
|
| |
I have probably put out a thousand ideas here and
elsewhere over many years. If one of them turns out
to be a commercial success - possibly invented
independently by someone who had never seen my
idea - do I have the right to go back and say "Hey!
Close your factories and fire your employees,
because I had that idea back in 1998 and, now that I
can see it works, I claim it back." |
|
| |
If you had your "time-stamped public disclosure", and
you had established a business manufacturing this
thing, would you be happy for someone to say "Hey! I
had the same idea in 1978, and it was published as a
letter in the Saskatchewan Daily Reporter. Give me
lots of money now please." |
|
| |
I don't believe you would. |
|
| |
//So does this mean that from now on you're only going to keep talking about this over and over, but never post any more halfbaked ideas for fear of screwing yourself out of patent rights?// |
|
| |
I... I don't know. They would both be a shame wouldn't they?
The posting which violates my patent rights was not the invention I built. That freedom of expression has been taken along with the patent rights. |
|
| |
// However, you need to claim that right within a reasonable timeframe of disclosing your invention.
Do I have the right to go back and say "Hey! Close your factories and fire your employees, because I had that idea back in 1998 and, now that I can see it works, I claim it back." |
|
| |
I already know that they work. I built them.
I do not require knowledge of the law or wealth to invent.
I should not require knowledge of the law or wealth to claim my inventions as my own.
Not if I am first. What did you think of the last link? |
|
| |
The inventor is the inventor.
Credit where it is due.
A persons original thoughts are not another persons' commodity. |
|
| |
Just the way the laws were meant. The price tags and grace period can get shoved back where they came from. |
|
| |
The inventor is the inventor.
Credit where it is due.
A persons original thoughts are not another persons'
commodity. // |
|
| |
The inventor is the inventor.
Credit where it is due.
But if you put an idea in the public domain
(presumably because you want to) and leave it sit for
a year or more, then I think others are entitled to use
it. |
|
| |
Also, you didn't answer my other question: suppose
you're in business five years from now, making this
thing and employing 20 people. Then some guy
writes to you with a press clipping from the
Saskatchewan Daily Reporter from 1978 showing that
he independently invented the key technology before
you did. Not only does he now start manufacturing
this thing, but he orders you to close your factory
and cease production. |
|
| |
Alright, I'll answer your question if you'll answer just two of the twenty or so of mine which have not been answered. |
|
| |
//suppose you're in business five years from now, making this thing and employing 20 people. Then some guy writes to you with a press clipping from the Saskatchewan Daily Reporter from 1978 showing that he independently invented the key technology before you did. Not only does he now start manufacturing this thing, but he orders you to close your factory and cease production. |
|
| |
First off I would assume that if I had the money to own a factory which employs twenty people I would have had the money for due diligence in finding the first-to-invent. Since public disclosure can foil my patent, one should not have been awarded to me if another inventor has disclosed. This is why there is a need for transparency. The situation you describe can not happen then. |
|
| |
//if you put an idea in the public domain (presumably because you want to) and leave it sit for a year or more, then I think others are entitled to use it.// |
|
| |
If I publically disclose 'anything' here, what is in place to prevent someone filing for patent first in another country within the grace period? |
|
| |
What did you think of my last link? |
|
| |
//what is in place to prevent someone filing for patent first in another country within the grace period? // |
|
| |
I thought this sounded funny, then went back to your description. |
|
| |
//Not when that invention comes out of China it doesn't.// |
|
| |
...So I think I get it now. You're both unhappy with patent law in your country, then above and beyond that, you're expecting some global policeman to enforce your patent law worldwide. |
|
| |
You should really keep those gripes separate, as they mean different things and are just acting to cloud the argument. |
|
| |
Many countries in general, and China in particular is known to play it fast and loose with patent law. Nothing much can be done there I'm afraid, other than for your country to enforce patent law on products marketed and sold onshore. |
|
| |
Despite the to-ing and fro-ing here, I still come back to the same issue. Your idea of some globular, all encompasing timestamped record of humanity's thoughts and ideas is just completely unworkable in a practical sense. We'd need to fund and resource a veritable army to manage and enforce it, for the sum benefit of delivering outcomes most people would find somewhat controversial in the first place. |
|
| |
-I think the process of protecting ideas is a complicated one, in which patent law is reasonably successful, and somewhat workable.
