h a l f b a k e r yBunned. James Bunned.
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The surface of this pool table is a very taut stretched rubber membrane allowing the individual balls to create their own miniature gravity wells. This would let players use the slingshot effect to curve the cue ball or target balls around other balls on the table without touching them adding a new
dimension to the game. Clumps of balls would exert more stretch and so more force would be required to break them free.
Masse billiard shots, and jump-shots would take on whole a new physics angle as well.
Time Magazine Best Inventions 2007
http://content.time...757,1677329,00.html
[2fries]'s invention is in here. [MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 05 2016]
https://en.wikipedi...i/FlyTech_Dragonfly
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Sep 05 2016]
[link]
|
| |
Prior art: from [DesertFox]'s Orbital Pool posting. |
|
| |
//I'd switch from magnets to gravity, otherwise your objects won't interact correctly. Use a taut sheet of rubber, and have correctly scaled weights for each object. For stars and black holes you might as well just tack the rubber down to a lower level. |
|
| |
— Worldgineer, May 27 2004 // |
|
| |
What ever happened to [DesertFox] anyway? |
|
| |
Wouldn't you just end up with all the balls in a big
clump in the middle? |
|
| |
It's called the Democratic party. |
|
| |
//What ever happened to [DesertFox] anyway?// |
|
| |
He was forced to commit suicide by Hitler in 1944. |
|
| |
//He was forced to commit suicide by Hitler in 1944.// |
|
| |
//Wouldn't you just end up with all the balls in a big clump in the middle?// |
|
| |
I'm not sure. In my head, how taut the fabric is stretched determines how much the balls can collect in any given area due to resistance. |
|
| |
This may be incorrect. It's just the way I see the physics playing out in my head. |
|
| |
I think it would be fun playing the curves... anyone can play the straights. |
|
| |
If there were thousands of adjustable pins that could exert push or pull on the sheet, a computer could control any desired algorithm. |
|
| |
Gravity waves could also be grenerated for a game where all the balls are slowly moving. The cue ball of course stays put ready for play. |
|
| |
//In my head, how taut the fabric is stretched
determines how much the balls can collect in any
given area due to resistance. // |
|
| |
I think you'll end up with one pile in the middle.
Imagine two balls in the centre; they will cause a
depression running from all the edges to the
middle. Now add a third ball, mid-way between
the middle and the edge. It will cause a local
depression of its own, but that depression is
mobile (ie, the ball can move, carrying its own
depression with it); it will therefore tend to move
towards the middle too. There's no potential
barrier between the third ball's current position
and its lower position as part of a clump in the
middle. |
|
| |
Typo or hip new physics speak? Well, I'm interested. |
|
| |
Sounds suspiciously like 'grenaded,' which is always fun to
do. |
|
| |
Whether or not you'll have a pile in the middle simply
depends on how incredibly taut you can get the sheet. If
you think about it, nothing of the physics here is any
different than the solid pool surface other than in degree. |
|
| |
You can get a degree in pool now ? Who knew, eh ? At last, a ray of hope for thousands of indolent students ... |
|
| |
//depends on how incredibly taut you can get the
sheet.// |
|
| |
True, but in the case of a regular table (or one
with an "incredibly taut" sheet), the depression
caused by one ball is incredibly small - not enough
to deflect a moving ball, or to overcome friction
and draw a stationary ball in. |
|
| |
As soon as you have enough slack (and hence sag)
to create an effect, the same sag will cause all the
balls to collect together. |
|
| |
Either way, 'grenerated' should be a word. |
|
| |
One of your annos gave me an idea the other day Max. It should be possible to use Vive tech to create a three dimensional pool table which would allow a user to only interact with the tip of the cue so that flipping the angle of the table has no effect on the user interface. |
|
| |
First person to program 3d pool is going to make more bucks than they can spend... unless they can not afford to pay someone without the knowledge for the right to possess and share their own knowledge that is. |
|
| |
There's always that now isn't there? Kinda stifles innovation when creative folks are forced to hitch their carts to uncreative folks or be forced to keep their innovations to themselves... |
|
| |
I am sure I put generated. Maybe -t moved something. |
|
| |
//...but I digress.// Indeed you do. However,
patent protection is not inordinately expensive - at
least not in the early stages; once it gets to the more
expensive stages, it's generally clear whether it's
worth the expense. |
|
| |
(Point in case - a colleague has recently filed a
patent, and the total cost to date has been £500 or
thereabouts.) |
|
| |
//However, patent protection is not inordinately expensive - at least not in the early stages; once it gets to the more expensive stages, it's generally clear whether it's worth the expense.// |
|
| |
Just hypothetically speaking... say you've got an idea or three which are industrial game-changers and require several patents a piece?
You want to do it right of course so a decent patent attorney is a must.
For easy figures let's say that just one of these inventions contain five different patents.
In Canada alone the cost is roughly ten to fifteen grand per concept, but you need to button up at least North America or you'll be squashed faster than a cockroach if you haven't protected your ass in the States. |
|
| |
So there's a hundred grand gone before you even begin the manufacture or distribution of your widget, which is no longer "your" widget unless you can cough up the funds to buy the rights to your own original thoughts. |
|
| |
We wrote our North American constitutions around invention to prevent exactly this scenario from becoming a reality the way it had become in the countries our ancestors got the hell out of. |
|
| |
What a con.
To me it's like this; |
|
| |
"pssst... hey buddy... wanna buy some of your own original thoughts? They aren't inordinately expensive at all... practically free."
"Excuse me? I already own those thoughts, they are my own."
"Oh no sir, not until you pay us for them."
"So... let me get this straight, you already know this original thought of mine and I have to buy it back from you?"
"No sir, you are the only person to have thought such things."
"Well why the hell do I have to pay you when you don't possess the thing I'm buying?"
"Because it says so right here in the fine-print sir... see?, right there. We've gone to considerable expense to fabricate this fine-print and must of course pass on the expense to those whose thoughts we are regulating. You understand."
"No I don't understand! That's madness. Fuck You!"
"Oh sir the rights to [Fuck you] were purchased from us sometime back in 1823 as were [Fuck Off], [Fuck This] and [Fuck All
Y'all] along with any and all variations of those phrases."
"Well... then... I'll just keep my ideas, and not pay anybody anything and you can piss up a roap!"
...
"You're in luck sir! [Piss Up A Roap] is an un-purchased phrase! ... Would you like to pay with cash, debit, or credit?" |
|
| |
Y'know, there really should be con-man detection and avoidance courses given as a mandatory part of the normal educational curriculum.
Hey, I could teach that shit!
I wonder how well our current party-systems would fare under the directed influence of an entire greneration able to see through their bullshit. |
|
| |
As for this idea, I've thought about it and I'm right about tautness determining deformation of the membrane.
It would be fun. |
|
| |
Well, whatever. For the record, you've
misunderstood the patent filing process and the
cost schedule, and the way that foreign patents
can claim priority from single-country filings. But
that's just a few zeroes. |
|
| |
You've also misunderstood the point of a patent
(again - we did all this a while back, remember?).
If you don't file a patent, but you do publicly
disclose your idea, nobody else can patent it or
prevent you from using it. |
|
| |
Please try to understand the content of the
foregoing paragraph. |
|
| |
I like arguing with you, [2fries], but we keep
wasting a lot of time because you don't understand
the basics, and therefore get easily upset by things
that aren't real. There are enough real things to
get upset about, without adding imaginary ones. |
|
| |
Yeah I know... I understand the basics but... I contest their sanity. Things that shouldn't be reality don't change by us conforming to them...
...ever. |
|
| |
//There are enough real things to get upset about, without adding imaginary ones.// |
|
| |
That's the thing. It's not imaginary. It's very recent illegal governmental fuckery of the constitution removing both First-to-invent, and by extension, Freedom of expression without penalty since I can no longer voice my thoughts without forfeiting them to the state. |
|
| |
It was only two years ago that congress in the States stole the first to invent right from the constitution without so much as a by-your-leave, and they've been warned in a letter signed by ninety law professors that the ruling will be overturned by the Supreme Court upon the first case presented with actual rather than potential damages...
...and then that same shit-storm will hit Canada and it'll have to revert retroactively with a whole bunch more crap for us taxpayers to fund. |
|
| |
Uh, [2fries], the USA switched to a "first INVENTOR
to file" system. |
|
| |
Do you actually ever have any idea what you're
talking about? |
|
| |
If you _don't_ want to patent your idea, and you
_don't_ want anyone else to patent it, and you
_do_ want to be able to use your idea, all at _zero
cost_, just post it on any public forum, like here
for instance. That's all you have to do, for the
tenth time, for crying out loud. |
|
| |
None of those things are what I want.
