h a l f b a k e r yI think, therefore I am thinking.
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,
|
|
|
Did Marconi invent radio transmissions? No. Did Edison invent the first light-bulb? No. Did some company conceive of the first dilatant speed-bump? Hell no!
MANY... if not most original inventions have the same story attached to them. It goes something like this:
"You thought of and made
this?! This is great! Wow!...now fuck off! Hey look everybody, I made this!"
...or something very similar and I would very much like to see a site which shows not only the true origins of any given modern innovation but also a backwards branching search function of all of the stories behind all of the previous innovations which eventually led to the modern widget in question.
hmmm, I never would have guessed that the invention of the printing press was anything so... absolute...
Everything was invented by the French
Pretend_20everythin..._20someone_20French
[hippo, May 29 2019]
Ironware piece unearthed from Turkey found to be oldest steel
https://web.archive...001200903261611.htm
Short newspaper article from 2009. [DrBob, May 31 2019]
Discounting of Future Cash Flows
https://www.investo...com/terms/d/dcf.asp
[theircompetitor, Jun 01 2019]
From David Mamet's Heist.
https://quotefancy....-they-call-it-money
[theircompetitor, Jun 02 2019]
Hidden Secrets of Money Episode 4
https://www.youtube...watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0
This is worth watching [xaviergisz, Jun 03 2019]
The Pit and the Pendulum
https://en.wikipedi...it_and_the_Pendulum
Tick, tock ... [8th of 7, Jun 04 2019]
[wbeaty]'s neodarwinism article
http://amasci.com/weird/hevolv.html
Mentioned in my anno [notexactly, Jun 11 2019]
Helix-propelled amphibious vehicle
https://patents.goo...patent/DK280882A/en
[MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 14 2019]
Spiral drive and transport device
https://patents.justia.com/patent/8579056
[MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 14 2019]
Also this cool thing from 1964
https://www.youtube...watch?v=1f_7Weam6q8
[MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 14 2019]
A cool Russian one from the 1970s
https://www.youtube...watch?v=nVOaDfGOPGs
I so want one of these. [MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 14 2019]
https://www.youtube...watch?v=dC3t658ib3k
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Jun 15 2019]
Madstad vs Patent Trademark Office of the United States of America
https://ptabpostgra...es_madstad-v-Us.pdf
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Jun 21 2019]
Federal Circuit Sidesteps Constitutionality of AIA First-to-File Provision
https://www.jdsupra...nstitutional-12460/
In September 2014 it was found that MadStad did not have 'standing' to make the constitutional challenge. [xaviergisz, Jun 21 2019]
Well ...
https://www.google....OEd66FV2zD5IECA5OPR
... you did ask. [pertinax, Jun 22 2019]
[pertinax]'s link, cleaner (PDF)
https://is.muni.cz/...hical_fallacies.pdf
I just let it load and copied that URL. [notexactly, Jun 23 2019]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Nothing is developed in a void. Our thoughts are a mulling of all information taken in and even stuff we are not aware of. Just as, what you [2 fries], has stimulated below. |
|
| |
I like the idea of a web slider interface that traverses the time line showing physical incarnations of an invention. In 3D of course. A toothed wheel > gears > all the different angles and incantations of the torque transferring wheely thing. It would show where things branched due to design and timing or even concurrent invention. |
|
| |
It has to be a solid thing because a lot of patents go nowhere and it would get into a he wrote, she wrote problem. A device sitting on a private basement workbench, again, is no good. All documents with dates could be attach to a 3D representation for perusal out of interest. |
|
| |
Nice, a big visual database of invention taxonomy. |
|
| |
I would add a sensible annotation but I can hardly read this idea on my crappy Baird computer monitor. |
|
| |
True, some inventions are going to have minuscule changes , and not for the better. |
|
| |
// a backwards branching search function of all of the stories behind all of the previous innovations which eventually led to the modern widget in question. // |
|
| |
That's rapidly going to expand beyond usefulness. |
|
| |
The idea that anything is attributable to a lone individual is a simplistic fudge anyway. |
|
| |
It's like finding the very first Elephant and saying "That creature invented Elephants!" it
just doesn't work like that. Things slowly evolve, smearing the lines between one
categorization and another until "bop!" one half of the smeared population gets measles and
disappears, leaving the remaining half in sharp relief. |
|
| |
Any sharp delineation between ideas, species or objects that are themselves an idealised
aggregate of a diverse population is usually a feature that appears long after the origins
of the form first manifested - in other words the process of segregation that allows us to define a
thing is a very different one to the process of origination that caused the thing in the first place. |
|
| |
//That's rapidly going to expand beyond usefulness.// |
|
| |
That's how you know how to stop searching. |
|
| |
[zen_tom] Inventions 'mostly' have a clearer derivative, logic to them,though. Just look here on Halfbakery to see the modification process in action. |
|
| |
//...a site which shows not only the true origins of any given modern innovation...// - but as we all know, everything was invented by the French. |
|
| |
I think in this instance, what we think of as
"invention" is actually two
different components - and 2fries' idea neatly
cleaves at a separation point that's
normally overlooked. |
|
| |
An "invention" is:
i) A novel idea, mechanism or process that performs
some operation |
|
| |
ii) A specific implementation of an idea,
mechanism or process in i) that is
sufficiently socialised to become recognisable as
an invention. |
|
| |
Noting that ii) is somewhat circular a definition,
and where "sufficiently
socialised" might be through means of the patent
system, a branded product,
accidental documentation in some historical text,
or as a published academic paper
etc. |
|
| |
We like to think of invention as being primarily
the former, but I think it's fair
to say that what we really talk about when we talk
about inventors are the people
who are successful socialisers. Hence Edison,
Marconi, even Leonardo who was a dab
hand with socialising his ideas in forms that still
exist centuries later today. |
|
| |
Patent law has reasonable clarity regarding invention, at least
for patentable inventions. Patent law also explicitly
recognises that most inventions are assembled from pre-
existing parts. So, if you invent a left-handed blivet with a
self-regulator, it's accepted (patent-wise) that left-handed
blivets pre-existed and that self-regulators pre-existed, but
that your combination of them may still be inventive. (Of
course, if the left-handed blivet is still under patent, you
need to take a licence to that patent in order to make and
sell your self-regulating left-handed blivet.) |
|
| |
There's a bit of a gulf between the idea or a few jots and detailed description schematic, a physical, or proofed working entity. Imagining stuff is not really inventing. That's why it is called dreaming. |
|
| |
anyone on this site knows that ideas are not a dime a
dozen, the price is listed right there. |
|
| |
I recall one mixed precipitation afternoon in the 90s,
driving and having a eureka moment about rain and snow
sensing window wipers. |
|
| |
I then came home and logged on through some channel
(compuserve?) to the patent office, and discovered the
thousands of patents on window wipers. Of course there's
famous case of the engineer that did get money from
Ford for the intermittent wiper after a multi-year court
struggle. |
|
| |
//Imagining stuff is not really inventing.// Depends. In
general, having the idea is enough to file a preliminary
application, which then gives a priority date to any
subsequent filing. Many, many patents are filed this way. But
you have a finite amount of time in which to reduce the idea
to practice, at least to some extent. |
|
| |
Requiring serious commitment and desire to see the whole thing through. So not just small imagining involving the brightening of some neural filaments. |
|
| |
//Requiring serious commitment and desire to see the whole thing through. So not just small imagining involving the brightening of some neural filaments.// |
|
| |
No these things should be searchable back to the original neuron firing. For example, (and quite coincidentally I might add) Igor Sikorsky built the first operational helicopter on this day in 1939 but everybody knows that the concept of the helicopter goes back to Leonardo. |
|
| |
Many people think that steel is an invention of the Industrial revolution but the Chinese in the personage of metallurgist Qiwu Huaiwen of the Northern Wei Dynasty (386－557 AD), invented the process of using wrought iron and cast iron to make steel hundreds of years earlier. They also invented movable type and much more. |
|
| |
//the concept of the helicopter goes back to// Sycamore trees? |
|
| |
//They also invented movable type and much more.// So,
basically, you're saying the Chinese are all French? |
|
| |
Everything was invented by the French; Ergo, the Chinese were invented by the French. |
|
| |
At this point morrison_rm realises that this is
as lucid as a Trump Twitter comment. |
|
| |
//the concept of the helicopter goes back to// Sycamore trees?// |
|
| |
Sure, if the invention draws upon a natural phenomena observed by the originator then yes. That would make for interesting footnotes. |
|
| |
//Many people think that steel is an invention of the Industrial revolution but//// the Chinese invented the process of using wrought iron and cast iron to make steel hundreds of years earlier. They also invented movable type and much more.// |
|
| |
Exactly! A compendium of what truly went down and not whatever propaganda got shoved down your throat when you were young. |
|
| |
'We' all know where non-Newtonian speed bumps originated. Whomever holds the patent should have claimed this prior art. |
|
| |
Proportion of claim in relation to actual work? |
|
| |
// 'We' all know where non-Newtonian speed bumps
originated. // |
|
| |
If the HB idea pre-dates the patents, then anyone who
wants
to can challenge the patents. There's a fair chance they'd
be
thrown out on grounds of either anticipation or obviousness,
unless the claims go appreciably beyond the HB idea. |
|
| |
//Proportion of claim in relation to actual work?// No no
no. If you have a brilliant idea which is trivial to implement
and is patentable, that's allowable. |
|
| |
//the Chinese...invented...steel hundreds of years earlier.//
Steel was being made in the ancient world about 2000 years earlier than that (link).*
*Well before the French were invented. |
|
| |
// No no no // It is and inflation is real. I suppose it depends on how much you want money mean something or not. |
|
| |
There should be a piece of gold for every denomination of currency in circulation. Any law or ruling that allows moneys to circulate without backing is a money-lender sham which leads to rampant inflation and a Ponzi-scheme bubble just waiting to pop. |
|
| |
Sure it can theoretically inflate indefinitely but... has it ever yet?
Nope. Maybe this time right? |
|
| |
I don't think gold has the amount necessary. My thinking is that it has to do with people because, lets face it, money is wholly a tool of and for the people of this world. |
|
| |
Is a dollar a dollar if it sits in a forest? |
|
| |
Without backing currency is imaginary. Allowing money lenders to only hold ten percent of what is lent out in trust means that every cent generated by interest is fictional cash. |
|
| |
Fictional debt does nothing but grow until pension money you slaved to pay isn't worth a plug nickle and you need a fucking wheelbarrow-full of the worthless shite just to buy a loaf of bread right before they send all the young men off to fight some war to stimulate the economy. |
|
| |
Near as I can tell anyway. |
|
| |
// Fictional debt // Sadly, means something to someone. |
|
| |
Yes, you are wrong. For a start, read up about
discounting future cashflows. Presuming there is some
relationship between interest rates and demand for
money, you can justify different levels of leverage. |
|
| |
Of course you can be over-leveraged just as you can have
too much debt. The market ultimately decides what that
level is, and it can certainly change its mind about what
that level is, sometimes rather quickly. |
|
| |
But calling it fictional is like calling zero fictional. It's an
abstraction that allows for a better representation of
value. Not fictional at all. |
|
| |
For me, Depending on how many facts are used, fictional, imagined or extrapolating is close to a speculative concept. Not something hard, money was suppose to equate. |
|
| |
I just wish money could actually do a service or be a product so it could actually earn itself. Maybe a different term or wording to separate the service value and the perceived virtual value of money itself. Holding, Interest, Debt points on a sum of money with an associated ranging monetary value. A paywall on virtual money. |
|
| |
//Without backing currency is imaginary.//
Currency is a fiction with or without backing. It’s just that people will tend to go along with the fiction all the while that they have confidence in the issuer. The point being that the existence of ‘backing’ (a strong economy, bars of gold or whatever) is only relevant insofar as it bolsters confidence. The value of currency is based on the confidence, not on the ‘backing’. |
|
| |
I think we're confusing fiction with abstraction. Certainly
any coinage based on the scarcity of a given metal would
have been neither fictional nor even abstract. Yes, the
confidence plays a role as currency itself is constantly
fluctuating versus other currencies and versus products,
but that doesn't make it fiction at all. |
|
| |
Presumably during the tulip craze payment was made in
coin? The fact that you had a speculative bubble did not
make neither the tulips nor the gilders used to pay for
them fictional. |
|
| |
The fluctuation of money (including due to confidence) is
an emergent behavior of the
sum of market participants. |
|
| |
That does not make it a fiction anymore than gravity,
being (possibly) an emergent
behavior of gravitons makes it fictional |
|
| |
I don't think the gravity comparison works, tc. Gravity is a physical, measurable force that occurs in nature.
Money, on the other hand, is just metal disks & paper (or, these days, mostly stored electric charge in a computer chip) & it is only the word of the issuer that makes it money. The issuer could just as easily claim that cabbages or pebbles or leaves (c.Douglas Adams) are money*. If the issuer says it is money then it is money as long as most people go along with it. So it is a convenient fiction. That fiction might be based on an abstraction of value (by the issuer) but it is still a fiction.