-I don't think everybodies thoughts and feelings are particularly precious and in need of protection. If someone comes up with something that they think is special and might be of commercial value, a simple internet search would provide all the information they need to make decisions on how to proceed.
-I don't want any of my tax dollars spent to massively expand on the patent system. |
|
| |
//First off I would assume that if I had the money to own a factory
which employs twenty people I would have had the money for due
diligence in finding the first-to-invent. Since public disclosure can foil
my patent, one should not have been awarded to me if another
inventor has disclosed.// |
|
| |
Due diligence (or even a patent search) will always miss things. Also,
this guy in Saskatchewan needn't have tried to file a patent (which
would come up in a prior art search); in fact he may only have written
to his friend about the idea - as long as he has some proof of being first
to invent. |
|
| |
Also, under the present system, the most damage he can do to you is to
invalidate your patent - he can't stop you from manufacturing the
device because he can't retrospectively get a patent of his own. |
|
| |
//What did you think of my last link?// Yes, I know that some people
argue against a "first to file" patent system and prefer a "first to
invent". But under _either_ system, if you put an idea out there, after
some reasonable period it is fair to assume that you have put it into
the public domain. |
|
| |
As it happens, I agree with you that a patent should be awarded to the
first to invent rather than the first to file. But I still contend that the
inventor should be deemed to have abandoned their exclusive rights if
they leave an idea out there for a year or more without indicating that
they want to keep it to themselves. |
|
| |
Bottom line: regardless of whether it's first to file or first to invent,
you can't just say "Hey! That gadget works after all! Now I want to
take it back!". If you invent something, stick a flag in the sand by at
least starting the filing process. Either that, or don't go blabbing about
it (presumably for the kudos it gets you amongst your peers - even if
here on the HB). |
|
| |
It's not rocket science to know that valuable ideas ought to be either
patented or kept confidential until they are. It's a pity that you didn't
know that, but it's still not rocket science. |
|
| |
You side-stepped one of my questions [MaxwellBuchanan]. What is in place to keep someone from another country from filing in another country within this one year grace period? |
|
| |
//...So I think I get it now. You're both unhappy with patent law in your country, then above and beyond that, you're expecting some global policeman to enforce your patent law worldwide.// |
|
| |
Forget about China for a moment.
Any public disclosure from Canada can be used to apply for a patent in the States, within that grace period and then sell back to Canada. That is a joke. |
|
| |
// Due diligence (or even a patent search) will always miss things. // |
|
| |
Not if publically disclosed they won't. This would invalidate Saskatchewan buddys' letter as it is not findable.
Transparency, not secrecy. |
|
| |
//It's not rocket science to know that valuable ideas ought to be either patented or kept confidential until they are. It's a pity that you didn't know that, but it's still not rocket science.// |
|
| |
Oy! I did know that. I keep telling you that the idea I posted is not my invention. I had no idea where the seed of a concept was going to take me. |
|
| |
Until a system is put in place whereby first-to-invent can be registered without fees or legal savvy then the current IP laws of North America are contrary to both the constitutions and the intent of the law for protecting Intellectual property.
It is legalised extortion and theft of IP as well as the loss of freedom of expression without penalty. |
|
| |
No clue about Mexico yet, but Canadian and the US law-makers should have consulted their constitutions before writing this shit into law.
That's kind of their jobs isn't it? |
|
| |
I just know that I can not afford to purchase my own IP even though all of the laws on the subject were originally written to prevent just such a scenario.
Which means that these law-makers are not doing their jobs properly.
When I do not perform my job properly there are severe and immediate consequences. |
|
| |
They should probably expect some of those in the form of backlash since they don't seem to think that the will of their people affects them. |
|
| |
//I just know that I can not afford to purchase my own IP even though all of the laws on the subject were originally written to prevent just such a scenario.