It's not first INVENTOR to file, it's first ANYONE who can afford to file. ...and only Canada has the year grace period... allowing anyone else on the planet to patent during that period. |
|
| |
Why you always gotta be like; //Do you actually ever have any idea what you're talking about?// |
|
| |
My point, [2fries], was that NOBODY can patent your
idea if you disclose it publicly. (In fact you yourself
can still patent it, but only within a short grace
period). |
|
| |
//Why you always gotta be like; //Do you actually
ever have any idea what you're talking about?//
Well, chiefly because in our other discussions, you've
frequently had no idea what you're talking about. |
|
| |
Even if you disclose your idea publicly, someone else can
still patent it successfully (and then you have to challenge it
in court, which is much harder to win) if the patent office
doesn't notice your disclosure during their review of prior
art, and of course they're not perfect. That's why
patents.stackexchange exists. (Though the USPTO, at least,
seems to know about this site, so that's good.) |
|
| |
Yes, any legal process can fail. However, unless
your disclosure is _very_ obscure, it is likely that it
will be found in the initial search. Almost anything
online is likely to be found. Stuff here on the HB
has been cited as prior art plenty of times, for
instance, as you mention. |
|
| |
(In case people think I am talking out of my ass
here, I should mention that probably 30-50% of all
the patents I have tried to file [through my
employer, usually] have been scuppered at stage0
by prior art - generally stuff that I wasn't aware of
myself. Those are examples of the patent system
doing what it's supposed to do. |
|
| |
I should also mention that I am currently
consulting on a patent challenge for a Washington
law firm. In fact if anyone is in Washington over
the next 4 days... ). |
|
| |
The point is this: without any patent law,
everybody is free to rip off anyone else's ideas -
there is no protection (other than, say, secrecy).
With the patent system, you can (in effect) ask for
a special law to be drafted defining you as the
inventor, and giving you the opportunity to stop
people copying your idea. |
|
| |
The initial stages of filing a patent are (contrary to
[2fries]' musunderstanding) not especially
expensive. You only need to go through the first
stages (which are cheap) in one country; if the
invention looks like it will be worth protecting, you
have plenty of time to beef up your initial filing
and to file in other countries, taking advantage of
the initial filing date as your "line in the sand". |
|
| |
[2fries], have you ever actually filed (or
considered filing) a
patent? |
|
| |
// [2fries], have you ever actually filed (or considered filing) a patent? // |
|
| |
Yes. As you said, we've talked about all of this stuff before.
Because congress stole first-to-invent from the very specific wording of the constitution, and because I can prove that all prior art on the planet for my invention is my own... I have violated my "rights" to my own creation and it is, as you say, no longer patentable by anyone in North America. |
|
| |
Years of my life thrown into this thing, gone.
Any chance whatsoever of approaching industry for funding, gone.
Future career change and a foot firmly wedged in the door of being able to have University access and a team of students building this thing, gone. |
|
| |
All of it deemed "potential" damages because I can no longer claim to be "the inventor" of my own invention. |
|
| |
Well, that does somewhat suck. Has anyone else
started making your invention? If not, that may be
an indication that it wasn't going to make your
fortune and you may have had a lucky escape. |
|
| |
No. The concept stands to change the way we design water craft, transport goods between continents, and map the ocean depths. It's next level Tesla-like stuff.
Nobody else can build my idea unless they can figure out the four or five... (or eight, I'm not sure how many of the ideas are novel yet), secondary patentable concepts which have to act in concert to make any of it work at all. It's not easy, projecting one's mind decades into the future following the ever-changing gossamer threads of the echoes of things which don't yet exist. |
|
| |
You're going to find out one of these days that I know far more than you give me credit for Paul.
I am uneducated, not stupid, and everything I've ever told you is true. |
|
| |
<draws large refreshing lungful of air and sighs dramatically> |
|
| |
... it's another fine day to be the easter-bunny. |
|
| |
You forgot to add "mwuhahaha". |
|
| |
Maybe you should patent the //secondary patentable concepts//. After all,
if this world-changing concept depends on // four or five... (or eight, I'm
not sure how many of the ideas are novel yet)// other things, then all you
have to do is patent at least one of them and you have sole rights to the
enabling technology. So, in fact, you have no problem at all. |
|
| |
Unless you're going to tell me you've already divulged all // four or five...
(or eight, I'm not sure how many of the ideas are novel yet)// of these
concepts publicly? |
|
| |
If you've filed a patent and had it rejected due to prior disclosure, and if
this is a year ago or more (which it is, if I recall our earlier discussion), then
it will have been published. Can I have the number of the provisional
(rejected) application, please? |
|
| |
oh god so fucking help me... I am So done with jumping through your hoops. |
|
| |
This was my last correspondence with the patent attorney the professor referred me to; |
|
| |
"As discussed, you appear to have published documents on the internet, depicting and describing your invention, as early as August 14, 2013. As such, even if you file a US provisional patent application today for an invention that is disclosed in the documents or descriptions you have previously published on the internet more than one year ago, any patent that might eventually issue from that application in the US would be invalid. However, it is possible you may be able to obtain patent protection in the US (or Canada) for any innovations that you have not disclosed within the one year prior to filing your patent application. " |
|
| |
So, yes, every secondary patent in conjunction with the original concept can still be patented. They are useless if anyone can build the originalconcept and tweak the incidentals.
The early disclosure referred to was my Floatercycle posting here in which a bicycle is held suspended above a Styrofoam screw with a counter balance. |
|
| |
I've told you all of this before at the time it was going down. |
|
| |
Were you drunk or something?
I've enough injury without your insult. |
|
| |
//Were you drunk or something?// That's highly
likely, statistically speaking. What worries me is
the thought that you might be sober. |
|
| |
If the technology relating to //a bicycle is held
suspended above a Styrofoam screw with a counter
balance// can be turned into //next level Tesla-
like stuff// easily, then I will be both impressed
and full of partially-digested hat. |
|
| |
If, however, the steps to go from ///a bicycle is
held suspended above a Styrofoam screw with a
counter balance// to //next level Tesla-
like stuff// are _not_ easy, then you really
ought to file something. |
|
| |
After all, it seems to be >3 years since you posted
the idea, and nobody else seems to have figured
out how to implement it. |
|
| |
It's also perhaps worth mentioning that Airbus
doesn't hold a patent on the aeroplane, and Jaguar
doesn't hold a patent on the car. |
|
| |
// What worries me is the thought that you might be sober.// |
|
| |
//If the technology relating to //a bicycle is held suspended above a Styrofoam screw with a counter balance// can be turned into //next level Tesla- like stuff// easily, then I will be both impressed and full of partially-digested hat.// |
|
| |
Yeah, some seeds grow like that. It's really hard to tell what it's going to be when it's just a kernel.
Some are flowers, some are sequoias.
You should see what some of the other little sproutlings have grown into. This one just happened to be something actually within my reach if I just stretched myself far enough... and I did, I built it... and then I got poleaxed by the very people we pay to protect our rights. |
|
| |
//If, however, the steps to go from ///a bicycle is held suspended above a Styrofoam screw with a counter balance// to //next level Tesla- like stuff// are _not_ easy, then you really ought to file something./// |
|
| |
Shall I supply and apply the lube as well? |
|
| |
//You should see what some of the other little
sproutlings have grown into.// |
|
| |
I keep telling you. I see physics in my head. If you can lucidly dream while awake, and get stuck in your own head for long enough like I was without losing your sanity, you don't need the lab and computers to run the simulations and they happen at the speed of thought.
When I get stuck on something I shelve it. Years later I take it down, brush the dust off of it, and see if any of the things I've learned in the interim have clicked to whatever it was that made me shelve it in the first place. |
|
| |
Sometimes I have to put it back on the shelf.
Sometimes things have clicked and I get to see where the next stucky is. |
|
| |
That's it.
That's me in my little nutshell.
That's all there is and there ain't no more.
I play in my head... on a professional level... but without corporate sponsorship. |
|
| |
Go find somebody else to pick on. |
|
| |
Yes yes, I don't doubt that for an instant. |
|
| |
But you said that I //should see what some of the
other little sproutlings have grown into// - just a
couple of examples would impress me. |
|
| |
Because I love being amazed. Seriously, you've told
us that you're on a par with Tesla, and that you have
other things that have succeeded. Is it so odd for me
to ask for a couple of examples? |
|
| |
Objection! The court requires a new kangaroo... this one seems to have expired. |
|
| |
Ah well. Just thought I'd ask. |
|
| |
As for gravity wells on a stretched taut pool table... I think it would be fun to see how the gravity wells effect the layer of fog from the sublimating CO2... |
|
| |
I'm not sure I understand the question. Dry-ice fog is
denser than air, and will therefore tend to pool in
depressions. Is that what you meant? |
|
| |
Yeah something like that. |
|
| |
The law sadly goes on what is legal not what is fair, just and righteous. The law is a system after all and all systems have their strengths and weaknesses. |
|
| |
Two people can have the same idea concurrently but independently. So it comes down to if someone doesn't want to take the moral ground. |
|
| |
I wonder if there has been some famous patent prison matyrs with right on their side? and If so was redress made? |
|
| |
The law needs to learn its place then... as do those who write them... in servitude to the people they supposedly represent, not the ever fluctuating current government body. |
|
| |
Congress can just get off of their fat asses, admit their fuck up, and give back what those assholes illegally stole from their constituents in the first place... (now or later it 'will' happen) and then negotiations can begin on how to redress their blatant misuse of public trust so we don't have to line them all up and only piss on them if they're lucky. |
|
| |
It would be much simpler that way.