And emergent market behaviour is really just another way of saying that it is a measure of what people, on average, believe the value of that money to be regardless of what the issuer thinks it is. The gap between those two beliefs is where the speculators live. Which brings us nicely on to Tulips!
*Obviously the choice of which particular medium you use can have interesting side-effects, but I think that my point holds good for the purposes of this debate. |
|
| |
I guess we have to disagree. However frequent life is in
the
universe, it's a measurable physical phenomena that
occurs
in nature. |
|
| |
Life appears to compete for scarce resources, the
eventual
scarcity of such resources, even when initially near
infinite,
appears to also be inevitable, just ask cyanobacteria. |
|
| |
Everything flows from that -- from larger whales getting
more attention from parasite fish cleaning their baleens,
to bonobos trading sexual favors, all these are a form
of currency, not fiction :) We abstracted it to make
exchanges more efficient. |
|
| |
//Life appears to compete for scarce resources//
This is a generalisation. There are many co-operative relationships in nature (indeed, you name some of them yourself) so I agree that we will have to disagree as I get the feeling we are heading towards an argument about Social Darwinism. Still, it was worth thinking about. |
|
| |
<Social Darwinism is the theory that individuals, groups,
and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of
natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely
discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert
Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries and was used to justify political conservatism,
imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention
and reform.> |
|
| |
Interesting. Using Darwinism to argue that things are
they way they are because that's how they evolved is of
course a cheap shot. Having said that, ostracizing such
theories is fairly obviously a form of social darwinism.
oh, the delicious ironies. |
|
| |
Yeah. Not saying that I am not up for a debate about it but I don't think it will get us anywhere. |
|
| |
What I'm sad about is, there seems to be more trading in the abstraction to abstraction than the weight of what money meant which was to equate real stuff, actions of people. A person doesn't have to carry their water in society, if they can get a large abstract to make more abstracts. |
|
| |
// oh, the delicious ironies. // |
|
| |
Don't just load your plate like that, leave a few for everyone else. |
|
| |
There could also be an Invention Entomology Website which detailed the serious bugs in major innovations. |
|
| |
That implies the existence of antisocial Darwinism, shirley ? Not sure exactly what that would be but it sounds like there might be a great deal of gratuitous violence involved .. |
|
| |
I understand value and how the worth of something like gold is in itself imaginary and can inflate, but the material itself can not increase or decrease in abundance unless more is found or lost. |
|
| |
Right? We can all agree on that?... Okay. |
|
| |
As it now stands all of the dollars I've paid over the course of my life to my government to ensure an old age pension are now worth pennies, (which ceased to exist in my lifetime because the copper became worth more than the currency), and you all want me to believe that allowing the money-lenders to run the show and 'not' have a piece of precious metal held in reserve for every single bit of script in circulation was a "good" idea?... |
|
| |
Terribly sorry but... exactly how many times does the same scenario have to play itself out before you talking monkeys finally clue in? |
|
| |
Typically, "once per generation". Your species' collective* memory has a well-defined half-life which means that the same woeful mistakes are repeated as soon as the number of individuals in the population who remember the last catastrophe falls below a critical level. History really does repeat itself. |
|
| |
The answer is that you need to upgrade from the existing Mk. I Human as soon as a new design is available. |
|
| |
*as opposed to our highly efficient, lossless Collective memory. |
|
| |
//political conservatism, imperialism, and racism// |
|
| |
This account of Social Darwinism is true, but incomplete. We
may also note that the concept of evolution was used, just as
spuriously, on the left, to justify excluding and exploiting those
people whom the left considered petty-bourgeois or otherwise
psychologically underdeveloped. You can see a crass example
of this in the beatnik novel "And the Hippos Were Boiled in their
Tanks", and a rather subtler example in Maslow's "Motivation
and Personality". |
|
| |
//social darwinism// is that like military intelligence? |
|
| |
Going back to The Selfish Gene I would presume that all Darwinism is anti-
social, including, I
get a feeling from DrBob, the social kind :) |
|
| |
[two-fries] -- that same argument is being used, rather successfully, for crypto,
where the
scarcity is mathematical rather than physical (incidentally, mathematical
scarcity is MUCH more
reliable, as any day now Elon will tow back to earth a nice big chunk of metal
that will crash
commodity prices). |
|
| |
But surely we are in a forum where a level of abstraction is allowed? Substitute
the market's
determination on interest rates (which does fluctuate, though also influenced
mightily by
central banks) for scarcity, and you have exactly the same concept. |
|
| |
I struggle to understand why inflation is such a concern when inflation is the
lowest it's been
historically, and in fact governments and banks are more concerned about huge
deflationary
shocks that are going through the system. |
|
| |
Debt (by banks or governments) is surely a bigger concern, but without that
debt (and the occasional setbacks that generates) economies wouldn't grow, as
it's literally borrowing from the future to enable the creation of the future. |
|
| |
// I would presume that all Darwinism is anti-social // |
|
| |
You would presume incorrectly, because that would militate against the evolution of bees, ants and termites, and herd and oack behaviours in grazing and predatory species. |
|
| |
The "selfish gene" therory is quite valid because if all the individuals in a herd carry very similar genes, then those genes are successful although existing in multiple individual organisms. |
|
| |
bees and termites are more socialist than social :) Mostly
though, each organism behaves like that bit vial of blood in
The Thing. |
|
| |
//to enable the creation of the future.// |
|
| |
Well, that's true so long as you overlook the distinction between
profits and rents: profits arise from successfully "creating the
future", whereas rents arise from successfully cornering and
hoarding the present. |
|
| |
It can be argued that one of the problems with the recent
behaviour of debt-generated capital has been that much of it
(though by no means all, to be fair) has been directed towards
generating rents rather than profits. Hence, house prices, for
example. |
|
| |
it can be argued, but it would be wrong, as arguing that
stock buybacks are somehow unproductive is wrong. |
|
| |
Money is definitionally fungible, and so money generated on
"rents" is ultimately enabling investment in futures, and to
borrow from Darwin, it's not surprising that multiple niches
and business models evolve to attempt to go beyond the
interest rate. |
|
| |
In the immortal words of [MaxwellBuchanan], "On the one hand,
true. On the other hand, bollocks." |
|
| |
Yes, money is fungible, and this the essence of money, as you
say. However, different allocations of money are not equivalent
or interchangeable. If they were, then money would not be very
interesting, and people would not waste so much nervous
energy arguing about it on the internet. |
|
| |
Full disclosure: my own capital, such as it is, is currently in rental
assets, so I
am part of the problem. You may call me a rank hypocrite. But I
still think there's an interesting problem here to think about. |
|
| |
//[two-fries] -- that same argument is being used, rather successfully, for crypto, where the scarcity is mathematical rather than physical (incidentally, mathematical scarcity is MUCH more reliable, as any day now Elon will tow back to earth a nice big chunk of metal that will crash commodity prices).// |
|
| |
Not made my mind up yet about crypto. Sounds good. Got any gold to back it up? |
|
| |
If Elon Musk can find gold from somewhere other than Earth then more fucking power to him. |
|
| |
//Typically, "once per generation". Your species' collective* memory has a well-defined half-life which means that the same woeful mistakes are repeated as soon as the number of individuals in the population who remember the last catastrophe falls below a critical level. History really does repeat itself. // |
|
| |
Well shit... how does one go about changing that statistic? |
|
| |
//rents rather than profits. Hence, house prices, for example.// |
|
| |
Landlord syndrome. I know it well.
"Didn't get to buy something young enough? So sorry..." |
|
| |
Don't really see what any of that stuff has to do with having my constitutional rights to my own original thoughts being legally claimed by an other, (even if that other is John Q. Public) when congress can not legally issue patent to anyone who is not "the inventor", (very specific wording for a very good reason), yet now my innovations, (which nobody will touch with a ten-foot pole because they are no longer proprietary due to the unconstitutional rights theft which occurred during the time it took to build a prototype after publicly disclosure of the concept itself), collect dust in some sea-can because we are all now suddenly and without a say been required to pay some "other" for the rights to our own thoughts now. |
|
| |
Credit where credit is due people... period, or all of your shit is a house of cards which will fall apart... and very easily. That's not a threat... just an observation.
I "will" have the rights to my own thoughts back in my lifetime... |
|
| |
You'll see.
You might want to fix this shit before you've been made to see. |
|
| |
What did you invent 2-fries? Could there be some sneaky
noggin you could add to your patent filing in order to
make it original enough to get filed? I don't know how
the patent clerks do their jobs these days, but assuming
they're still human, it must be possible (considering the
sheer weight of patentry being filed industrially these
days) to sneak something in that's *just* different
enough for you to claim rights on it? It's a game, a
system, and yes it sucks the way it's played these days -
but if those are the rules the corporates play by,
there's nothing stopping you from playing the same way. |
|
| |
I recon most folks get a free million of "slack" before
the vultures pile in and try getting their beaks in. At
which point, if you're big enough, you can either pay
them off, or take them to court. Nobody is going to take
you to court until such time as it's worth doing so,
lawyers cost money, and nobody's going to unleash the
lawyers until there's profit in it. If a proper court
case costs $1,000,000 then until that's the amount of
profit you're making, nobody is going to try and take it
off you using the patent system until there's a good probability that they will break
even. |
|
| |
I take it, [2 fries] you were not swayed by Obama's "you
didn't build that", huh? |
|
| |
While I'm personally repulsed by that statement, and while
patent law is imperfect, there appear to be remedies within
the law for genuine innovation (as in the Ford case). And
surely the patent troll cases illustrate that in fact there's
significant leverage the other way? |
|
| |
//Obama's "you didn't build that"// |
|
| |
He didn't mean that, by that. But you can carry on
deliberately clinging to your hatred if
it makes you feel better (it wont). |
|
| |
Let it go. If Obama meant what your tribe chose for
that to mean, it would have been an
unforgivable ideological position, but that's quite
clearly not what he meant. None of his actions
before or since suggest that was his intention, or his ideology. Your
tribe's willful (and continuing - after how many
years?) misinterpretation for the sole purpose of political polarisation, in direct opposition to the
evidence in clear view is your tribe's problem, nobody else's. |
|
| |
And before you get into it, I don't live in the US,
and so don't belong to either of your
two tribes. |
|
| |
Instead, I'm from the UK, a notoriously unpolarised
and sensib...ahh ok fair enough I'll
shut up now. |
|
| |
I'd bee a bit careful throwing around [your tribe] [zen_tom], I'm of the Yehuda tribe, and we
take that pretty seriously, especially when it slanderously interferes with our control of the
world. |
|
| |
Now more seriously, hate is a very strong word, and I do not hate Obama, nor do I really even
like Trump, whom I didn't vote for, but... |
|
| |
Yes, I truly dislike the putting down of individualism and the primacy of the individual to the
concept of state that is central to the Constitutional foundation of the US. |
|
| |
I know what he meant: that you did not achieve your success alone. That incidentally, is true
if the way you achieved your success is by borrowing money to buy real estate. Or by funding
your startup on very expensive interest rate credit cards. Those things -- just for example --
are as important as roads, and bridges. You didn't build it alone because the one guy that gave
you your first job delivering groceries taught you the value of time and money. And of course,
add some luck. |
|
| |
But I don't recall him praising banks for letting a larger percentage of Americans to become
home owners, do I? Instead he blamed the banks for following the low and lending money to
people that chose to take out equity loans to sustain and unsustainable standard of living as I
recall? |
|
| |
I truly dislike that he created an administration that kept the boot on the neck of business for
8 years, which -- coupled to be sure by the populist wave out of the crash -- brought us
everything from Brexit to Trump. |
|
| |
I truly dislike that he shoved through Obamacare without a single Republican vote, instead of -
- for example -- voting immigration reform through, which would have gotten at least some
Republican votes, and soured the country for a generation, again, via the Tea Party, sending
the Republican party into a horrible downward spiral. |
|
| |
I truly dislike that he popularized executive actions, which -- as I warned people many, many
times -- would become very unpleasant when someone who you don't like takes the field. |
|
| |
I truly dislike that he made fun of Romney on Russia while the adoring press guffawed
knowingly and patted themselves on the back. |
|
| |
I truly dislike that he interfered in the justice process on Hillary, and apparently authorized
spying on an opponent's campaign -- yet didn't have the balls to say it outfront. |
|
| |
And I truly, truly, truly dislike that he blew the chance to be a centrist President -- no one
made it easy for him, but these things are not meant to be easy. He was there at a pivotal
point, and by choosing fundamental transformation -- yea, yea, I know, I'm taking it out of
context -- he triggered even reasonable conservatives and bears a huge responsibility for
where we got to today. |
|
| |
No doubt the list on Trump will be much much longer -- I hope and pray that I don't have to
blame him for getting a socialist regime in the United States. |
|
| |
Fair dos - though I personally wouldn't give either president the foresight (or conversely, expect them to
take responsibility) for any rebounding the public might have taken after their administration. |
|
| |
Otherwise, every right-leaning president becomes an enabler of socialism, and every left-leaning president
becomes responsible for a swing to the right - perhaps by extension, every centrist president is responsible
for an extremist one (and vice-versa)? I think most are likely at best, lucky if they can focus on the here
and now. |
|
| |
I do think we (UK/US) share an unhealthy polarisation of politics which has corroded the centre. It's now
difficult to hold a sensible position on anything when the danger is that the extremists will take advantage
of any nod in their direction, however tacit, and use it to promote their own particular brand. Politics
these days is more about identity than policy, from which this unhealthy faux-tribalism emerges. And it's in
that sense that I'd call out anyone regurgitating old tribal mantras (in the Rep/Dem sense) - I'm yet to
fully take on that advice regards the British split, so am acutely aware of my hypocrisy. |
|
| |
every President tends to reflect so -- Obama was on Bush Jr. |
|
| |
But the pendulum has begun describing a wider arc, it is
worrisome |
|
| |
A wider arc is no cause for concern; it merely means that the pendulum has more energy. |
|
| |
It's when it starts to get longer, and the blade slices the air closer and closer to your chest that you need to worry ... <link> |
|
| |
//What did you invent 2-fries? Could there be some sneaky noggin you could add to your patent filing in order to make it original enough to get filed?// |
|
| |
In 95 I designed and built the worlds first rc dragonfly. Our country stole first-to-invent rights from our constitution replacing them with a one-year grace period without legal right which the patent search company that I hired knew full well and I didn't at the age of 21.