// |
|
| |
But you are *not* purchasing your IP. You are paying to have it codified and written up as a definable item, and you are paying for someone to do an extensive search to make sure it is your IP. You are also buying into a system so that your now codified, defined, and certified original design, will be held up and protected. |
|
| |
No one is buying any IP here. Whatever way you cut it, someone, somewhere has to do the research, technical writing, etc. Someone has to manage a database of some sort. Someone has to make this information available on the public record. Etc etc ad nauseum. This is a service, whether you recognise it or not. |
|
| |
As a taxpayer, I'm not willing for my taxes to be spent paying someone to do all this work for you, for free. You might be a serial idea poster. This might serve no purpose other than to get your name written down a bunch of times. And a low barrier to use would mean you would get a huge traffic of nuissance work for the system, let alone whatever "idea squatting" or trolling would evolve to suit the new system. Making it free would be a nightmare. |
|
| |
I just don't get how it's supposed to work in practice. |
|
| |
//Until a system is put in place whereby first-to-
invent can be registered without fees or legal savvy
then the current IP laws of North America are
contrary to both the constitutions and the intent of
the law for protecting Intellectual property.// |
|
| |
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. Patents
should be free to the inventor, and simple. |
|
| |
But. A patent is as hard to draft as a new law (in
effect, a patent *is* a new law, defining what people
are and aren't allowed to manufacture). To make it
remotely viable requires at least tens, and usually
hundreds of hours of time from very skilled people. |
|
| |
The law *does* allow you to write your own patent, in
which case the costs (at least in the early stages,
during which you can chase funding) are *not* very
high. But a patent you draft yourself, or which is
done for free by someone else, is likely to be so weak
as to be worthless. |
|
| |
Anyway, we've probably run this one into the ground.
I agree with some of your points, and not others. If
you want to start a fresh idea, I would encourage you
to stick to one gripe (eg, prior art; or the cost of
patenting) - at the moment we're orbiting a binary
star. |
|
| |
Yeah you're probably right. I'll give it a rest. If only they had given me only one gripe to focus on though... |
|
| |
//As a taxpayer, I'm not willing for my taxes to be spent paying someone to do all this work for you, for free.// |
|
| |
"Note the language in the Constitution "to Inventors." This means that Congress may only grant patents to
the actual inventors, not to anyone else. To grant patents to people who aren't "inventors" is outside the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution and any attempt by Congress to grant patents to people who aren't "inventors" is not allowed." |
|
| |
As a taxpayer, I'm not willing for my taxes to be spent paying someone to throw our rights in the garbage. |
|
| |
//any attempt by Congress to grant patents to people
who aren't "inventors" is not allowed."// |
|
| |
You're misunderstanding a point of patent law. Even
under the "first to file" system, a patent will be
rejected if there is prior art. |
|
| |
"Note the language in the Constitution "to Inventors." This means that Congress may only grant patents to the actual inventors, not to anyone else. To grant patents to people who aren't "inventors" is outside the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution and any attempt by Congress to grant patents to people who aren't "inventors" is not allowed." |
|
| |
^ That quote is not mine. I think it's from some American supreme court judge who isn't in someone else's pocket. |
|
| |
//You're misunderstanding a point of patent law. Even under the "first to file" system, a patent will be rejected if there is prior art.// |
|
| |
Yes, but not if that prior art is one's own, not under the first-to-invent system, upon which both the Canadian and US constitutions, and therefore the current patent laws are supposed to be based, y'know, if our elected officials are doing their jobs like we pay them to. |
|
| |
So we agree then. Excellent!
The North American first-to-file systems violate both Canadian and US constitutions by denying actual inventors patent and giving that right to whomsoever can afford it.
Oh glorious day! |
|
| |
...and that's without even having to address the other constitutional Freedom-of-expression without penalty issues of an inventor daring to publish their own original art... |
|
| |
...or without you even having to answer me about someone "not-the-inventor" filing in another country during the Canadian <cough> Grace-Period <cough>. |
|
| |
Whew.
That is 'such' a load off. [MB]
For a second there I thought you were going to continue to insist that giving an inventor claim to their original invention, without them requiring either wealth or knowledge of the law, to be 'not' a basic human right. |
|
| |
I'm not the only sane one.
That is 'such' a relief. |
|
| |
// Copyright does not cover inventions. // |
|
| |
// Unfortunately, copyright will protect the words, not
the implementation. // |
|
| |
[Vernon] disagrees: [link] |
|
| |
// Even under the "first to file" system, a patent will be
rejected if there is prior art. // |
|
| |
If said prior art is found in time. |
|
| |
Even if the prior art is not uncovered until years later, it can
still be used to challenge a patent. |
|
| |