I'd get the rights to my widget back.
The peoples' constitutions would be restored.
Everything would fix itself, and things would be grand... |
|
| |
If that attorneys' statement is true, noone else can patent it either. The idea is firmly yours from the prior art 14, 2013. No money necessary. |
|
| |
//The idea is firmly yours from the prior art 14,
2013. No money necessary.// Yes. But I think [2f]
was bemoaning the fact that without a patent,
others can copy; and therefore investment may be
problematic. |
|
| |
However, just about every significant invention
runs into problems in patenting - there is almost
always prior art, whether your own or someone
else's. Invariably, people find a way to file IP -
whether on specific embodiments, methods and
practices, variants, enabling technologies... this is
all normal stuff. |
|
| |
As to the US switching to a first-inventor-to-file:
there are merits to both FTF and FTI systems, and
each has its drawbacks. [2f] seems to have been
caught out by the change, or perhaps by not
considering IP before disclosing. The general
advice even _before_ the change to FTF was that
you should not disclose sensitive information until
you have filed something. I think that point has
been made even here. |
|
| |
Most other countries have always (or long) had FTF.
It does make life simpler for patentees. Under
FTI, any number of people can pop out of the
woodwork after you've filed, producing real (or
non-real) evidence that they had invented it
previously. With FTF, most of the prior art will
surface before you've got too far down the road.
In that sense, FTI can be very unfair - suppose [2f]
filed a patent on his suspended-bicycle-styrofoam-
screw thing; he gets through the first stages, gets
investment, builds a factory. Then some guy from
Pohole, Dakota pops up with some prior art and
the party is over. |
|
| |
But, in any case, the point is that serious
innovators always have to deal with IP problems,
and there is usually a way through. If not patents
on processes or enabling technologies, then
registered designs, proprietary know-how or other
options. There is no need to throw in the towel
and spend a lifetime being angry about it. |
|
| |
Title and first sentence sound good. |
|
| |
It's too hot here to actually read the full idea and the
annotations. |
|
| |
//There is no need to throw in the towel and spend a lifetime being angry about it.// |
|
| |
It's not the invention which got stolen. It was my right to claim the IP as my own.
There was a $25.000 grant for an innovative enough project that the professor was applying for.
That grant was contingent on the propriety of the invention.
When congress stole first-to-invent and my claim to patent was lost, so was the grant, along with access to the Universities Mech Ed department and a team of student electrical and mechanical engineers to build this thing. |
|
| |
...and the company who asked me to build the prototype suddenly backed out since any other company can build the same thing now. |
|
| |
Do you have any idea just how fast I would learn by osmosis in a hands-on environment surrounded by budding engineers working on one of my inventions??? |
|
| |
The fuckers stole a lot more than just my claim.
The sooner they get on making it right, the better it will be. |
|
| |
Congress does not have the power to issue patent to anyone who is not "The Inventor".
Well, I am the inventor of my little widget, and I want my fucking IP back! |
|
| |
Don't disclose it next time. I believe there's
something like that in the help file even. |
|
| |
Congressional proceedings and changes are
publicly available knowledge for these kinds of law
proposals. Its not like they met in the dead of night
while you were sleeping wearing white hoods to
pass the law and chant bizarre ritual phrases.
Although that would be a great improvement over
the current crop... |
|
| |
//Its not like they met in the dead of night while
you were sleeping wearing white hoods to pass the
law and chant bizarre ritual phrases.// |
|
| |
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the
cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in
the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a
disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying
‘Beware of the Leopard’.” |
|
| |
But seriously. Most people who invent have lost IP
one way or another. The trick is to stop mourning
and ranting, and go invent something else. With
your //abilities// I'm sure you'll manage. Anyone
who's got one genuinely worthwhile invention in
them has more than one. |
|
| |
Or use the revenue from some of your //other
little sproutlings // to fund development of your
floating bicycle. |
|
| |
// Do you have any idea just how fast I would learn by
osmosis in a hands-on environment surrounded by budding
engineers [and] working on one of my inventions??? // |
|
| |
Do you wear a bathrobe as everyday clothing, and a thicker
bathrobe as a coat? |
|
| |
If not, have you looked for a hackerspace/makerspace in
your area? (Start with the list at hackerspaces.org, or do a
Google search.) |
|
| |
If yes, pretty much everyone at the one in which I'm now
sitting and typing thinks you're extremely weird (and that's
saying something). |
|
| |
//Don't disclose it next time.// |
|
| |
next time?... no
This time. |
|
| |
// Or use the revenue from some of your //other little sproutlings // to fund development of your floating bicycle. // |
|
| |
Condescend much? Ten grand per brain fart per country. I can't afford my own IP. It's been seen to. |
|
| |
//pretty much everyone at the one in which I'm now sitting and typing thinks you're extremely weird (and that's saying something).// |
|
| |
Well what the fuck else is new?
Welcome to my life! The shit that "you" can't do determines what I'm allowed to do. |
|
| |
So... them space billiards... ain't they a thing? All stretched taut fabric and such. |
|
| |
//Ten grand per brain fart per country.// As
mentioned, that is simply not the case. The initial
stages of filing are very cheap. By the time it gets
expensive, you know if it's worth pursuing. |
|
| |
Yep, our stolen rights just get cheaper every day don't they? |
|
| |
I don't get this "stolen rights" business. For free,
you have the right to exploit any invention of
yours, and nobody else can stop you as long as
you've declared it publicly. |
|
| |
If you want legal protection to prevent others
copying your invention then yes, that costs some
money. As mentioned, the initial stages of getting
that application are very cheap if you put in the
effort yourself. At later stages it becomes
expensive, but then why should the world in
general pay to help you to make money? |
|
| |
// I don't get this "stolen rights" business. // |
|
| |
It's like this. One day in Canada inventors had the right to lay claim to their original inventions without paying anything more than a notary public official to inspect their IP, copy it, and mail it back to them registered mail.
Then the very next day, the rat bastards in government illegally took this protected right out of the constitution, which they were supposed to be protecting, and, under pressure from big business, gave the right to whomsoever can afford it, giving in its place "the inventor" one years' grace period in which to get fleeced by anyone who feels like patenting it outside of Canada. |
|
| |
Now, the rat bastards in the States have "stolen" this right of inventors to lay claim to their own thoughts there too. |
|
| |
Since both of these thefts of rights were illegal changes to the constitutions, and since the year grace period farce which violated my right to claim this invention as my own stems directly from these unconstitutional law changes, I expect to get my right to file for patent back when the Supreme Court finally gets a case with actual rather than potential damages and forces the rat bastards to give back the rights they stole from us independent inventors. |
|
| |
Canada changed from FTI to FTF in 1989. One study by researchers at McGill University found that contrary to expectations "the switch failed to stimulate Canadian R&D efforts. Nor did it have any effects on overall patenting. However, the reforms had a small adverse effect on domestic-oriented industries and skewed the ownership structure of patented inventions towards large corporations, away from independent inventors and small businesses." |
|
| |
When "the inventor" of a completely original invention, without any prior art on the planet existing but their own, is denied the "right" by the system to claim the novel concept as their own because they can show that all prior art on the planet is theirs... |
|
| |
...then that system is seriously fucked up. |
|
| |
[2f], I think you've misunderhended the situation,
both before and after the FTF system. Even
twenty years ago, you wouldn't get the protection
afforded by a patent unless you actually applied
for (and eventually got) a patent. That's why
patents existed, under the old FTI system, and I
don't believe that they were immensely cheaper
back then. |
|
| |
One thing that makes the FTF system fairer is this.