They used Canada's first-to-invent change to stall me and sell it to their Chinese company Wowee to launch their product line and win 2007 Time Magazines' invention of the year. |
|
| |
I still have date of origination sewn up no matter what any other asshole says. |
|
| |
Then in 2014 I conceived of and built the worlds first internally ballasted Archemedian screw propelled submersible with a gyroscopic torque precession steering mechanism, (and a few other patent-able tweaks) with the help of our local University which have now been labelled public domain because it took me a year and a half to build my prototype during the "grace-year" the rights to my own thoughts were arbitrarily given to exist before becoming untouchable by investors... or even government grants because the States illegally stole first-to-invent from their constitutional rights replacing it with first-to-file. |
|
| |
I've had other inventions stolen by this theft of the rights I was born with which supposedly only affects one in every 2.6 million patents. |
|
| |
These two I can actually prove. |
|
| |
//while patent law is imperfect, there appear to be remedies within the law for genuine innovation (as in the Ford case). And surely the patent troll cases illustrate that in fact there's significant leverage the other way?// |
|
| |
Ah... so I can aspire to be a patent troll... lovely.
I'd only ever hoped to attain the status of patent spoiler. To make it all the way to full troll one day would be magnificent wouldn't it? |
|
| |
I just would like to someday have the inventions of mine which have been stolen by lesser men accredited to their originator. |
|
| |
Keep your fucking money, just give me my due you slimy cunts.
Pardon my French ... even bad things were invented by them. |
|
| |
so this is an ego thing? Don't we just use the # of ideas on
HB for that? |
|
| |
I'll venture to say that my invention has been used by
millions and I certainly would be very happy to have made
more money on it, but ultimately I was happy to sell it to
IV and make some money on it (as oppose to have
everyone just use it and me make nothing) |
|
| |
Of course in my case it's software which is more
controversial. |
|
| |
[2f], out of interest, if you were caught unawares by the
change in patent law in 1995, how did you fall into the same
trap in 2014? |
|
| |
And, in any event, it's better to light a fart than to rage
against the darkness. Successful entrepreneurs lose out in a
variety of ways, but they keep inventing until they get a win. |
|
| |
//so this is an ego thing?// |
|
| |
No. It's a theft of my rights thing. The right of First-To-Invent. |
|
| |
//if you were caught unawares by the change in patent law in 1995, how did you fall into the same trap in 2014?// |
|
| |
I didn't learn of Canadas's theft of my rights before I went to file for patent on Miniautilus in 2015.
It's not like they informed anyone and I was kind of busy spending every spare second of a year and a half building the prototype. |
|
| |
Oh, right. Well, in that case it would have been 20 years
after your dragonfly invention, so it would've been out the
window anyway. |
|
| |
But, like I said, everyone loses a few one way or the other. I
have a list. You put it behind you and save your energy to
come up with something else. |
|
| |
Yeah, I'll let it go... eventually.
What I don't get though is that when I publicly disclosed my widget the America Invents act had not yet been passed. The change went into effect while I built it and the one year grace period did not exist when I disclosed so how does public disclosure prior to 2014 invalidate my patent rights? |
|
| |
My understanding is that the grace period allows you (the
inventor) to file a patent up to one year after making a public
disclosure. If you disclosed more than one year before filing,
your filing would be invalid. |
|
| |
Note also that "filing" can be very simple - just a few sketches
and notes - and costs almost nothing. You've then put your
flag in the sand, and a full application (filed up to one year
later, I think) can claim the priority date of the initial filing. |
|
| |
//Note also that "filing" can be very simple - just a
few sketches and notes// |
|
| |
Actually the filing, made within 12 months of the
public disclosure, must be the complete filing. If you
make an inadequate complete filing, there is not
much you can do to remedy the situation. |
|
| |
True. I meant a preliminary patent application rather than
the filing. |
|
| |
No, wait. Wikipedia tells me that it's a "Provisional
Application" in the US. But, again, it doesn't need much and is
dirt cheap. |
|
| |
I mean you can also file a provisional application any
time between the public disclosure and 12 months,
but this doesn't provide any real benefit. The only
thing that matters is filing the complete application
within 12 months of the public disclosure. |
|
| |
Is the first public design and designer recorded in the patent even they are not the patent holder? That information should be lodge-able against the patent for a record of disputes. |
|
| |
Also public domain means nobody has monetary controlling rights to the idea but does it stop you making the product and selling it? |
|
| |
//Is the first public design and designer recorded in the patent even they are not the patent holder? That information should be lodge-able against the patent for a record of disputes.// |
|
| |
As far as I can tell; listing the 'actual' innovator would invalidate a patent claim so, no.
Without the right of First-to-invent every real inventor on the planet is shit out of luck if someone more knowledgeable about the system and with deeper pockets cares to steal their invention. |
|
| |
That's 'why' it is a constitutional right. |
|
| |
It is the little guy's only protection.
Public disclosure 'is' time-stamping an actual innovation and as far as I'm concerned the public officials who, in their breach of trust, have pushed first to file through congress with neither constitutional nor legal right to do so should be held accountable for treason against their constituents. |
|
| |
//Also public domain means nobody has monetary controlling rights to the idea but does it stop you making the product and selling it?// |
|
| |
Nope.
It just means good luck finding investors, and that anyone with deeper pockets and more knowledge is welcome to squash you like a cockroach. |
|
| |
It was our only defense.
First UK citizens were conned out of their own fist-to-invent right... |
|
| |
(no really, check it out, absolutely no historical case in point for the blatant theft, a total fucking joke) |
|
| |
...and now the rest of our freedoms will start to topple like dominoes because admitting that First-to-file was a massive con-job means losing too much face. |
|
| |
Two people can have the same idea at the same time. The one wins the race for the patent. I don't see any problem with documents stating that the loser had a similar verifiable conception. I also don't see a problem with, if it can be proved, the document being lodged after the fact. The patent holder is not affected, they still have the patent. |
|
| |
You [2fries] deserve your provisional patent entry even if it was stolen. |
|
| |
//First UK citizens were conned out of their own fist-to-
invent
right... // Well, the rest of the world (UK and the rest
of
Europe, in any event - not sure about the East) manages
just
fine with patent law as it is (and has been for a long time).
I've got a few patents to my name, and make a healthy
income from them.
Also, please note that your (US+Canada) patent law is
technically "First Inventor to File" rather than just "First to
File". |
|
| |
Both "FTF" (or FITF) and "FTI" have their own problems.
Under your old FTI rules,
there was always difficulty in proving inventorship,
especially many years later.
Yes, you've got proof of some public presentation of your
idea from 1994 or
whenever; but then I come along and say "Hey, I had the
same idea in 1993, and
here's a page from my notebook to show it". My notebook
might be faked, or it might be genuine - either way you'll
spend a pile of money arguing.
Under FTF, you eliminate that problem, but now the
problem is that you have to
keep your idea secret (or at least non-public) until you do a
preliminary filing. |
|
| |
The real problem is not with the FTF system (which has
worked
fine for decades elsewhere), but in being caught out by the
change. I can sympathise with that. |
|
| |
But, you are where you are. You can either be remembered
as "the guy who said
he was robbed and then spent 10 years doing nothing but
railing against the
system, which of course never changed, and ended his life
as an angry tile fitter" or "the guy who
invented [whatever your
next idea would be if you weren't spending all your energy
railing]". Your call. |
|
| |
// I just wish money could actually do a service or be a product so it could
actually earn itself. // |
|
| |
Depending on what exactly you mean, some cryptocurrencies do that to
various extents and in various ways. Two examples that come to mind are
Namecoin and Ethereum. |
|
| |
// [various stuff about social darwinism] // |
|
| |
[wbeaty] has a page about neodarwinism that I happened to read the other
day and thought was interesting, arguing why those who cooperate end up
better off: [link] |
|
| |
// [proving first-to-invent status] // |
|
| |
Blockchain notarization? Then, in the future, you can prove you had the
idea on or before a specific date, without having to reveal it to anyone. |
|
| |
In my first introduction to venture investing, I was told
that every idea is worth a million dollars. What this
actually means is that if you got to the point that you can
convince anyone to invest in your idea, and you're
thinking what percentage to give them, value the as yet
to be actuated idea at a million dollars. This figure is
curiously immune to inflation. So this means that $50K
friend and family investment should be worth 5%. |
|
| |
Subsequently, however, I realized -- sadly -- that while
good ideas are certainly neither 50cents nor a dime a
dozen, the gulf to implementation is significantly larger
then most people who say "I've thought of that" think, and
that's even in software. In fairness, the stuff I've ever
been involved in is overwhelmingly software based, and
there's obviously been a lot of controversy on such since
1-click. |
|
| |
Kevin O'Leary -- of Shark Tank infamy -- has been talking a
lot about various gadgets that are getting mercilessly
pirated by the Chinese (regardless of any patent
protection). The problem nowadays is stuff is way to
easy to copy, regardless of first, second, etc |
|
| |
//the gulf to implementation is significantly larger// Ohhh
yes. In biotech, you can attract investment based on an idea,
but the investors are really investing in you, not the idea.
Often, the idea that led to the founding of the company gets
dropped quite early in favour of something else. I would
guess that only 10% of funded biotechs take their original idea
through to market or licensing, while 20% change ideas. Then
of course there's the 70% that fail completely. |
|
| |
//You deserve your provisional patent entry even if it was stolen.// |
|
| |
//Well, the rest of the world (UK and the rest of Europe, in any event - not sure about the East) manages just fine with patent law as it is (and has been for a long time)// |
|
| |
Yes, you were conned out of it. Why do you think Nichola Tesla didn't head that way?
Your monarchy traded their power for their figurehead-dom, and what was the first thing the money-lenders did when power was attained? Why they stole your first-to-invent right didn't they.
It's like an Empire crashing linch-pin. |
|
| |
// but now the problem is that you have to keep your idea secret (or at least non-public) until you do a preliminary filing.// |
|
| |
And yet the reason given for first-to-file is the stimulation of innovation...
...you do see the contradiction yes? |
|
| |
//The real problem is not with the FTF system (which has worked fine for decades elsewhere), but in being caught out by the change. I can sympathise with that.// |
|
| |
Thanks. That and a buck fifty will get me a coffee... for now. |
|
| |
//But, you are where you are. You can either be remembered as "the guy who said he was robbed and then spent 10 years doing nothing but railing against the system, which of course never changed, and ended his life as an angry tile fitter" or "the guy who invented [whatever your next idea would be if you weren't spending all your energy railing]". Your call.// |
|
| |
Why not both?
<gets carried on shoulders of cheering crowd like little Mexican girl in the Old El Paso commercial again> |
|
| |
That I will continue to invent is a given.
I don't do inventing, it does me. |
|
| |
As for //remembered//... it's a little hard to be remembered when you don't exist. (hmmmm I wonder what the odds aginst such a thing happening are?)
I'm not sure which part of unconstitutional or illegal theft of rights you don't understand but let me ask you a question;
If this little right of mine can be both unconstitutionally and illegally taken from me by my government... then what is in place to keep any of my other little rights intact once this dangerous precedence is set? |
|
| |
Absofuckinglutelynothing. That's what. Surely they wouldn't dare...
Now let me ask you history buffs in the crowd a question; (I have no idea what the answer might be because I don't know history but my gut is screaming clear-as-day that this'n's bang on the ol' money)
When you cast your gaze back through recorded history and you get to 20-20 hind-sight see the rise and fall of great societies, is the fall of every empire preceded by the loss of the rights of the lowliest to rise above their station and the chaining of genius? |
|
| |
When the government of a society presumes to steal the very thoughts of its people and hand them to its one percent then that society is is on it's way to going tits-up. |
|
| |
The foriegn-interest-funded Make-America-Grovel-Again campaign... |
|
| |
Most people are not able to beat the 2.7,000,000 to 1 odds against inventing something completely independent of prior art and so First-To-Invent was never really their right in the first place and they will not miss its loss. I am able to beat these odds, and do so with some regularity ergo that birth-right 'is' mine. I would like it back now please.
Or someday you will be able to tell your grandchildren, (If you are allowed to have them, and if they are allowed to be taught) that; |
|
| |
"First they came for the inventors' rights. and I did not speak out-
because I was not an inventor..." |
|
| |
//Yes, you were conned out of it. Why do you think Nichola
Tesla didn't head that way?// |
|
| |
[2fries], try not to be a complete dick. As I've said, the UK
and the rest of Europe get along just fine with FTF patent
law. You would have got by just fine if you'd known your
own country's law was changing. Nikola Tesla filed many
patents outside of North America, you idiot. |
|
| |
It's sad that you got caught unawares. But you'd get more
sympathy if you acted more like a grown-up and quit with
the endless "I wuz robbed". |
|
| |
But I digress. Let me, instead, give you a hypothetical.
Let's suppose that I and everyone else here on the HB see
the light and say "Gee, [2fries], you're absolutely right!".
What do you do next? What's your _plan_? I am guessing
there isn't one. |
|
| |
By the way, I have to admire you for your user interface. You
have some of the easiest buttons to push that I've ever
encountered. |
|
| |
Sure Tesla filed everywhere. Didn't gravitate elsewhere though did he? I don't give two shits for sympathy, I'm not an idiot you bully, and you didn't answer my question. |
|
| |
If my government can unconstitutionally and illegally steal this right, then what is in place to prevent them from stealing the others? |
|
| |
//Let's suppose that I and everyone else here on the HB see the light and say "Gee, [2fries], you're absolutely right!". What do you do next? What's your _plan_? I am guessing there isn't one.// |
|
| |
I never planned to have the rights to my original thoughts stolen in the first place so I didn't arrange a counter measure. I don't really need to 'do' anything to watch society as we know it collapse along with the rest of you. |
|
| |
The lowliest individual in society, (not me), who literally can not afford to file and has absolutely no knowledge of the law has to have the right to claim an original invention as their own if they are the first human to think it up and demonstrate it 'publicly' or a society has made it so that cream, no matter what level it started at, can not rise... and I hope you all can acquire a taste for Kumis. |
|
| |
That's all.
It's not a threat by any means, it's just an observational hypothesis on the causality of the fall of empires. One which should be fairly easily traced backwards throughout history by those who know as much about these things as we have access to. |
|
| |
The buttons have been pre-greased for her pleasure. |
|
| |
//the fall of every empire // |
|
| |
There is a regrettable shortage of documentation on the state of
patent law in the Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Babylonian and
Assyrian empires. I haven't asked the Chandragupts yet, but I
don't suppose they're much better. |
|
| |
However, some of the Roman evidence loosely supports your
position, [2 fries] - not with respect to rights over innovations in
particular, but with respect to social mobility more generally. |
|
| |
In the hellenistic world, the important rights seem to have
depended on the principle of "first to catch the ear of a cashed-
up local dictator", and included the right to be whimsically put to
death using your own invention, and the right to be murdered by
vengeful enemies when they finally overran your town. |
|
| |
It was never easy to (a) invent stuff AND (b) escape with your life
AND (c) get credit. |
|
| |
//(c) get credit// Talking of ideas for rich flaky credits, look at the top of the page. |
|
| |
[2fries], OK, I may have misunderstood. You're not objecting to FTF
vs FTI, but rather to the patent system itself (and costs associated
therewith). Tesla, I suspect, was savvy enough to understand that
being a successful inventor includes being able to navigate the
patent system. |
|
| |
Well, the patent system gives you some degree of protection against
copying (or, to be precise, it gives you a tool that you can use to
stop copying). For that protection, you need to pay; that may be
unfair, but a patent is a complex legal instrument that has to be
paid for somehow. |
|
| |
If you decide you don't want to (or can't afford to) seek a patent,
then you're still completely entitled to practice your own invention -
it's just that others (not the government, but other manufacturers)
can copy it. So, the patent system doesn't steal anything from you,
it just seeks to give you some protection from theft by other
ordinary people, but at a cost. |
|
| |
Yes, investors often want to see a patent application, to ensure that
their investment won't be devalued by copying. However,
investment is normally made on the basis of patent _applications_
rather than granted patents (which take a long time). The
investment then covers the costs of taking those patents through to
granting. |
|
| |
If I'd been in your shoes, I would have (a) found a better patent
attorney; they deal all the time with disclosure issues, and a good
PA will always be able to find way around it* and file. (b) put the
application in regardless, and then sought investment; it would take
quite a while for any problems of disclosure to bounce back from
the patent office, during which time you've got a patent application
in your pocket. |
|
| |
Seriously, you need to learn at least the very basics of what patents
are and how they work, just like you learn to use a bandsaw or a
lathe. They're a tool, and it's not rocket science. |
|
| |
(*For example, your disclosure probably didn't give full details; it
probably didn't give all possible applications of the technology; etc
etc) |
|
| |
I suspect that there's a difference between the ways that [MB]
and [2 fries] experience the patent system, which has not been
mentioned yet. |
|
| |
Suppose I were an evil, soulless, manipulative IP lawyer and [MB]
walked into my lair. Before even glancing at his actual invention,
I would make an immediate assessment, based on his manner,
accent and other clues, that he is a person who might have the
resources, connections and confidence to make things
unpleasant for me if I were to try to fuck him over. That would
then influence how I handled his patent application. |
|
| |
Meanwhile, if I were that same lawyer, and [2 fries] walked in,
then, based on a comparable assessment, I might smile my
blandest smile while thinking, "Ah! Prey!" |
|
| |
Result: same system, same legal position in theory, but two quite
different outcomes. Some annoying people call this sort of
thing "unconscious class privilege". |
|
| |
Well, aside from the fact that I do my best to look pretty
much like a bum myself. Also, if [2f]'s patent attorney
were just interested in squeezing money out of him, he'd've
done it the official way, by drafting a patent and navigating
around the disclosure. Like I said, a decent PA can almost
always get around things like that. |
|
| |
If it's of any help, I've bungled at least two potentially
valuable patents (in the sense that one of the inventions is
now widely used) and several minor (and, in reality,
valueless) ones, thanks to
premature disclosure because I was just not aware and/or
wasn't thinking about patenting at the time. On the other
hand, I've also made
quite a large amount of money from patents which were
first filed in the UK, under the UK system of the time (and
then obviously extended to Europe, US etc). |
|
| |
W.R.T the US's change from FTI to FTF, I suspect part of the
reason was that many patents granted under FTI would not
be granted in other territories (eg Europe, UK) that
operated the more common FTF system. At least a uniform
set of rules means that US inventors are not disadvantaged
when they try to extend to other territories. Another part
of the reason, I suspect, is that it's easy to prove First to
File, but very difficult to prove First to Invent, since anyone
can sneak up behind you. Overall, FTF is a simpler system
to implement: "If you invent something, keep it secret until
you file a provisional patent; then you can safely tell the
world." |
|
| |
I can see that being caught unawares by the change in
system is bad; but you could say the same of changes in tax
law or health-n-safety: it's your responsibility to be aware
of these things. |
|
| |
1. //I don't do inventing, it does me.// [marked for tagline]
and for [marked for lol] |
|
| |
That's all well and good but my question remains unanswered. |
|
| |
Once the precedence of unlawful and unconstitutional theft of rights is set, what it to prevent further theft of the rest of our rights? |
|
| |
This to me is of far greater concern than me getting my little thought-toys back.
If there is no accountability for the theft of this right then the rest of our rights are forfeit by default and we may as well print the constitution on rolls of ass-wipe for how much it is worth. |
|
| |
Their reasons for the theft, no matter how sound, do not address this issue. |
|
| |
My stolen toys they can keep... but the fucking toy box is supposed to be bolted to the floor.
The way I see it we can either tackle the assholes with the bolt-cutters or we get watch our playground dismantled. |
|
| |
...and I think it's cyclic. |
|
| |
//Once the precedence of unlawful and unconstitutional
theft of rights is set, what it to prevent further theft of the
rest of our rights? // I think the reason you're not
getting an answer is that your question doesn't make any
sense. You have the same rights as before (in fact, if you
understand FTF vs FTI, slightly more); it's just that the rules
for securing those rights changed, and you were
unfortunately not aware of that change. |
|
| |
Given the choice of filing _new_ inventions under FTF or
FTI, most people would opt for FTF. |
|
| |
Just screaming "my rights have been stolen!" without having
any understanding of how patents work (under either
system) just makes you look silly. How about we pause the
discussion while you learn some basics about patenting? |
|
| |
OK, since [2f] keeps going on about the Constitutional rights
of inventors, I asked Google what the constitution actually
says about patents. |
|
| |
The only thing I found says: “To promote the progress of
science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to
authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries.” |
|
| |
Since FTF does exactly that, as effectively as FTI, I don't see
that switching from the older system to the newer one
violates any constitutional rights. |
|
| |
You probably _do_ have a valid argument that they changed
the system without telling you. But when you decry the FTF
system over the FTI system without
_actually_understanding_ either of them, you do look daft. |
|
| |
it's that damn pursuit of happiness, you can drive a semi
through that one :) |
|
| |
There's ample case law and precedent on property, and
intellectual property fits therein. |
|
| |
I worry more your life changing inventions will be seized by
the socialist state to serve the greater good. |
|
| |
Hang on. Just got to go and deal with some bloody
government official who's roaming around that north-east
wetland garden on some kind of Archimedes' screw-propelled
quadbike. |
|
| |
<a few moments later> All resolved. Apparently he was just
looking for his remote-controlled mechanical dragonfly which
had crash-landed. |
|
| |
None of those are answers to my question. Congress is prohibitted from issuing a patent to anyone who is not "the inventor".
They have given themselves this right both illegally and against the very specific wording of the constitutions of North America. |
|
| |
What part of that do I not get? |
|
| |
//Just screaming "my rights have been stolen!" without having any understanding of how patents work (under either system) just makes you look silly. How about we pause the discussion while you learn some basics about patenting?// |
|
| |
A letter sent to congress signed by 90 law professors, (men who know one hell of lot more about either system than you) entirely agrees with my position.
Perhaps you can tell them that they are idiots as well. |
|
| |
First inventor to publicly disclose solidifies date of origination period. It is 'that' right which has been stolen.
First-To-File is a joke while First-To-Invent is a human right every previously great society was conned out of.
The one year grace period offered in its place is an even bigger joke. |
|
| |
Make sure to keep your shit secret so we can all stimulate innovation together... |
|
| |
yeah... and I'm the idiot? |
|
| |
How many patent applications every year can claim no prior art again?
Oh yeah, only one in every two point six million applications. |
|
| |
Miniautilus alone had at least four patentable aspects which had no prior art at the time of public disclosure, (some of which have since been filed by others), and has the potential to change the way we transport goods between continents and change the service inspection industry... maybe exo-planetary exploration since it works as well on land as in water. |
|
| |
My dragonfly has since found military applications now that it has shrunk from it's original three foot wing-span. |
|
| |
First-to-invent guaranteed my right to these inventions without extortion from my government.