Suppose you invent your floating bicycle, but don't
disclose it publicly. A year later, some other guy
independently invents the same thing. He sets up
a business, employs 30 people, and becomes the
Floating Bicycle King. Five years later (under the
old FTI system), you can say "Hey! I invented that
a year earlier than you - shut down your business
and compensate me!" Which wouldn't be all that
fair. |
|
| |
Equally, suppose you yourself had filed under the
FTI system. You get your grant, a company pays
you to make prototypes, you start a company, you
put in months and years of effort. THEN this guy
from Podunque Louisiana turns up with proof that
he secretly invented the floating bicycle a year
before you did. You're now in deep, deep shit - far
deeper than the depth of shit you think you're in
now. |
|
| |
The FTI and FTF systems each cut both ways. |
|
| |
But, as I've said before, as long as you expend your
energies on being incensed by this injustice, you're
not going to accomplish anything useful. Go ahead
- invent something else! |
|
| |
I've invented many other things since this crap went down.
The more I learn, the more I invent... Some of the inventions make me wonder just how far behind what is currently known that the public knows of.
I currently own them all without having spent a dime yet.
I don't waste my energy being incensed, I patiently wait for my fellow humans to slough off their insanity while being forced to defend my own sanity against people who can't understand... and continue to invent in my head. Besides family and work, that's all I do. |
|
| |
There is no "protection" to this racket.
It's a con.
So saying to me, "Why should you not have to pay for your rights just like we all had to?", translates in my head to; "We all got conned, what makes you think you're too good to get conned with the rest of us just because you were raised by a con man and can tell when you're being conned? Do you want to make us All look stupid or something? Get with the program." |
|
| |
Congratulations, you've all been conned into allowing sociopathic assholes to sell you back your own thoughts.
Well... I've conducted a lifelong study of sociopaths, con-men, and mental illness (not by choice)... and I ain't falling for it.
Fuck the program. |
|
| |
// One thing that makes the FTF system fairer is this. Suppose you invent your floating bicycle, but don't disclose it publicly. A year later, some other guy independently invents the same thing. He sets up a business, employs 30 people, and becomes the Floating Bicycle King. Five years later (under the old FTI system), you can say "Hey! I invented that a year earlier than you - shut down your business and compensate me!" Which wouldn't be all that fair. |
|
| |
Equally, suppose you yourself had filed under the FTI system. You get your grant, a company pays you to make prototypes, you start a company, you put in months and years of effort. THEN this guy from Podunque Louisiana turns up with proof that he secretly invented the floating bicycle a year before you did. You're now in deep, deep shit - far deeper than the depth of shit you think you're in now. |
|
| |
The FTI and FTF systems each cut both ways.// |
|
| |
Yep. That's the con right there.
All of that stuff goes away if all independent discoveries are time stamped and publically searchable. |
|
| |
Data storage is cheap.
Search engines are cheap.
Fuck big business. It's time to head back to cottage industry and cut out the greedy back-stabbing middle-men. |
|
| |
Transparency people, at all levels.
Value for value. |
|
| |
I'm not getting any value at all from a system which steals my thoughts if I don't pay them their extortion money, and allows foreign countries to patent my IP while I find investors. |
|
| |
... for you all to regain your sanity. |
|
| |
Inventing in the head is all well and good but at sometime the idea has to be made physical out in the real world.This can be done cheaply with second hand store parts pieced together at home. If you are getting a bit cutting edge, there are maker groups that have some of that heavier tools. 3D printers, automated cutting tools and the like. |
|
| |
Getting an idea out means others can check it with and against their inner ideas. |
|
| |
//allows foreign countries to patent my IP// |
|
| |
You say that everything you tell me is true, but here is a point where
that is not the case. |
|
| |
I am in a foreign country. I cannot patent your floating bicycle idea.
The reason I cannot patent it is that there is prior art (yours)
describing essential features of the invention. |
|
| |
I have a friend in Malaysia. He cannot patent your floating bicycle
idea. The reason he cannot patent it is that there is prior art (yours)
describing essential features of the invention. |
|
| |
For that reason, your statement (as quoted above) is untrue. |
|
| |
During that year long Canadian "grace" period you and your Malaysian buddy could have patented floatercycle.
Floater cycle was just the seed of what the idea eventually became, and disclosure of that seed here violates the right to the tree I grew from it.
So no, my words are not untrue... you just like to twist them to sound that way.
You should work on that. |
|
| |
//Inventing in the head is all well and good but at sometime the idea has to be made physical out in the real world.// |
|
| |
Did that. The University 3d printed the hull for my invention and so far I've designed and constructed four different motor and steering mechanisms which fit the size constraint to be able to get proofs of concept on film in order to demonstrate the gadget to the company which asked me to build the thing. |
|
| |
...and now it belongs to the con men. |
|
| |
//This can be done cheaply with second hand store parts pieced together at home. If you are getting a bit cutting edge, there are maker groups that have some of that heavier tools. 3D printers, automated cutting tools and the like.// |
|
| |
I haven't had any luck joining a maker-space in Kelowna but I would love to. My application to join K-hub has been "pending" for several months now. I've emailed the group leader many times so far, but nothing yet. I plan to invade one of their meet-ups if I can align my time and theirs. |
|
| |
Ah, so you are likely not the same person. (I'm at Protospace
in Calgary.) Also, I didn't mean any offense by "weird".
Everyone here (both heres) is, to varying degrees, and that's
something I enjoy. |
|
| |
//During that year long Canadian "grace" period
you and your Malaysian buddy could have patented
floatercycle.// |
|
| |
I think you will find that that is not the case. The
grace period is for the benefit of the inventor. (A quick google reveals: "As
under the old law, a disclosure made by an inventor less than one year before
filing a patent application is not prior art.") |
|
| |
//...and now it belongs to the con men. //
**sigh** It "belongs" to everyone (including you),
because you disclosed it publicly and, even given a
one year grace period, failed to file a patent. |
|
| |
Yeah, but that "grace period" offered by the rat-bastards in place of the First-To-Invent "right" I was born with can kiss my ass. |
|
| |
Funny, when they stole first-to-invent from the Canadian constitution, the "right" to our own thoughts went bye-bye without so much as a whisper to the inventors it affected.
"I" certainly didn't know about it or was ever made aware by the one's committing the theft.
Big business on the other hand seemed to know all about it though, and having Canadian IP patented in foreign countries while us independently inventive Canucks approached these industries with our inventions is exactly what happened.
There is absolutely nothing in place to keep a publically disclosed Canadian invention from being patented in another country during our little "grace period". The other tactic used by business is to simply string the inventor along with promises until that grace period expires.
I learned this the hard way the very same year the rat-bastards stole our rights here. |
|
| |
It's a joke. You are a mark for the con.
There is no protection for "the inventor" in this racket.
There's just the racket. |
|
| |
Well, as I mentioned before, you can either spend a lifetime
being bitter and twisted, or learn and move on. |
|
| |
Many inventors have made the same mistake. Of the patents
I have pursued (or which my employer has pursued),
probably 30% have been either scuttled or weakened because
I disclosed early, sometimes before I appreciated the
possible value of the patent. I sigh, kick myself gently, and
move on. |
|
| |
//Many inventors have made the same mistake.// |
|
| |
I'm not the one who made the mistake. We will have our first-to-invent right back.
I am far from bitter and twisted. You have just projected these emotional states on my words as you have read them and then assume I fit the bill. |
|
| |
The government officials and their pocket-liners should have considered the consequences of their actions before they stole first-to-invent and freedom-of-expression without-penalty from North Americans... that's what we pay them for. |
|
| |
Some of them will become bitter and twisted, or learn and move on. |
|
| |
//I am far from bitter and twisted.// Well, I am very
pleased to hear that. |
|
| |
Excellent, because I'd hoped to visit your neck of the woods someday and had hoped to meet you.
I kinda wish we had met earlier so that you could read my words in my voice and hear the humor in them. |
|
| |
I'm even happy when I'm drunk believe it or not. |
|
| |
I have however been studying society from the perspective an outsider for as long as I can remember and am pretty sure that you all have succumbed to Stockholm syndrome and can't even see the bars of our cage... and I'd rather have been born about a century from now when all of the shit I see coming is over with and folks are sane. |
|
| |
Y'all as a whole are completely bat-shit crazy and completely susceptible to your own conditioning.
You do know that right? |
|
| |
Ok, so maybe I'll admit to a little twisted... but not bitter.
Never bitter. |
|
| |
It does absolutely no good whatsoever to become bitter towards the mentally ill. |
|
| |
//Y'all as a whole are completely bat-shit crazy and
completely susceptible to your own conditioning.//
You took the words right out of my mouth. |
|
| |
Were they bitter twisted words? |
|
| |
You do a great impression of a bitter man for someone who
is not. |
|
| |
Not bitter.
I am righteous, exceptional, honest, angry, frustrated, and feeling harassed and backed into a corner by people who should know better. |
|
| |
...but I meant what I said about bitter doing absolutely no good whatsoever. |
|
| |
ie. containing cocoa powder, sweeteners, cocoa liquor,
vanilla, cocoa butter, but definitely not chocolate. |
|
| |
Mirriam-Webster: bit·ter /bidər/angry, hurt, or resentful
because of one's bad experiences or a sense of unjust
treatment. |
|
| |
Ah, thought it just meant resentful. Yeah I'm angry for sure at the stupidity and complacency of those around me unable to see through the masks that the sociopaths in power wear.
You're all blind and trying to tell a seer that seers don't exist. |
|
| |
Either way, bitterly twisted or righteously pissed... we will have our children's and grandchildren's rights to their own original inventions back. My little widget may get lost in the fray but that is a small price to pay.
They only stole the toy.
My toy... but just a toy. |
|
| |
//we will have our children's and grandchildren's
rights to their own original inventions back// |
|
| |
Yep. My daughter will definitely file before
disclosing. |
|
| |
Yes her rights to her own original thoughts without purchasing them were lost a long time ago.
That's why our constitutions were written as they were. |
|
| |
//Yes her rights to her own original thoughts without
purchasing them were lost a long time ago.// |
|
| |
[2fries], for someone who claims to be on a par with
Tesla, you have a rare talent for acting like a twat.
I'm assuming it _is_ an act? |
|
| |
Get anyone grinding on their favorite axe and they can do
that. You included, Max. Climate change there much yet? |
|
| |
A great many great inventors were frankly not people
people. Einstein barely could comb his hair. Edison never
saw his wife much. And lets never forget Al Gore. Eh, on
second thought, lets forget Al Gore. Horrible programming. |
|
| |
I never claimed to be on par with Tesla.
That dude totally rocked, I just pluck at the strings in my moms basement and stare at the poster.
No, I claimed that the far end of the tree that grew from the seed that was Floatercycle was next level Tesla like stuff, because it is. I spent years envisioning its future while I built the prototype of what it will become. It is simple, elegant, obvious in retrospect, and will change a great many things if implemented. Don't forget that the Tesla valve is just a simple shape with no moving parts, yet his favorite invention.
Your idea of Tesla-like and my idea of Tesla-like may very well vary. |
|
| |
I'm honestly glad your daughter has someone knowledgeable to help her navigate societies con-man pitfalls if she decides to innovate. That would have been a nice thing to have.
How does wanting to undo the theft of my own daughters' rights make me a twat? |
|
| |
The wordings of the constitutions of North America were very carefully worded for good reason.
To guarantee unassailable rights which were deemed lacking in countries succeeded from. |
|
| |
I was born with these rights. These rights have been stolen by our government and no longer exist, (at least on paper... for now).
These rights were considered to be very self evident to those escaping societies which had governing bodies unwilling to concede that "the inventor" is entitled to the rights to his or her "invention" if all prior art is theirs. |
|
| |
Well... in the case of this particular widget, all prior art on the planet is my own.
I thought it up from scratch, I designed it, and I constructed the only one in existence.
I hold date of origination as can be proven by public disclosure. |
|
| |
Why the fuck should I have to pay so much as a single dime to prove that the intellectual property is mine? |
|
| |
Prove that another man has invented this thing before me and then I will be guilty of being not-the-first-to-invent. |
|
| |
Then I will lose my claim to my original thought.
Not before.
Not because any number of others tell me it is so. |
|
| |
// It is simple, elegant, obvious in retrospect// |
|
| |
Another tip, [2fries]. If you ever do file a patent
on
something, don't go around making public
statements
like it was "obvious in retrospect". |
|
| |
Under _either_ system (FTF or FTI), if something is
considered "obvious", it is by definition not
patentable; or your patent if granted would be
open
to challenge. The "in retrospect" may help a little,
but "obvious" is not a word you want in your
dictionary. |
|
| |
How does wanting to undo the theft of my own daughters' rights make me a twat? |
|
| |
I didn't think it was your daughter's rights you'd
"lost". |
|
| |
The "twat" bit is that you have, on multiple
occasions,
misunderstood the process and what it means.
Yes, you have lost
potential IP because (a) you disclosed publicly (b)
you then didn't
seek to file IP within a short timeframe of
disclosing and (c) the
patent framework changed meaning that this
disclosure prevented
you from seeking IP. |
|
| |
To run around screaming "theft!" or suggesting that
someone else
has stolen (or is about to steal) your idea is a little
twattish. Yes,
it's unfortunate, and it's a hard lesson to learn.
Many others have
learned the same way. |
|
| |
I have lost considerable chunks of potential IP,
precisely because I
disclosed. I have chalked that up to experience,
moved on, and
made other inventions with which I won't make the
same mistake. |
|
| |
To suggest that the former US system (one of the
few FTI systems in
the world) is the only fair and just system is to
assume that the US
was the only country to claim the moral high-
ground. Most other
countries have operated on FTF for a long time. It
doesn't really
matter which system you operate under, as long as
you understand
the basics and abide by the rules. |
|
| |
Incidentally, I believe (I am not certain of this),
that even if the US
had kept the old FTI system, you would still have
been denied
patents in those countries that use FTF. In that
case, your market
would have been limited to the domestic US
market, which is a
small percentage of the world market for floating
bicycles. I'm not sure how the law applies to
imports of goods covered by only domestic
patents, but you may have had a situation where
even your domestic market was flooded by Korean-
made floating bicycles, manufactured in Korea
beyond the reach of a domestic patent. |
|
| |
It's also worth mentioning, perhaps, that patents
cost about the same under FTI and FTF systems.
You keep saying that the government now wants to
make you pay for your patent; all governments do,
and patents under the old FTI system were just as
costly. |
|
| |
Theft of my rights 'is' theft of my daughters rights, (and if this inventing thing skips generations the way it seems to in my bloodline), my grandchildren's rights as well. The rights my grandfather fought for me to have. |
|
| |
The supreme court agrees and awaits a case which will let them force congress to overturn this illegal theft of their people.
Then the cases will come out of the woodwork here in Canada and eventually we will have first-to-invent reinstated. The one year grace period will be retracted and my public disclosure will stand as date of origination again allowing me to once again approach investors with something able to be patented only by myself... the inventor, as I am entitled to.
If all prior art on the planet is my own, then the concept is mine alone. |
|
| |
That's not being a twat, that's my right.
This is being a twat; |
|
| |
"Well would you look at all of these brightly painted eggs that just appeared right out of thin air!
However could they have all gotten here?
Ooh, there's the tone again, we'd all better stand up and then sit down..." |
|
| |
See? Total twat-itude.
...but not that first bit. That first bit is very serious.
We will have the rights to our original thoughts back without having to get into bed with the wealthy to afford them. |
|
| |
//without having to get into bed with the wealthy
to afford them.// |
|
| |
There ya go with the twattitude again. Patents
_were_ _not_ _free_ under the old FTI system.
Seriously, [2f], there wasn't some agency that
handed them out for free, there really wasn't. All
the patent attorneys that worked under the FTI
system, they used to get paid back then, pretty
much the same as they get paid now. |
|
| |
And, given that you didn't have a clue about FTI vs
FTF before they changed system, and you didn't
have a clue that they had changed the system even
a year later,
how exactly do you expect to know if they change
back to FTI? |
|
| |
Seriously, and sparring aside (for a moment only) -
we have all had brilliant ideas, blabbed about
them, and then later thought "damn." It happens,
it is part of the learning curve, so go back and
invent something else. If you only had one good
invention in you, it's quite likely that it was a
turkey - good inventors invent more than once. Go
to it! |
|
| |
// Patents _were_ _not_ _free_ under the old FTI system. Seriously, [2f], there wasn't some agency that handed them out for free, there really wasn't.// |
|
| |
It is not that patents have ever been free, it's that we used to be able to register our
inventions 'without' patents so that investors could be approached before starting the process at all.
They could not steal our inventions because we had date of origination sewed up and could take them to court on that basis alone. A simple non-disclosure agreement and you were good to go.
Public disclosure counted as date of origination as well. |
|
| |
Loss of first-to-invent has taken all IP from independent inventors and given it to the wealthy unless the inventors are independently wealthy themselves. |
|
| |
//And, given that you didn't have a clue about FTI vs FTF before they changed system, and you didn't have a clue that they had changed the system even a year later, how exactly do you expect to know if they change back to FTI?// |
|
| |
I was a little busy doing the inventing part both times without watchdogging our governments to make sure they weren't yanking the rug out from under our feet without telling us.
I would know if it changed back because I'm watching the bastards now. |
|
| |
//If you only had one good invention in you, it's quite likely that it was a turkey - good inventors invent more than once. Go to it!// |
|
| |
Not until our first-to-invent rights are returned. |
|
| |
I have been having my inventions stolen in new and creative ways by assholes since 1989 without disclosing them. Every single one of those inventions was a toy version of something with far reaching applications, (none of which have since been built by another inventor or the thieves), and each toy itself was only stepping stone to gain funding for the bigger invention.