First-to-file is a con job. |
|
| |
I understand just fine... y'know, for an idiot. |
|
| |
// Congress is prohibitted from issuing a patent to anyone
who is not "the inventor"... What part of that do I not
get?// |
|
| |
What you don't get is that the US's AIA is actually a "first
INVENTOR to file" (I did mention this a while ago). It
specifically PROHIBITS issuing a patent to someone who
stole or otherwise obtained the idea from the inventor. So,
you are mistaken. Like I said, you're ranting about stuff
without understanding it. |
|
| |
OK, let me put it bluntly. In total, I have probably made
about $3-4M (not a huge amount, but quite nice) from
patents filed originally in the UK under the UK's FTF system;
and I've got a company launched on the basis of other UK
patent applications. Part of that income comes from UK-
originated patents that in total have earned something over
$1bn (I played only a very very small part in that, hence I
get only a tiny percentage of the revenue; the other
inventors get the remainder). |
|
| |
How much income do you get from US-originated patents
filed back when they had an FTI system? |
|
| |
Either system works well, and each system has advantages
and disadvantages. You can't simply dismiss the whole of
Europe and the UK as being idiots for having an FTF system. |
|
| |
Like I said, you have a legitimate gripe inasmuch as they
switched systems and didn't notify you personally, but that's
about it. |
|
| |
For me, I want what is right , not what is easiest or matches other countries' systems. Just as in the legal system, we should want the murderer to be punished not whom fits the facts. |
|
| |
//I want what is right// As does everyone. |
|
| |
With patents, the basic question is "who invented this?". Under FTI
rules, it can be very difficult to determine this reliably; once a
patent is filed and looks valuable, someone can come out of the
woodwork with dubious evidence that they invented it earlier, and
effectively hijack the patent. Evidence of inventorship can often be
murky. |
|
| |
Under FTF rules, the basic standard is that a provisional application
(cheap, quick, easy) is your flag-in-the-sand as an inventor. In that
respect, it makes proof of inventorship easier. |
|
| |
In fact, America has the best of both worlds (to an extent) in that it
now operates under "first INVENTOR to file" rules. Hence, the
inventor gets their flag-in-the-sand, and someone attempting to steal
the idea before a provisional application is barred from doing so, if
they've stolen the idea from the actual inventor. |
|
| |
Under ALL systems (FTF, FTI, FITF), prior art can prevent a patent
being issued - i.e. if someone thought of it before, it's not
patentable. That's fair. The difference is that under FTIF, the
inventor's own disclosures can count as prior art, but only after a
year's grace period. |
|
| |
And under ANY system, the basic rule of thumb is to keep things
under wraps until you've filed a provisional. Collaborations are fine,
but should be under an NDA/CDA. Just don't blab about your idea in
public until you've filed. |
|
| |
//What you don't get is that the US's AIA is actually a "first INVENTOR to file" (I did mention this a while ago). It specifically PROHIBITS issuing a patent to someone who stole or otherwise obtained the idea from the inventor. So, you are mistaken. Like I said, you're ranting about stuff without understanding it.// |
|
| |
All that does is give the first person to file the title of inventor. Exactly how does one prove oneself the true inventor without date of origination set by public disclosure to solidify it? |
|
| |
//specifically PROHIBITS// What? Legally? or constitutionally? Neither of those stopped the fuckers from changing FTI to FTF now did they? |
|
| |
You've got the bucks? Know the con...I mean system? You filed first? Congratulations!
You're the inventor! |
|
| |
//How much income do you get from US-originated patents filed back when they had an FTI system?// |
|
| |
Recognition as the actual inventor of something without prior art. |
|
| |
// You can't simply dismiss the whole of Europe and the UK as being idiots for having an FTF system.// |
|
| |
Seems to me that doing that exact thing is what made Canada and the US into world powers in the first place.
We saw the con go down the first time 'round. That's why the constitutions were so specifically worded when it came to the subject of invention.
To "specifically PROHIBIT" our government from taking the IP from the 99% and giving it to the 1%. |
|
| |
//For me, I want what is right , not what is easiest or matches other countries' systems. Just as in the legal system, we should want the murderer to be punished not whom fits the facts.// |
|
| |
// Under FTI rules, it can be very difficult to determine this reliably; once a patent is filed and looks valuable, someone can come out of the woodwork with dubious evidence that they invented it earlier, and effectively hijack the patent. Evidence of inventorship can often be murky.// |
|
| |
Hence public disclosure. No murky there. |
|
| |
//Under ALL systems (FTF, FTI, FITF), prior art can prevent a patent being issued - i.e. if someone thought of it before, it's not patentable. That's fair.// |
|
| |
Horseshit!
Under FTI public disclosure and a one year grace period didn't render my inventions "not patentable" by me, it made my inventions not patentable by someone other than me... "The Inventor" of them. |
|
| |
...and nobody bilked me for a dime. |
|
| |
Yes, you're correct about that. Under FTF, your own
disclosures count as prior art, although you're allowed a one
year grace period. |
|
| |
My fundamental points remain the same, viz: |
|
| |
(1) Your legitimate gripe is that they didn't inform you
about the change from FTI to FTF.
(2) Had you known about the change, it would have been
easy to comply; it would also have been cheaper to file a
patent than under the old FTI system (since fee reduction
for small entities is now 75%; was only 50%)
(3) FTF and FTI both work; both have their quirks.
(4) Instead of just ranting about the injustices of the world,
you'd be better off either:
----(A) Finding a class-action against the AIA and joining it
or
----(B) Finding a decent patent attorney who WILL still be
able to get you a patent, even under FTF and regardless of
inadvertent prior disclosure or
----(C) More generally, learning about how patents work, as
well as registered design (which is very powerful). |
|
| |
In this world, whether science, criminality or invention, proof is rock bottom, not having it means no hope. If you do have it, the law should do the right thing. What else is law for? |
|
| |
From what you state [Max], it seems the system is more about the system of who is in the know or has the most lawyer dollars than whom has the best proof. More about filing rather than the breathing human who has had the unique neural activity. |
|
| |
Well, in the first instance it's about proof of invention.
Under FTI, that's muddy (eg, does a lab notebook count?)
and open to challenge (eg, I could fake up a lab notebook
that pre-dates yours). Under FTF, it's clearer, since the
provisional application has to include essential details of
the invention and is date-stamped by the patent office. |
|
| |
Once a patent is filed, _then_ it can boil down to lawyer
dollars, because competitors can challenge the validity of
your patent on all sorts of grounds, and defending a patent
can get phenomenally expensive. But that's true under
either system - FTF or FTI. I've worked on patent cases (not
my patents; I act as expert witness in US patent cases) for
patents filed under FTF and FTI, and the cost can be eye-
watering. THAT is a legitimate gripe (because clearly it
disadvantages smaller companies), but that's not a gripe
about AIA. |
|
| |
Public disclosure dates of origination very nicely solved all of those problems without the red-tape-makers cranking out more red-tape. |
|
| |
If the law and the constitution can not stop congress from giving itself powers it is "strongly PROHIBITTED" from weilding... then what use is either the law or the constitutiion? |
|
| |
//Public disclosure dates of origination very nicely solved all of
those problems// Well, not really. Sure, you made a "public
disclosure" at a certain time, so you must have had the idea in your
possession before that time (did you disclose EVERYTHING that you
planned to claim? I bet not). But then I come along with a signed,
witnessed notebook describing the same thing, dated a month
earlier. And I've got three people prepared to swear they saw me
demonstrating a prototype at that earlier month. Whatcha gonna
do? In the end, it will come down to who can afford the biggest
lawyers. |
|
| |
Filing gives you an incontestable date, and if I didn't file until after
you did, you win. In that sense, FTF is better, in that you can
secure your invention with only a very cheap, very fast provisional
application. Even the fee-reduction for "small entities" (ie, you -
nothing personal) is better under FTF than it was under FTI. Plus,
there's no mandatory public disclosure until a year (I think) after
filing; which means no competitors looking at your stuff, taking the
next logical step, and patenting stuff from right under you. |
|
| |
Yet again, let me say that your only legitimate gripe is that you
weren't made aware of the change from FTI to FTF. Had you been
aware, you'd have been better off. |
|
| |
// Plus, there's no mandatory public disclosure until a year
(I think) after filing; which means no competitors looking at
your stuff, taking the next logical step, and patenting stuff
from right under you. // |
|
| |
Doesn't that mean that if I invent something, and want to
patent it, there could be a provisional patent (hidden from
me) up to a year old that invalidates my claim to the
invention? How is that better? |
|
| |
//// Plus, there's no mandatory public disclosure until a
year (I think) after filing; which means no competitors
looking at your stuff, taking the next logical step, and
patenting stuff from right under you. // |
|
| |
Doesn't that mean that if I invent something, and want to
patent it, there could be a provisional patent (hidden from
me) up to a year old that invalidates my claim to the
invention? How is that better?// |
|
| |
If you make a complete filing, then it gets published 18
months after the earliest priority date (i.e. 18 months after
any provisional application filed). |
|
| |
The whole system bends over backwards to try and help the
less organised inventor (with provisional patents, grace
periods, and delay in disclosure); the better organised
inventor does not really benefit (and, if anything, is
disadvantaged) from any of these things. |
|
| |
And yet at some point, these benefits to less organised
inventors (such as delayed publication) will clash. For
example, this means that there is a 18 month 'window of
uncertainty' where someone else could have filed the same
invention before you. |
|
| |
We are just fortunate to be out of the dark ages of
'submarine patents' (and first to invent) where
publication/disclosure could be delayed indefinitely.
Submarine patents meant that when an invention did
become lucrative, the "real" first inventor could pop up and
take control of the invention (despite having put no effort
into actually bringing the invention into reality). |
|
| |
//Doesn't that mean that if I invent something, and want to
patent it, there could be a provisional patent (hidden from
me) up to a year old that invalidates my claim to the
invention? How is that better?// Yes, it does (as [xav] pointed
out also). But that's always been true. Also thanks [xav] for
clarifying that the publication interval is 18 months. |
|
| |
Actually, the 'window of uncertainty' could be up to 2.5 years
if an inventor discloses his invention (in an extremely hard-to-
find public disclosure), then files a complete application 12
months later. |
|
| |
Incidentally, out of interest, I Googled for patents with
"amphibious vehicle helix" and got a lot of hits. Are any of
them like yours, [2fries]? |
|
| |
There has never been an internally ballasted Archimedian screw propelled submersible with a gyroscopic torque precession steering mechanism which can also travel on land, and a forwards facing focussed-sound stabilized vortex-ring tunnel creating an artificial current within fluid mediums of varying viscosities which pull any neutrally buoyant object through that medium. |
|
| |
The torque precession stabilizing thing has recently hit the market though. I wonder if the public disclosure of my little submarine patent still falls within the category of "submarine-patent" since my little accidental public disclosure was prior to the congressional theft date?... |
|
| |
How (pray tell) do any of these things address government side stepping of both the North American constitutions and the law? ...and exactly what that means for our respective futures? |
|
| |
Let's just take a moment to ponder that shall we. |
|
| |
Is that not more important than my little toys? |
|
| |
I can show you a video of it zipping around in my pool if you want though! I think it's really cool.
Disclosed is disclosed right?
Unfortunately the video is without the steering mechanism in place. I couldn't water-test it anymore so I had to invent a neutral buoyancy cradle before I could get video of those proofs of concept and that computer is in a sea can waiting for me to settle. |
|
| |
It was a long year and a half, and no matter when any of those innovations surface and are given false credit... |
|
| |
Ultimately, it comes down to personal morality. The person filing knows if they are truly the inventor.
Is there a signed declaration that I am the inventor of this patent? |
|
| |
If they are not, they should give credit on the whatever has been coveted. It would make sense that FTF would be sensible if the inventor is unknown, which can be trumped by FTIF proof. |
|
| |
And then there's the bottom line, if people can talk and think, sensible, fair, friendly deals can be made bypassing law and lawyer dollars. |
|
| |
//Is there a signed declaration that I am the inventor of this
patent?// Well, the American system is actually "first
INVENTOR to file" (rather than just FTF), so presumably
there has to be proof of inventorship. |
|
| |
//I can show you a video of it// That would be cool -
thanks! |
|
| |
//I wonder if the public disclosure of my little submarine
patent still falls within the category of "submarine-patent"
// Well, if it's not a patent then it's not a submarine patent.
But if anyone has tried to patent what you had already
disclosed, then their patent could be invalidated on grounds
of either obviousness or anticipation. |
|
| |
By the way, as I've mentioned once or twice, unless your
disclosure covered ALL of the aspects of the invention, it's
likely that a good patent attorney can still get you a patent.
So don't disclose anything you haven't already disclosed.
You need to list your claims (to yourself) and ask yourself if
they were each fully disclosed. |
|
| |
Yeah, but see... I shouldn't have to be an attorney to be an inventor. |
|
| |
Well, sadly there's a lot more to being an inventor than
being an inventor. You don't need to be an attorney, but
you need to know the basics of patent law. And
employment law if you employ people. And accounting.
And a shedload of other stuff. |
|
| |
It's like saying "I shouldn't have to be a welder", and
expecting glue to work. When the glue isn't working, you
just go learn to weld, well enough to get you by. Which I'm
sure you have. |
|
| |
In any event, cool video. I would ask how you steer it, but
_don't_ tell me unless you've already disclosed it. |
|
| |
Also, how efficient is it compared to propellors? I know that
when they first tried propellors on boats (way back), they
started by assuming it should be a long helix to 'get a grip'
on the water. Then they found a shorter helix was more
efficient, and then an even shorter one. And finally it
turned out that a fraction of a turn (ie, a prop) was most
efficient. |
|
| |
//Well, sadly there's a lot more to being an inventor than being an inventor.// |
|
| |
Is there though? Under FTI my inventions became my own through public disclosure alone.
That's why it's "my" right.