Not one of these has been a turkey yet.
I'm swimming with sharks and there is no protection. |
|
| |
So I'm just going to keep my pretty little easter eggs here in candy-land with me and work on them for a while until humanity wakes up and I exist again. |
|
| |
When an inventor conceives of an invention and diligently reduces the invention to practice, the inventor's date of invention will be the date of conception.
Thus, provided an inventor is diligent in actually reducing an application to practice, he or she will be the first inventor and the inventor entitled to a patent, even if another files a patent application, constructively reducing the invention to practice, before the inventor. |
|
| |
I have conceived of a completely novel concept.
There is no prior art.
I have a working prototype.
I have sketched and documented every step of the process and continue to improve upon the design. |
|
| |
I am the first to invent and by the rights I was born with this Intellectual property is my own.
If the law says otherwise then the law has overstepped its bounds. |
|
| |
The problem I have with patents is the concept that you
control someone else's thoughts and actions. To have a pure
idea, you would have to born in a bubble no training, no
cultural inputs. Any ideas I have, are an agglomeration of
my life. I sort of, owe my society. And I wouldn't want to
hold back the children's children because I didn't want other
people to innovate. |
|
| |
Fair's fair though, if you do work (what ever type) there
should be some societal return. |
|
| |
All of patent law was written around first-to-invent including the UK with very specific wording as to just why that is.
A novel concept is not deemed an invention until it has been disclosed and disclosure can be made either publicly for free or by filing.
I haven't been able to find exactly how or when you all got conned out of this right overseas. As far as I can tell, you still have first-to-invent over there and nobody realizes it. |
|
| |
It's like the mother of all cons. The legal theft and extortion of an inventors rights to their own thoughts. |
|
| |
“Any Letters Patent ... to be made of the sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures ... to the true and first inventor ...”
This was the language used by the English parliament of 1623 to provide a basis for the grant of patents. It was therefore the UK equivalent of Art of the United States Constitution. |
|
| |
-Edmunds on Patents second edition 1897 page 264:
“The true and first inventor is not necessarily the first discoverer of the invention. If
it had been discovered by another, but the discovery had never been divulged, he who independently discovers the same thing, and is the first to disclose it or to apply for a patent, which is eventually granted, is the true and first inventor.” |
|
| |
-In FORSYTH V RIVIÈRE (I WPC 97)
“It was decided that if two or more discovered the same thing simultaneously” (this word must presumably be broadly interpreted) “he who first communicates it to the public is the true and first inventor”. |
|
| |
- A Treatise on the Law and Practice relating to Letters Patent for Inventions Second Edition London 1898.
“The person who himself actually makes an invention and is the first to disclose that invention will be the true and first inventor in the legal sense of the term and a valid patent may be granted to him notwithstanding the fact that it may possibly be shown that the invention had previously been made by another who did not disclose it.” |
|
| |
-CORNISH V KEENE (I WPC 501, 507):
“A man may make experiments in his own closet for the purpose of improving any art or manufacture in public use; if he makes these experiments and never communicates them to the world, and lays them by as forgotten things, another person who has made the same experiments, or has gone a little further, or is satisfied with the experiments, may take out a patent and protect himself in the privilege of the sole making of the article for 14 years; and it will be no answer to him to say that another person before him made the same experiment and, therefore, that he was not the first discoverer of it – because there may be many discoverers starting at the same time, many rivals that may be running on the same road at the same time, and the first which comes to the Crown and takes out a patent, it not being generally known to the public, is the man who has a right to clothe himself with the authority of the patent and to enjoy its benefits.” |
|
| |
-The Inventors Adviser on Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. 8th Edition London 1911.
“The “inventor” is not the person to whom the invention “comes in” or occurs, but by whom the invention becomes delivered to the rest of the subjects of the realm. The termination of the word inventor does not signify reception but causation. An invention is thus a piece of knowledge proceeding from or through the inventor and having its origin in him, so far as the remaining inhabitants of the realm are concerned. |
|
| |
“Applying for a patent is considered the same as imparting the invention to the public, because the latter is a necessary incident of the application, therefore the first applicant for a patent is preferred to all subsequent applicants.” |
|
| |
What a joke.
I can't even find the point at which you all voluntarily gave up your rights to your thoughts. It just sort of happened on its own without a court case to support it... and now you expect the rest of the world to follow suit otherwise you all look like idiots for not seeing it happen in the first place. |
|
| |
We need an International Guild Of Inventors with its own legal department paid for by our union dues.
Anything else is just lining up to serve the immortal corporate entities us enlightened citizens have been conned into giving the status of personhood. |
|
| |
//It is not that patents have ever been free, it's
that we used to be able to register our inventions
'without' patents// |
|
| |
Yep. I'm sort of with you on that one. However,
the practical value of that law changed when the
rest of the world changed its patent law. Even if
the US had retained FTI, you would still have been
in a mess regarding international patents, which
would deter many investors. Being one country
out of step has disadvantages. |
|
| |
//It is not that patents have ever been free, it's
that we used to be able to register our inventions
'without' patents// |
|
| |
Yep. I'm sort of with you on that one. However,
the practical value of that law changed when the
rest of the world changed its patent law. Even if
the US had retained FTI, you would still have been
in a mess regarding international patents, which
would deter many investors. Being one country
out of step has disadvantages. |
|
| |
And even while America still had FTI, any
experienced inventor would tell you that it was
unwise to disclose (even under an NDA) until at
least the initial, cheap steps of patent filing had
been done. Patents de-risk disclosure a lot, under
any system. |
|
| |
The UK still has the first-to-invent right... check it out, you've all just been conned into thinking that you don't.
...and I haven't. |
|
| |
<seriously contemplates calling everyone Mark from now on... or maybe Rube, yeah, like "Yo Rubin, voluntarily given away any good rights lately?"> |
|
| |
In the UK, if you disclose prior to trying to patent you
are not doing yourself any favours whatsoever. Trust
me, I've been there. |
|
| |
Disclosure "is" date-of-origination for an invention. There is no invention before disclosure! I dare you to find the court case in your country where it was determined otherwise. |
|
| |
Rubes.
I'm completely fucking surrounded by Rubes, and a new one born every minute.
Every once and a while I'm actually sort of glad my step dad was a con man and attempted everything he knew to physically, mentally, and emotionally beat me into submission. He failed to steal my rights.
What's your excuse? |
|
| |
[ This way to the Egress--->] |
|
| |
//I dare you to find the court case in your country
where it was
determined otherwise.// [2f], patent decisions are
very rarely
made in a court, at least in the UK. |
|
| |
For your information, I am inventor on a small
handful of
patents; they were filed by my then-employer, the
MRC (roughly
comparable to your NIH), and by my current
employer, a
Cambridge biotech company. I have also had
patents rejected
due to prior disclosure by myself. These rejected
patents were
also pursued by the MRC. |
|
| |
It is perfectly possible that I'm an idiot. However,
given that the
MRC has held patents on the key technology for 5
of the top 10
revenuing pharmaceuticals worldwide (including
things like
Humira and Herceptin), you would have to
acknowledge that
they themselves are not idiots. |
|
| |
You may be smart, or you may be dumb, I honestly
don't know, but I enjoy arguing with you.
However, if you want to call me an idiot, bear in
mind that I
have much more experience of the patent system,
first-hand,
than you do; and that you blew your one chance at
IP by not
being aware of the system or changes to the
system. I live quite
comfortably (and fund my own company) with
earnings from IP
that I have contributed to, and that has been
commercialised
successfully. I'd say that indicates at least some
measure of
understanding of the patent system on my part.
How about
you? |
|
| |
Yes, I am saying that mine is bigger than yours. |
|
| |
////I dare you to find the court case in your country where it was determined otherwise.//// |
|
| |
// [2f], patent decisions are very rarely made in a court, at least in the UK.// |
|
| |
Exactly!
Everything you said after that sentence was bluster.
Show me the exact point in UK history, (I'm sure it's all documented), where first-to-invent changed to first-to-file in the UK.
Can you?
I triple-dog dare you to look. |
|
| |
Mine is smaller than a lot of other guys [max].
Balls are another matter... |
|
| |
When did you all give away your rights without a fight?
See if you can find it. |
|
| |
C'mon [Max]. It's the only hoop I've ever asked you to jump through.
You know you can't say the same. |
|
| |
For the record I never once called you an idiot. As far as I can tell you are school-smart over street-smart.
"I" am uneducated but raised by mentally ill users. |
|
| |
Totally different educations but perhaps similar learning capabilities?
Maybe?
no? |
|
| |
Well... anyway I majored in psycho/sociopathic con-men with a minor in un-medicated mental illness survival training 101.