The con-job middle-men red-tape-jockeys extorting money for my original inventions are welcome to lick my left testicle while fondling the right one. |
|
| |
//Also, how efficient is it compared to propellors?// |
|
| |
The amount of water displaced exactly equals the amount of water collapsing in its wake so the only barrier to perfect laminar flow is the surface drag of the hull which could be coated with a hydrophobic paint.
It does not push itself through the water, it pulls itself so there will be no cavitation if its speed increases on a smooth curve. I don't do math but the mechanical engineering prof figured that its efficiency would be in the high 90% range. |
|
| |
With my other tweaks I believe it could someday reach aircraft speeds underwater without supercavitation. |
|
| |
Linked together on swivels and weighed down by sea-cans full of cargo we could have efficient direct line-of-sight delivery of goods between continents even under polar ice.
No storms, no piracy, no pollution, (haven't disclosed that little tweak yet), minimal crew, (if any), and guaranteed delivery times. |
|
| |
U.P.S. You're Undersea Parcel Service. |
|
| |
//Under FTI my inventions became my own through public
disclosure alone.// Yes, but that didn't get you a patent.
There are still multiple, multiple hurdles to clear before a
patent is actually granted. For example, did your patent
attorney go as far as starting a prior art search, or did he
just give up from the beginning? |
|
| |
And to answer your question, yes, there is a lot more to
being an inventor. I know, because I have seen people take
ideas and turn them into (literally) billion dollar business.
In each case, they learned what they needed to learn about
business, patents and everything else. I've also got a (very
small but doing OK, thanks) company, and I know that you
should _always_ know enough about everything to at least
understand what's going on. |
|
| |
//With my other tweaks...// This comes back to what I was
saying. It's very, very unlikely that your earlier disclosure
precludes you from getting one or more patents. All you
need is for one key enabling technology to be patentable,
and then it doesn't matter whether you can patent the
whole thing, because nobody else can make it work without
that one key thing. |
|
| |
If you'd spent half as long actually pursuing a patent as
you've spent basking in the warm glow of righteous
indignation, you'd be in business by now. Or perhaps that's
what you're scared of. |
|
| |
Of course it's what I'm scared of. I'm not a business-man, accountant, or lawyer. I know none of those things and have no interest in manufacturing or marketing my inventions.
No, what I have taught myself to do in spite of being denied a decent education is how to pull entirely novel never before seen inventions out of thin air which work, and would have my right to them back so that I get royalties from others who do know these things and wish to profit from them. |
|
| |
Life up until a few years ago has been an uphill shit-kicking and things like math, accounting, and red tape had very little priority while surviving and learning literally everything I know in a sink-or-swim environment.
To force me to accquire the things I was denied when thrown to the wolves in order to claim what is rightfully mine is criminal.
To extort money to claim my own thoughts is evil. |
|
| |
The indignation is righteous for a reason.
I am right... and the treasonous bastards breaking both the constitution and the law whilst in an office of public servitude should see jail time for their crime... |
|
| |
...after the Supreme court returns my rights. |
|
| |
Anyone can do anything but if you want to fully suck from the teat of society, the rules have to be followed, even if those ticket to ride rules go against you sometimes. |
|
| |
//...after the Supreme court returns my rights.// |
|
| |
Well, that's gonna happen in about...oh... never. Even with
all the hard work I just know you're putting in to make the
Supreme Court roll over. |
|
| |
So, you can either wait until then, or just go ahead. You
seem to be completely overwhelmed by the type of IP glitch
that successful people just curse at and then work around.
It's not a huge deal. |
|
| |
Did you think getting a patent was just a matter of sending
in the cereal box tops? |
|
| |
//if you want to fully suck from the teat of society, the rules have to be followed// |
|
| |
Who wants to suck from any teat? I just want credit where it is due. Prior art is prior art period. It used to mean something. Now it just means that public disclosure violates 'anyone's' right to patent, including the actual inventor, and my government does not have the right to assign my intellectual property to the public domain. They never had the right, so their action will lead to their ruin. |
|
| |
Are you people all insane?!
Is the actual fucking inventor of something completely novel not "The Inventor" now? The paper-work dude gets the credit?
In your minds maybe, but not in reality. |
|
| |
So the truth matters not one whit, all that matters is positioning and wealth in an endless cannibalistic always-a-bigger-fish scenario. |
|
| |
// Even with all the hard work I just know you're putting in to make the Supreme Court roll over.// |
|
| |
Ah! So I needs must learn to do that now as well to obtain that which is rightfully mine? Fair you say? |
|
| |
//You seem to be completely overwhelmed by the type of IP glitch that successful people just curse at and then work around. It's not a huge deal.// |
|
| |
Most successful people did not get thrown alone to the wolves without a high school education before going through puberty and teach themselves to invent.
Most successful people would have failed dismally at that task. |
|
| |
It is a very huge deal when your government thinks to force you to illegally purchase the rights to your own thoughts from them. You are all con-victims, and that's hard to admit I know.
Again, that's why the North American constitutions were so specifically worded around the subject of invention. |
|
| |
//Did you think getting a patent was just a matter of sending in the cereal box tops?// |
|
| |
Nope. I thought that registering my work with a Notary Public, having all of it time-stamped and mailed back to me by registered mail which never got opened prior to litigation meant that someone else thinking to make profit on My IP had to cut me in on the action because I had proven myself the actual inventor in a way which could be found by anyone performing due diligence in their own patent search. |
|
| |
As it should be... and very recently was before our governments chose to illegally sell out the rights to our own thoughts to the fastest bidder. |
|
| |
You are all quite literally insane, conditioned to be precise, and the longer I live the more sure of it I become.
I guess my conditioning just didn't take... |
|
| |
//You are all quite literally insane// |
|
| |
That is entirely possible. |
|
| |
However, my experience has taught me that being angry - really
angry, for years - is not a good use of nervous energy. I think
we're all at least partly on your side - even [MB], though he might
not admit it. But I'm not sure what you want from us. |
|
| |
Beethoven (IIRC) complained about having to be a businessman
as well as a musician. Kepler had to make ends meet by casting
horoscopes for superstitious thugs. Leonardo gets a lot of
credit because he got famous as a painter, which got him
connections with people who mattered. If he'd just been
working on technology in a shed in Vinci, he might have
vanished without trace, along with his ideas. Compared to those
difficulties, having to read up a bit on patent law doesn't sound
like an impossible imposition, does it? |
|
| |
That chimp's family of the chimp that developed that stick technique, must be sitting pretty on all those extra termites. |
|
| |
// It is a very huge deal when your government
thinks to force you to illegally purchase the rights to your
own thoughts from them// |
|
| |
Well, you see, there's a sort of compound misunderstanding.
First, it has **always** cost something to obtain a patent,
whether under FTI, FTF or FITF. In fact, the costs for you
have been **reduced** since the AIA, because fees for "small
entities" now get a 75% reduction. |
|
| |
Second, you're not purchasing "your own thoughts" from the
government. I very much doubt that the government wants
your invention for themselves. What you're purchasing
when you apply for a patent is, in effect, a piece of
legislation drafted especially for you that says "this person
invented X; we've checked carefully and he really did, and
has sole rights to exploit it commercially
for the next 20 years". It would be nice if it were free, but
it isn't. |
|
| |
Third, I'm not an expert on the American constitution, but it
seems to say only that government should grant "for limited
times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries". The constitution
doesn't specify whether it should be FTF, FTI or FTIF, and
indeed either of those systems will meet the terms of the
constitution. So, I don't think changing the details of how
patents operate violates the constitution. |
|
| |
As I've said before, you have a reasonable complaint if they
changed from FTI to FT[I]F without notifying people in good
time. You also have a potentially cool invention. But just
ranting futilely is not going to get you anywhere at all, on
land or sea. As [pertinax] has inferred, even I have a bit of
sympathy for your case, but you set yourself as an
antagonist to the whole world. |
|
| |
If you were actually serious about this invention, you would
simply apply for a patent, through a _good_ patent lawyer.
Some of your claims would eventually be rejected (which
happens to almost _all_ patents), others would be allowed.
And, during the long review period, you would be out
securing funding. That's what companies do. You don't sit
around waiting (potentially for years) for a patent to be
granted or rejected. |
|
| |
On the other hand, if what you *really* want is to believe
you've invented something world-changing without the
hassle of having to actually turn it into a business and
develop in the harsh real world, then you've already won. |
|
| |
// my experience has taught me that being angry - really angry, for years - is not a good use of nervous energy. But I'm not sure what you want from us.// |
|
| |
Being really angry for years is what's kept me alive and I guess I just want you to realize you've been conned. |
|
| |
//On the other hand, if what you *really* want is to believe you've invented something world-changing without the hassle of having to actually turn it into a business and develop in the harsh real world, then you've already won.// |
|
| |
Here, this guy says it a lot better than I can... and with fewer expletives; |
|
| |
"As enshrined in America’s founding document, first inventors have an inherent right to their inventions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided in A.F. Stoddard & Company, Ltd. V. C. Marshall Dann that the “Constitution speaks of securing to inventors the exclusive right to their discoveries, not that the inventor must apply. Thus, the Constitution is result-oriented and contemplates that the grant of the patent be to the inventor.” It follows that regardless of who is first to file for a patent, patents must belong to a first inventor and not a first filer. In its haste to bring the U.S. patent system in line with the FITF system adopted by the majority of foreign states, the U.S. legislature seems to have lost sight of the basic protections of property rights written into the Constitution. |
|
| |
More relevant in terms of innovation is Conyers’s second goal: reducing NPE litigation (patent trolls). If anything, the AIA has had little effect on patent disputes, disputes defined to include both litigation and AIA non-litigation procedures (mostly IPR); the number of disputes has risen every year since the AIA came into effect. Litigation in 2015 also increased above pre-AIA levels and still constitutes a vast majority of patent disputes, and NPEs accounted for more than two-thirds of litigation. While the popularity of IPR is increasing and may decrease the cost of patent disputes, the rise of patent suits indicates that the AIA has not meaningfully slowed patent litigation or the rise of NPEs similar to Intellectual Ventures, creating a state of affairs that is particularly detrimental to innovative firms. To illustrate how destructive NPE litigation has become, a study from Boston University concluded that NPEs hampered innovation by costing defendants half a trillion dollars from 1990 to 2010, and widespread weak patents further exacerbate the issue. One commentator has even gone as far as to claim that IPR processes devalue patents and decrease corporate valuations, directly costing the economy $1 trillion independent of NPE activity. |
|
| |
All in all, the AIA as a policy has been ineffective at best and detrimental at worst, and by shifting the U.S. from a FTI system to an FITF system, it potentially deprives inventors of the rights to their inventions. Not only has the Act failed to achieve its objectives in providing stimulus to the economy by reforming the patent system, it has also managed to violate the Copyright Clause and clearly would not withstand judicial scrutiny. Such a blatant violation of individual property rights must and will be remedied once a U.S. person with sufficient standing comes forward to challenge the AIA." |
|
| |
...and the longer it takes, the bigger the shit-storm will be.
See? |
|
| |
Well, I'm sure I could find someone equally vocal defending
FITF (I'll give it a go if you really want me to) and showing
that it doesn't break the constitution. Was that James
Madison you were quoting? |
|
| |
Whoever he is, he's right that patent litigation in the US is
out of control. But the figures he quotes are (he says) from
1990 to 2010, which is just _before_ the AIA came into
effect, so I'm not sure what point he's making. Is patent
litigation high in the US? It certainly is; as I mentioned, I'm
involved with some of it, and I know how much is spent on
it. Is that a new thing since AIA? No. |
|
| |
Anyway, good luck waiting for America to revert to FTI. I'm
sure it will happen any day now. Unfortunately that will
mean that some US patents will, once again, not be fileable
overseas, but hey. Who needs an export market? In the
meantime, keep up with the anger, it seems to be working
well for you. |
|
| |
//keep up with the anger, it seems to be working well for you// |
|
| |
I want to clarify two things. |
|
| |
One; the only problem I have with first to file is that it makes no provision for establishing date-of-origination without a price tag.
Under FTI an inventor never had to patent their IP to solidify an invention as their own, just publicly disclose it first. That is a travesty of justice plain and simple. |
|
| |
Secondly I realize how; //Being really angry for years is what's kept me alive and I guess I just want you to realize you've been conned.// sounds. |
|
| |
The first few years alone were pretty much out of the frying pan into the fire and anger was a lot more productive and useful than tears. My philosophy has always been; Take all the negatives flip them all on their heads and they all become positives so that's what I did with the rage, pain, fear, panic, sadness, etc.
They never went away, I just wrapped them all into a tornado and then wrapped that back on itself and... channeled it so I could find the calm at the center. Turns out that if you can actually channel that much negative energy into something positive... inventions pop into your head. Mine anyway, I imagine for some folks it's music or poems or some such but for me it's widgets.
Damn sword has two edges though and a side effect of being able to channel that much negative energy is that really bad things happen to people who screw me over... because I go really Really far out of my way to not screw others over. I don't even need to be consciously aware of it, I'll just hear the story later, and the bad things seem to be in direct proportion to the screwing-over. |
|
| |
The pencil pushers are fucking with my zen. |
|
| |
I do not consciously invent and I do not consciously defend. Whatever it is I did in my head that lets me do this crap was something I did as a kid and its sense of justice and fairness is that of a child. Even I can't go against it without getting my ass kicked until I dummy-up.
You'll see. You can't contain 'actual' genius or it explodes. |
|
| |
Learned that the hard way over fifty years. |
|
| |
These widgets it's shown me, if nobody has ever thought them up before, are mine/its according to the rights I was born with. To be acknowledged as the originator of them has now been taken away from me/it without just cause. |
|
| |
That's a pretty big screwing over for us. The coming shit-storm will indicate just how big. |
|
| |
We need to fix this shit so that some fourteen year old Guatemalan kid like me with no prior knowledge or cash still has rights to their genius without needing to lawyer-up because that kid will not have my restraint. |
|
| |
// Anyway, good luck waiting for America to revert to FTI. I'm sure it will happen any day now.
Unfortunately that will mean that some US patents will, once again, not be fileable overseas, but hey. Who
needs an export market? In the meantime, keep up with the anger, it seems to be working well for you. // |
|
| |
It's not the government's responsibility to ensure that anyone who is eligible for a patent in their country is
also eligible for the same patent in other countries. If an inventor wants to patent their invention in
multiple countries, it's incumbent on them to ensure that they follow each country's procedure and
eligibility requirements. |
|
| |
// One; the only problem I have with first to file is that it makes no provision for establishing date-of-
origination without a price tag. Under FTI an inventor never had to patent their IP to solidify an invention
as their own, just publicly disclose it first. That is a travesty of justice plain and simple. // |
|
| |
My understanding of FTF was that any prior art that shows the same improvements as the claims in a patent
application is still considered to invalidate the patent application. It's just that the patent examiners no
longer diligently search for prior art in any place other than their own patent database, so if there's prior
art from other sources, either it has to be submitted by an external observer (us, if we're willing to put in a
lot of work for no pay) during the patent examination process or it has to be taken to court (expensively)
after the patent is issued (by the patent owner suing an infringer, and the infringer then proving the patent
was anticipated by prior art). That decreased level of due diligence by patent examiners seems to be
unrelated to FTI vs. F(I)TF, though I would certainly favor reversing it through some kind of policy. |
|
| |
//If an inventor wants to patent their invention in multiple countries, it's incumbent on them to ensure that they follow each country's procedure and eligibility requirements.// |
|
| |
Why is it complicated, in this data age, for the origin of an innovation to be catalogued and inventor credited even if no international patent is ever issued to them? |
|
| |
Credit where it is due. That's all. |
|
| |
//Why is it complicated, in this data age, for the origin of an innovation to be catalogued and inventor credited even if no international patent is ever issued to them?// |
|
| |
It's not complicated. If the inventor provides a full enabling disclosure of their invention (detailed description, drawings etc.) and publishes it somewhere trustworthy (e.g. journal), it has essentially been 'catalogued' and the inventor will get the credit. It will be found and cited as prior art if someone tries to patent a similar invention. |
|
| |
Regarding patents, it's high time that they were global
patents, or at least unification across Europe, US, Canada,
Japan etc. It would greatly reduce costs for both applications
and challenges. |
|
| |
//It's not complicated. If the inventor provides a full enabling disclosure of their invention (detailed description, drawings etc.) and publishes it somewhere trustworthy (e.g. journal), it has essentially been 'catalogued' and the inventor will get the credit. It will be found and cited as prior art if someone tries to patent a similar invention.// |
|
| |
And yet halfbakery disclosure invalidates my right to patent within a year and does not need to be cited as prior art. |
|
| |
//Regarding patents, it's high time that they were global patents, or at least unification across Europe, US, Canada, Japan etc. It would greatly reduce costs for both applications and challenges// |
|
| |
Yes... but without a one year to file after disclosure deadline.
"The Inventor" is the inventor. "Second inventor" is an oxymoron and North American governments are prohibited from issuing patent to anyone "not the inventor" therefore the illegal right they have given themselves is false and anything I publicly disclose and can prove date of origination of is mine to patent at any time in the future. |
|
| |
That is my right as "the inventor". The rest of the planet can stay conned out of their rights if they like but will leave mine alone. |
|
| |
//and does not need to be cited as prior art.// Uh - it *is*
prior art. That's the problem. But it's only a problem if it
discloses all the claim elements. |
|
| |
//The rest of the planet can stay conned out of their rights
if they like// Uh, the rights I've been "conned out of" paid
for my houses, cars, company, holidays... It's just a
different system. Get over it and move on. Make it work
for you. |
|
| |
// And yet halfbakery disclosure invalidates my
right to patent within a year and does not need to be
cited as prior art.// |
|
| |
A halfbakery disclosure could be cited as prior art.
There are about 20 patents which cite halfbakery
ideas. However, halfbakery idea can only be used to
invalidate a patent claim if they provide an enabling
disclosure of all the features of a claim. |
|
| |
For very simple inventions, just a brief description
may be considered enabling. For most inventions, a
brief description (such as a halfbakery idea) will not
be considered an enabling disclosure. |
|
| |
The other thing to keep in mind is that invalidating a
patent is not an all-or-nothing deal. If there is close
prior art (which there always is), then the claims can
be 'narrowed' to differentiate the claims from the
prior art. |
|
| |
//invalidating a patent is not an all-or-nothing deal//
You've
done this before, haven't you, [xav]. That was the point I
was
making to [2f] earlier - it's unlikely that *any* public
disclosure he made would have disclosed all of his claims in
sufficient detail, and
a half-decent patent attorney ought to be able to step
around
the disclosure. I've filed patents on stuff that I'd
unthinkingly
published journal articles about years before, which
necessarily disclose a
huge amount of technical detail. |
|
| |
//You've done this before, haven't you, [xav].// |
|
| |
Yep, I've examined thousands of patent applications
and written dozens of decisions resolving disputes
between parties. |
|
| |
Woo hoo! An actual real-life expert. Are you US-based or
non-US-based? |
|
| |
//North American governments are prohibited from issuing
patent to anyone "not the inventor"// And they still are. As
I've mentioned, the US operates "first INVENTOR to file". |
|
| |
I'm at the Australian patent office. I'm familiar with
US patent law. |
|
| |
So, is Oz similar to the UK as regards patent law? |
|
| |
//As I've mentioned, the US operates "first INVENTOR to file"// |
|
| |
Which brings us full circle to the fact that Congress does not have the power to grant themselves the right to switch in the first place. The first court case with actual rather than potential damages will see FITF overturned as the courts are bound to uphold the constitution and not politicians seeking to give themselves power they do not possess. |
|
| |
There is no loss of right-to-patent for length of time between public disclosure and filing date for "the inventor" in Canada or the US.
There is no price-tag associated with disclosing an original invention and time-stamping an inventions' date of origination.
No one other than "the inventor" can patent in these two countries. |
|
| |
We have not lost these rights because our governments were never permitted to dick with them. |
|
| |
It's a con.
Maybe the rest of the planet will pull their collective heads from their asses when the dust settles. |
|
| |
//So, is Oz similar to the UK as regards patent law?// |
|
| |
Yes, Australia is fairly similar to UK. 100 years ago we essentially had the same law. Our laws have diverged slightly since, but we still refer to UK court decisions for quasi-precedent when there is insufficient precedent in Australia. |
|
| |
Actually all countries patent laws are fairly similar since there are several international agreements to keep them aligned (e.g. Patent Law Treaty (PLT)). |
|
| |
Welp... the first case to overturn AIA as unconstitutional is awaiting its court date.
[link] |
|
| |
Filed in 2012? Is it ever going to proceed? |
|
| |
I just happened to look up the IP Clause, because that document
quoted it, and it seems to only allow copyright for textual works,
which is interesting… |
|
| |
The case was decided in 2014. It was an unsatisfying decision because it failed on a technicality - MadStad did not have 'standing' to bring the case. It did not decide on the constitutionality of the AIA. |
|
| |
But its been 5 years and no-one else who does have 'standing' has re-argued the case, so it seems unlikely it will ever be successfully argued. |
|
| |
So apparently MadStad lacked standing because their alleged
harms were "hypothetical" and "speculative".* But didn't they
state in the filing that they'd already had to pay certain
amounts of money? That sounds like real and definite harms to
me. At the end of the post, it says that //the alleged injury was
based on speculative, future activity of third parties//, and I agree
with that, but I don't think that makes the fact that they reasonably
felt that they had to
pay to protect against such activity speculative. |
|
| |
Regardless of their lack of standing, I found their arguments
against the AIA persuasive, and would not be surprised if a
future plaintiff uses those or similar arguments. |
|
| |
*While I disagree philosophically that standing should require
harm to have been realized already, and feel that that
restriction on standing is mainly to reduce the workload of the
courts, I agree that, under the current rules of standing as I
understand them, hypothetical and speculative harms don't
count. |
|
| |
//I found their arguments against the AIA persuasive// |
|
| |
The main argument seemed to be that the "first and true
inventor" is no longer required for a patent application
under AIA. However, I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. |
|
| |
A fundamental rule of patent law in all jurisdictions is that
all patent rights originate with the inventor. All patent
applications (including US patent applications) *must* list
the inventor. From memory, one of the changes in AIA was to
allow the rights of a patent to be more easily assigned from
the inventor to a company. |
|
| |
There used to exist the 'nuclear option' in invalidating a
patent, by showing that one of the co-inventors was not
listed on the patent application. They have changed this in
most jurisdictions (and possibly this changed in the US under
AIA) so that if a co-inventor was omitted from the patent
application they can be later added. |
|
| |
When I said I found it persuasive, that's me speaking as a
non-lawyer, non-patent examiner, etc., just somebody who's
read slightly more than average on these topics. I don't even
know all that much about what changes the AIA actually
made. |
|
| |
What stood out to me was their assertion that as soon as
something has been invented by one person, nobody else
can invent it. That, I disagree with. |
|
| |
//as something has been invented by one person, nobody else
can invent it. That, I disagree with.// |
|
| |
Why disagree? I mean yes, obviously someone can "invent"
something, unaware that it's already been invented. That
happens a lot. But in terms of ownership, only the first
inventor is entitled. |
|
| |
//only the first inventor is entitled//
[Max] From all that you've said, only the patent holder is entitled. |
|
| |
No. The current US system is explicitly "first inventor to file",
meaning that the inventor must be one of the names on the
patents. Other jurisdictions are commonly called "first to
file", but even there the actual inventor(s) must be on the
patent, so they are really "first inventor to file" too. |
|
| |
// But in terms of ownership, only the first inventor is entitled. // |
|
| |
Sure. But the linked filing claims (in paragraph 20) that there's no such thing as "reinventing" or
"independently inventing" something once it's been invented by someone else, anywhere in the
universe (which brings up relativity of simultaneity issues), unbeknownst to the second inventor:
"Only the first inventor can discover something 'not known before'. A second 'inventor' is an
oxymoron; that person merely rediscovers that which was already discovered by the first inventor." |
|
| |
That's what I'm disagreeing with. |
|
| |
// No. The current US system is explicitly "first inventor to file" // |
|
| |
The linked filing also claims (in paragraph 3 and also supported in paragraph 17) that that's not
true: "Although the AIA is labeled as a 'First-Inventor-to-File' system, that label is a smokescreen.
Under the AIA, the patent will be awarded to the person who is first to file a patent application,
regardless of whether the applicant was the actual first inventor of the technology in question. In
fact, the AIA removes from the 'conditions of patentability' of Section 102 of the Patent Act (and
thereby from the conditions of patent validity) the requirement that the named inventor actually
invented the claimed subject matter." |
|
| |
I don't know to what extent they're correct there, but they disagree with you. |
|
| |
//A second 'inventor' is an oxymoron; that person merely
rediscovers that which was already discovered by the first
inventor.// Well, I'd agree with that. Not to say that the
"second inventor's" creativity is any less, but they're not the
inventor; they're the re-inventor. And yes, if we meet
aliens this will cause problems. |
|
| |
Re. the third para in [xav]'s link - as far as I can see, it
**supports** the first-INVENTOR-to-file rule. MadStad were
claiming that they had to increase security to prevent
people stealing their ideas (which those people could then
claim to have INVENTED and file patents on). That was
their beef with AIA. |
|
| |
Under the old FTI system, the same problem would exist.