I will never get to know the things you were taught. |
|
| |
Thank god you don't have to learn the things I was taught. |
|
| |
Nobody is taking the rights to my thoughts. |
|
| |
//Show me the exact point in UK history, (I'm sure
it's all documented), where first-to-invent changed
to first-to-file in the UK.// It's generally accepted
that FTF became the norm with the Patent Act of
1883 in the UK. Challenges to "FTF" have
generally been unsuccessful for at least the last 50
years, and probably longer. Easy hoop. |
|
| |
//For the record I never once called you an idiot//
Don't make me do the "he said/she said" thing. |
|
| |
//school-smart over street-smart// Probably true.
However, my school-smart has been sufficient to
earn me enough not to live on the street. |
|
| |
You say that "we" are all mugs for conforming to
the system, and that you are determined to break
the system. However, I (and many others) have
learned to work within the system and use it to our
advantage (like I said, money from patents gives
me a very acceptable income and funds my
company). So, who's the mug? |
|
| |
Seriously, [2f], if you have creative/inventive
abilities then use them, rather than spending your
energies fighting the system for a single win that
you'll never get. |
|
| |
The problem with this idea of all the balls clumping
together in the middle of the table in a big
depression can easily be solved by having a parallel
set of lighter-than-air balls being played on the
underside of the deformable rubber sheet. Thus, each
of these balls will create a 'lump' in the sheet
rather than a depression. Players can choose whether
to play a ball on the top side or underside of the
sheet. |
|
| |
[hippo] Can the rubber sheet be dimpled in, out, in out so that if balls move fast the dimples are not noticed but when slowing down the balls stop a quantised distance from their starting positions? |
|
| |
[wjt] ooh, I think that's a whole new idea - you
should post it. Quantized Snooker, played on a very
slightly dimpled playing surface, could be a very
interesting game. |
|
| |
Crown green snooker, surely. |
|
| |
//It's generally accepted that FTF became the norm with the Patent Act of 1883 in the UK. Challenges to "FTF" have generally been unsuccessful for at least the last 50 years, and probably longer. Easy hoop.// |
|
| |
hmm, "generally accepted" is synonomous with conned in my book. |
|
| |
Edmunds on Patents second edition 1897. There is considerable discussion of “true and first inventor” at pages 263 to 268. For present purposes, the vital passage is on page 264:-
“The true and first inventor is not necessarily the first discoverer of the invention. If it had been discovered by another, but the discovery had never been divulged, he who independently discovers the same thing, and is the first to disclose it or to apply for a patent, which is eventually granted, is the true and first inventor.”
Note that he who first discloses the idea without applying for a patent is a true and first inventor; but so is he who first applies for a patent before disclosure to the public, provided the patent is granted. These notions are alleged to be supported by:
DOLLONDS Patent 1758 (I WPC p 134)
BOULTON V BULL 2 H.Bl. at pages 470 and 487.
LEWIS V MARLING 1829 (I WPC 493)
Specifically in FORSYTH V RIVIÈRE (I WPC 97)
“It was decided that if two or more discovered the same thing simultaneously he who first communicates it to the public is the true and first inventor”. |
|
| |
//Don't make me do the "he said/she said" thing.// |
|
| |
I'm not 'making' you do anything. I'm pointing out what you've all been made to do in the past. |
|
| |
//school-smart has been sufficient to earn me enough not to live on the street.// |
|
| |
...and just where do you think all of those street people came from?
Harvard? |
|
| |
//You say that "we" are all mugs for conforming to the system, and that you are determined to break the system. However, I (and many others) have learned to work within the system and use it to our advantage (like I said, money from patents gives me a very acceptable income and funds my company). So, who's the mug?// |
|
| |
Not mugs, Rubes.
I am not determined to break the system but fix what your ancestors got conned into allowing to be broken.
I'm glad you've been taught how to work the broken system. It would be a very hard broken system to maintain without Rubes.
Enjoy your "royalties". |
|
| |
//Seriously, [2f], if you have creative/inventive abilities then use them, rather than spending your energies fighting the system for a single win that you'll never get.// |
|
| |
I'll just mortgage my house and pull out my life savings and children's education funds to purchase a tiny portion of my own inventions here in Canada so that some rich asshole can patent them in another country and sell them back to me. |
|
| |
Yeah, that's not a con at all... |
|
| |
Yes yes, [2f], all good stuff and good show. However, my point was that //Challenges to "FTF"
have generally been unsuccessful for at least the last 50 years//. Those have included
challenges taken through the courts (though most patent challenges are not heard in courts). |
|
| |
Of course you can argue that the law is an ass, and intentionally disclose before filing just to
prove a point if you like. But in the end it is more effective to actually learn a little about the
system and play within it. It's just more efficient that way and much more lucrative too, for
that matter. You are a point in case. |
|
| |
//...and just where do you think all of those street people came from?
Harvard?// Uh, that was sort of my point, thanks. |
|
| |
//purchase a tiny portion of my own inventions here in Canada so that some rich asshole can
patent them in another country and sell them back to me.// Jeezus, [2fries], how deep does
your misunderstanding go? Patent something in Jamaica, Ougadudu or, god help you, Canada,
and it will be non-patentable anywhere else by anyone except you. |
|
| |
If you file a patent for the special bell on your Tesla-level floating bicycle in Canada, there is
no way that I in the UK can patent the same thing. I can't believe you don't get this - you're
winding me up, encha? But that's OK - I'm enjoying this immensely so carry on. I note that
most bystanders have wisely moved on. |
|
| |
Also, what is a "Rube" - is it as in Rube Goldberg? I suspect there isn't a British equivalent that
I'm aware of. |
|
| |
Rube is a carnie, (travelling carnival worker) word used to describe the people whose money they were bilking.
It was also the word they would shout when being attacked by the townsfolk. |
|
| |
-There was no intentional disclosure to make a point.
-Floatercycle is not the invention in question but part of it violates my right to claim what it grew into.
-Non-disclosure agreements are only as binding as the men signing them are honest and when your inventions are genuinely novel... they get taken by people who can't conceive their own. |
|
| |
One of my inventions was declared one of the “Best Inventions of 2007” according to Time Magazine, and I've got the non-disclosed unopened Notary-public signed registered-mail to prove that date of origination is mine, but because everyone got conned into this first-to-file shit that patent is now held by somebody who is "not the inventor". |
|
| |
There is no invention without disclosure.
The system is broken.
The Supreme court agrees and I will have my first-to-invent right back... someday. |
|
| |
Maybe after we restore sanity here we can help you all get your own stolen rights back. |
|
| |
Yes yes, but you've deliberately not answered the
difficult bits of my post. You claimed that, even if
you patented a part of your technology in Canada,
somebody else could patent it overseas. I pointed
out that that was not the case. You didn't
respond. |
|
| |
(For clarity: if you patent in Canada, somebody in
Iceland may still be able to make your product;
but they certainly cannot patent it. And patenting
in one country gives you a priority date which you
can then apply if patenting in other territories.) |
|
| |
//One of my inventions was declared one of the
“Best Inventions of 2007” according to Time
Magazine,// Now that, I have to say, is truly
awesome. Have you got a link or anything to the
piece? <Edit: I found the Time article online, but
it has a bunch of categories - which is yours in?
See link.> |
|
| |
//You claimed that, even if you patented a part of your technology in Canada, somebody else could patent it overseas. I pointed out that that was not the case. You didn't respond.// |
|
| |
China doesn't recognise our patent laws. I figured it went without saying. |
|
| |
//China doesn't recognise our patent laws.// |
|
| |
However, they can't patent your invention with
anything recognized outside China. That was my
point. |
|
| |
//I figured it went without saying// Clearly it didn't. |
|
| |
Re. the dragonfly link - cool (genuinely)! Is that one of yours? I presume you're
Sean Frawley or Dan Getz? |
|
| |
////China doesn't recognise our patent laws.//// |
|
| |
//However, they can't patent your invention with anything recognized outside China. That was my point.// |
|
| |
That doesn't seem to stop our government from allowing them to sell us our own inventions... and at a substantially discounted price. |
|
| |
//Re. the dragonfly link - cool (genuinely)! Is that one of yours? I presume you're Sean Frawley or Dan Getz?// |
|
| |
Yes, I am the true and first inventor of the worlds first rc dragonfly and hold proof that date-of-origination is mine.
Swear to God, stick a needle in my eye, all that jazz. |
|
| |
No, I am neither Sean Frawley nor Dan Getz. If I was I would hold the patent to my IP, and not a worthless unopened piece of mail which was all that was required of me until the year I built the thing.
Before you ask, no I don't think they stole my idea. I think they invented it independently but my date-of-origination was 1989.
I don't know when they filed for patent but I bet it was quite some time later than that. |
|
| |
Had I built it one year earlier my claim would stand. |
|
| |
The toys I would have created since that time would make the Wowee product line seem simplistic.