And worse: if you used public disclosure as a sort of flag-in-
the-sand, there would be nothing to prevent someone else
from:
(a) Taking your invention further, finding and solving
problems, and patenting those solutions - thereby blocking
you from doing the same and
(b) Faking up a prior public disclosure and stealing your
patent (since "public disclosure" is pretty vague and woolly
and can be hard to disprove). |
|
| |
FTF, or FTIF *does* mean you have to file, but small entities
in the US get a 75% discount on the already not large costs
of this (you can even draft the provisional application
yourself, and tidy it up later). PLUS the same system works
in the rest of the world. PLUS a filing date is an
unambiguous datestamp that secures your rights. PLUS you
have 18 months after filing before anyone else can see your
invention and try to get ahead of you in developing it. |
|
| |
There are lots of issues with patents, in the US and
overseas, but they're not due to the change to FITF. FITF is
the better system. It's just not good if you were caught
unawares by the change. |
|
| |
It takes away the inventors right to patent their invention and gives that invention over to public domain if filing does not occur within one year of solidifying date-of-origination.
Once in the public domain any original idea is dead since why would anyone invest in an idea which can be stolen by anyone? |
|
| |
No more inventors, just companies stealing things people can't afford to fight them for.
Fuck that.
How about no. |
|
| |
That is not and has never been a power that North American governments possess. |
|
| |
To deny an original inventors right to patent their own IP ..."because"... they can prove that an original invention is indeed their own is immoral, unethical, illegal, 'and' unconstitutional. |
|
| |
My IP is my own, not my governments to give to the public.
They've never had the power... so it's a con.
Your government conned you into thinking that they have that power though...
...didn't they? |
|
| |
If you were 'not' conned out of the first-to-invent right your ancestors did indeed once possess, then show me the court case where the change to first-to-file was determined. |
|
| |
//only the patent holder is entitled// the rest is debatable. |
|
| |
//Your government conned you// Well, I can only come back
to the point I made earlier. Under the UK's FTF system, I've
made a significant amount of money from things I invented. I
am guessing you haven't made a plug nickel under either the
old FTI system or the new FTF system. |
|
| |
It's not the system. It's what you do. |
|
| |
//See link. Since you ask// |
|
| |
Thank you. Thanks for all of your answers actually.
That was extremely difficult to read. Fist because it's sideways, and secondly because it reads like a rambling stream of consciousness type, (to use the authors own word), disquisition.
Thirdly there was no court case mentioned that I was able to find in there. |
|
| |
// I am guessing you haven't made a plug nickel under either the old FTI system or the new FTF system.// |
|
| |
You guess correctly sir... and yet I am the inventor of many things. Perhaps the systems need to be overhauled so that actual inventors are not deprived of their rights to their inventions no matter their circumstances. |
|
| |
'The inventor' is the inventor. The cost of that title is the ability to invent, not a person's level of education or the depth of their pocketbook. |
|
| |
You've all excluded the natural inventor from your little red-tape fest.
How nice for you all... |
|
| |
has anyone seen my dead horse? |
|
| |
Are you hard-of-reading, [2f]? As I've pointed out, many many people
(including, modestly, me) have made a lot of money (and had great fun,
which is what actually matters) from patents under the UK/Europe's
system, which is stricter than yours. |
|
| |
I honestly think that you don't, in your heart, want to take your invention
forward. I think you are secretly pleased to have this spanner thrown in
your works. Because if there is one thing harder than inventing something,
it is taking it all the way through to a money-making proposition. |
|
| |
If you were serious about going forward with your helical submarine,
you'd've done it by now. The AIA thing is a convenient excuse that leaves
you with a nice story to tell, but isn't actually holding you back. |
|
| |
You've plenty of reason to ignore my advice and opinions since (a) who am I
anyway and (b) we have issues; but try actually reading what [xav] said, for
example. |
|
| |
I'm not ignoring anyone's advice. I am arguing that my IP is not anyone else's to sell back to me. Our North American constitutions agree with me.
Any policy which makes it legal to steal another persons property disgusts me and I will not conform to it. |
|
| |
Sometimes you just have to tell the world, "No, you move." |
|
| |
Just for round figures what do you think the cost of a single patent start to finish is? Fifteen grand? Twenty grand per patent?
To secure my rights to miniautilus will require at least four patents.
The preliminary filing for those is fairly cheap right? Okay so what happens to my IP if I can not find investors within the time limit for coughing up that eighty grand? Public domain again? |
|
| |
The number of original inventions floating around in my head would bankrupt you, let alone me. |
|
| |
Can you imagine if lawyers and politicians were required to come up with original inventions in order to profit from their knowledge? |
|
| |
None of that matters though. Our governments have never had the power to change first-to-invent so their switch is not binding and will be overturned. |
|
| |
//Just for round figures what do you think the cost of a single patent start to finish
is?// |
|
| |
You're an idiot. The filing fee for a provisional patent in the US (which you can draft
yourself) is $70 – $280. As a "small entity", you get a 75% discount on that (so it
says; it doesn't stipulate if that applies to the provisional stage). |
|
| |
Nobody funds a patent from "start to finish" by themselves. You file a provisional out
of your own pocket, use it to attract funding, and use the funding to progress the
patent. Duh. |
|
| |
Even if America reverts to FTI (which, however much you shout at America, it won't
in your lifetime; it can shout louder than you), you will STILL need to file a patent
application before anyone will even begin to consider the possibility of taking you
seriously. It will cost you the same, or more. YOU YOURSELF have said that you
can't get funding because you don't have a patent. |
|
| |
You haven't even tried. You've learned nothing about patents or how they work.
You've made no serious effort to get one. You haven't even bought a $10 "Patents For
Dummies" book. You don't want to hear anything which will puncture your pretty
balloon of self-righteous indignation. |
|
| |
Even if you go out tomorrow and file a provisional (which you still can, as has been
pointed out to you several times), any potential investor is going to say "Well, here's
a guy who gave up and did nothing for ?3? years after his first IP glitch. Do I actually
want to invest in someone like that?" |
|
| |
I don't know which you're more scared of - failure or success. |
|
| |
I am already more successful that I ever thought I would be.
I honestly didn't expect to make to thirty. I've lived through things what would have killed most folks, found peace, and made a good life for myself and actually have a family bud.
In that regard I've already won.
Got a quarter mill in the bank and I've decided to go with land rather than my inventions.
I've spent quite enough time swimming with sharks. |
|
| |
My inventions are... just a hobby. A way to fill the endless hours of tedium while my hands do their thing to feed my family. I tried to keep the things I post here small enough to not matter but they seem to grow... y'know. |
|
| |
I'm a loner. I don't do networking. I don't know math. I don't know science. I don't know physics.
The gaping holes in my knowledge when it comes to adulting would still see me carrying all of my cash in my pocket if it wasn't for my wife. |
|
| |
So yes, I'm an idiot with very little time at my disposal. |
|
| |
...and to catch up I would have to start back at grade nine. |
|
| |
//Even if you go out tomorrow and file a provisional (which you still can, as has been pointed out to you several times), any potential investor is going to say "Well, here's a guy who gave up and did nothing for ?3? years after his first IP glitch. Do I actually want to invest in someone like that?"// |
|
| |
Probably not.
They would just see the potential to victimize.
So there you have it.
I'm an Idiot savant who's inventions are forfeit because of all of the things which I 'can't' do which enable me to do the things I 'can' do... if I only existed. |
|
| |
I never understood before how Ed Leedskalnin could deprive the world of the things he figured out on his own...
...but I'm starting to. |
|
| |
[2fries] Are you going to take your ideas to the grave? at least leave some behind for family or the rest of us to progress with, please. You don't know how far their adaptions will go, maybe even another planet. |
|
| |
Yeah but you've let yourselves be run by assholes who don't give a fuck.
I put my toys out there to see what would happen.
See what happens?... |
|
| |
...bunch of fucking cannibals come out of the woodwork. |
|
| |
Intellectual property is property.
My IP is "my" IP. |
|
| |
Keep my toys.
Fix the shit. |
|
| |
[2fries] Your definitely not Nelson Mandela material but that's ok, we're all different. |
|
| |
//I'm an Idiot savant // Finally, something where I can meet
you halfway. |
|
| |
Yeah?
Can you see why the intellectual property rights of people like me were constitutionally protected in such a way that an inventor needs neither money nor legal savvy to register their innovations after we left the UK? |
|
| |
You highly educated folks have red-taped the mouths of your savants shut in the name of innovation stimulation and call us idiots. |
|
| |
// FTF, or FTIF *does* mean you have to file, but small entities in the US get a
75% discount on the already not large costs of this (you can even draft the
provisional application yourself, and tidy it up later). PLUS the same system works
in the rest of the world. PLUS a filing date is an unambiguous datestamp that
secures your rights. PLUS you have 18 months after filing before anyone else can
see your invention and try to get ahead of you in developing it. // |
|
| |
Under FTI, getting your invention notarized (whether by a conventional notary or
by a blockchain) serves that purpose, doesn't it? And it doesn't have a time limit
between that date-proof and the final filing. But agree with what you said about
how if you publicly disclose it, even under FTI, other inventors can improve upon
your invention before you think of those same improvements. But I feel that's fair,
and I see no problem with them doing that if I've voluntarily publicly disclosed my
base invention already. |
|
| |
// Because if there is one thing harder than inventing something, it is taking it all
the way through to a money-making proposition. // |
|
| |
From plenty of personal inexperience, I agree. |
|
| |
// Sometimes you just have to tell the world, "No, you move." // |
|
| |
// maybe even another planet // |
|
| |
Come to think of that: Miniautilus could be really good for exploring subsurface
oceans like on Europa and Enceladus (and apparently Pluto and several other
moons too?). No external moving parts means nothing to get clogged by mud (or
biofouling, if there's life). |
|
| |
//doesn't have a time limit between that date-proof and
the final filing// If that's true, it's another reason to end
FTI, because it encourages another variety of patent
trolling. Just come up with an idea and, instead of testing
it, get it notarized for a small fee and wait. Five years
later, someone else gets a patent granted on the same
thing, because your invention hasn't entered the public
domain. So, you just have to wait until they have a thriving
company and then hold them to ransom. |
|
| |
One of the reasons for developing the patent system was to
ensure that useful inventions become available to everyone
after a reasonable period of time (eg 20 years) to allow the
inventor to benefit from their invention. |
|
| |
//Do you have a B-side?// |
|
| |
I have many sides. Do you ever answer a direct question? |
|
| |
//Under FTI, getting your invention notarized (whether by a conventional notary or by a blockchain) serves that purpose, doesn't it? And it doesn't have a time limit between that date-proof and the final filing. But agree with what you said about how if you publicly disclose it, even under FTI, other inventors can improve upon your invention before you think of those same improvements. But I feel that's fair, and I see no problem with them doing that if I've voluntarily publicly disclosed my base invention already.// |
|
| |
Exactly. Anyone can improve upon an original concept but the original inventor gets credit for anything with no prior art. |
|
| |
//Come to think of that: Miniautilus could be really good for exploring subsurface oceans like on Europa and Enceladus (and apparently Pluto and several other moons too?). No external moving parts means nothing to get clogged by mud (or biofouling, if there's life).// |
|
| |
I think so, and if the outer surface were heated it would be able to thread it's way down through ice sheets to reach the liquid beneath. |
|
| |
// If that's true, it's another reason to end FTI, because it encourages another variety of patent trolling. Just come up with an idea and, instead of testing it, get it notarized for a small fee and wait. Five years later, someone else gets a patent granted on the same thing, because your invention hasn't entered the public domain. So, you just have to wait until they have a thriving company and then hold them to ransom.// |
|
| |
No. If the original invention isn't able to be found during a "second-inventors" due diligence then it has not been disclosed properly.
Publicly notarizing my dragonfly made it findable by anyone in North America. Only by going through China was credit for it able to be taken by another person. |
|
| |
Probably, given time, the flag sand will eventually be level across the whole surface. Although, it will be after the transition to the global standard dollar. |
|
| |
// Publicly notarizing my dragonfly made it findable by
anyone in North America. // |
|
| |
That's not necessarily how notarization works, though. |
|
| |
Turns out a lot of things aren't the way I thought they worked [notexactly].
A Notary Public perusal and postage for Registered mail you never opened was all that was legally required in order to register and get credit for an original invention with no prior art for a very long time, like since we wrote our Constitutions.
<shrugs>
Things change. It's nice to know that my disclosure doesn't invalidate a patent because of a fluke of timing... but I really don't see how that keeps the next intuitive inventor who isn't in on the con from having rights to their own IP used in an extortion racket. |
|
| |
I can't say it enough.
Your own original thoughts are not to be sold back to you. |
|
| |
The inventor is the inventor, second inventor is an oxymoron. |
|
| |
What do you think of the case of Swann and Edison? IIRC,
Swann did it first, but Edison did it (the lightbulb) better. And
what do you think about the general case of two independent
inventors having similar ideas, unaware of each other? Are they
not both inventors? |
|
| |
Didn't Tesla beat them both? |
|
| |
Yes things can be independently invented but to deny patent rights 'because' a person can prove themselves the only inventor is criminal no matter how much red-tape gets wrapped. |
|
| |
Most of us want and aim for what is moral and true but end up mired with life's challenging and invigorating technicalities. A small group just steal. |
|
| |