As I said, every toy I've built was only created to fund a much larger invention. |
|
| |
I'm not a business man, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a high-school graduate, and I am not independently wealthy. I'm an inventor.
That's all.
I work with my hands and I build things in my head which work out here the way they work in there. |
|
| |
I used to have the right to claim my inventions as my own without purchase because the rights of "The Inventor" once meant something. |
|
| |
That's why I feel that an international guild of inventors is needed to protect those rights once again.
I've about had my fill of con-men running the show. |
|
| |
Have you ever wondered just how powerful such an organization would become on the global stage?
Far more powerful than many countries I bet. |
|
| |
Perhaps even more powerful than all of the world governments combined... |
|
| |
//That doesn't seem to stop our government from
allowing them to sell us our own inventions... and
at a substantially discounted price. // Well, that
is a matter to take up with your government. Land
of the brave, home of the free. |
|
| |
//I think they invented it independently but
my date-of- origination was 1989// But, if you did
disclose, at least you could invalidate their patent.
As you said, there is no invention without a
disclosure. Was it the dragonfly that was Time's
invention of the year? |
|
| |
//I'm not a business man, I'm not a lawyer,
I'm not a high- school graduate, and I am not
independently wealthy. I'm an inventor.// You and
me both. |
|
| |
//I used to have the right to claim my
inventions as my own without purchase because
the rights of "The Inventor" once meant
something.// I still don't get, then, why somebody
else owns the patent on that toy dragonfly; surely
all that stuff was back when America still had FTI?
So are you saying that neither FTI nor FTF is fair? |
|
| |
////That doesn't seem to stop our government from allowing them to sell us our own inventions... and at a substantially discounted price.////
// Well, that is a matter to take up with your government. Land of the brave, home of the free. |
|
| |
More like; land of the polite, home of the freezing. |
|
| |
////I think they invented it independently but my date-of- origination was 1989////
// But, if you did disclose, at least you could invalidate their patent. As you said, there is no invention without a disclosure. Was it the dragonfly that was Time's invention of the year? // |
|
| |
Interesting.
Are you saying, even though Canada got conned out of First-to-invent the year I built this thing, that because the States didn't lose that right until 2003, my Canadian date-of-origination trumps their patent?
Really?
That's awesome!
I never disclosed to anyone other than the Notary-Public official and the patent search company I hired. Does date-of-origination count without a disclosure?
My design had four independent wings. Their design uses four wings with a connected membrane to "jet" air rearwards.
Will my date-of-origination for the entire concept stand up on its 'dragonfly-ness' alone, or do design tweaks allow people to patent another persons' inventions? |
|
| |
The dragonfly was one of the inventions of the year.
Whether it was "the" invention of the year I don't know. I never read the article I just read the blurb about it on their website. |
|
| |
"You" didn't finish high school?!
Straight up? or are you trying to see how gullible I am? |
|
| |
//I still don't get, then, why somebody else owns the patent on that toy dragonfly; surely all that stuff was back when America still had FTI? So are you saying that neither FTI nor FTF is fair?// |
|
| |
First-to-invent is the only thing that is fair. I honestly didn't know that Canadian patents invalidated US patent applications. |
|
| |
I took all this crap up with an IP attorney after the patent search company stalled me for a year with their promises while asking me to wait to file.
When they stopped correspondence and then this product hit the market I was told that there was no recourse. |
|
| |
So... bottom line, what does it cost to find out if I still hold the rights to my invention?
Do I just need to have this unopened registered mail examined? |
|
| |
That does it!
I'm finishing my time machine.
I'm going back in time, and I am going to throttle SO many friggin people it's not even funny...
...starting with Edison. |
|
| |
//"You" didn't finish high school?! Straight up? or are you trying to see how gullible I am? // I
never started high school. English system. Gotcha. But state schools all the way, and state-paid
university. |
|
| |
//So... bottom line, what does it cost to find out if I still hold the rights to my invention? Do I just
need to have this unopened registered mail examined?// I don't know - I don't know what's in the
unopened mail. However, a patent can be invalidated if it can be shown that there was prior art,
whether that prior art was another patent (which is itself a public disclosure) or a direct public
disclosure. The country/ies of the prior art don't matter, as far as I am aware. Even prior art in a
foreign language counts, as far as I know. And the prior art does not have to exactly describe the
patented invention; it just has to make the claimed invention "obvious" (which means more or less
what you'd expect) to a "person of ordinary skill in the art" (which broadly means a competent and
diligent person with a reasonable but not exceptional ability in the field). |
|
| |
I am currently consulting on a case being prosecuted in the US, which deals with exactly this
situation, but I can't give any details until after my deposition in the middle of this month (or
possibly for a period thereafter - I don't know, so my policy is to keep my mouth
uncharacteristically shut). |
|
| |
Having said all that, even if you invalidated their patent, it doesn't mean that you would be able
to get a patent; basically, public disclosure _other_ than by filing a patent prevents anyone from
filing (or defending) a patent. If I invent a new drug and post it here, I'm just giving it to the
world and his brother. |
|
| |
You help me get my dragonfly back and I'll kiss your feet if you want me to. |
|
| |
//basically, public disclosure _other_ than by filing a patent prevents anyone from filing (or defending) a patent. If I invent a new drug and post it here, I'm just giving it to the world and his brother.// |
|
| |
So... invalidating their patent does what? It just takes their monopoly on my invention away and gives it to all and sundry but still isn't credited to me or allow me to file or sell them my rights to it? |
|
| |
How is that even sane let alone law? |
|
| |
See... that's the part that pisses me off the most about this FTI/FTF crap.
It's an intellectual race, not a deepest-pockets competition.
Disclosure 'is' First-to-invent.
That's the whole point of creating the patent system in the first place. To stimulate innovation.
To pretend that first-to-file stimulates innovation is a complete and utter con-job and has been shown to do nothing more than skew IP in favor of big business, but nobody does a damn thing about it.
It only effects one in every two point seven million patent applications so we must not need inventor rights anymore? |
|
| |
easter bunny's got his-self a few rotten eggs stashed waiting to be smashed on some very deserving heads |
|
| |
got'em all painted up and everything... |
|
| |
Now I understand what's going on here. 2 fries sees con
men everywhere, having been raised by one and become
hypersensitive to what might potentially be a common trait
between con men and... well... men, and distrusts
authority for largely the same reasons. It's like being a
soldier for too many tours of duty. Hyper-vigilance looking
for the next threat over the next hill. |
|
| |
Paranoia is an ingrained life-skill yes. I have met very few people who weren't on the take, and I hold them dear.
Everybody else gets or has had exactly one chance to screw me over. Until someone screws me over I let my cheese hang in the wind because the assholes can't pass up the opportunity and I've learned that this is the cheapest way to determine good people from con-men that there is. |
|
| |
The people I trust are few, but I can actually trust them. |
|
| |
//So... invalidating their patent does what?// Yes,
as you say, all it does is take way their monopoly;
it means that you (or anyone) would be able to
make and sell
the dragonfly. I suppose in theory it might open
the door to your getting a patent, but I think that
would be very unlikely. |
|
| |
But, seriously, [2f]. If the patent thing actually
matters to you as much as you say, then you need
to learn a little about it. You're arguing quite a lot
on the basis of misunderstandings about the basic
processes, which is waste of your time and
energies. There are plenty of cheap (or free),
simple primers on patent law (there's even an "IP
for Dummies" or similar - I've read it, and it's OK).
You can't fight the system (or even argue against
rationally) unless you know its basic mechanics. |
|
| |
Noted.
That's sort of my whole point though. The rights of inventors were written specifically to make it so that intellectual property could not be conned away. I shouldn't have to be a lawyer and I shouldn't have to jump through hoops.
That's why first disclosure exists at all. |
|
| |
If I go back far enough in time I can fix that shit too... |
|
| |
// If I go back far enough in time// But,
apparently, you haven't and won't. |
|
| |
You have to appreciate that *no* system that is
effective is simple. Think, for a moment, about
Bell and Gray, and who stole whose invention.
Even then, it was easy to steal an invention.
Modern patent law is designed specifically to
*reduce* idea theft, by using the patent
application as a definitive benchmark of disclosure
and invention. |
|
| |
As for things being cheap and simple, they still are
if you do the legwork yourself (as I mentioned, a
colleague has just filed a patent - total cost was
£500); later stages can be expensive, but they are
considerably later, and your first, cheap filing gives
you the priority date for subsequent filings. |
|
| |
Bear in mind also that, in filing a patent, you are
asking someone to draft a special law (a law which
defines your invention precisely and
unambiguously) just for you, in order that you can
make money. It would be nice if it were free, but
it's not surprising that it's not. |
|
| |
Seriously, read "Patents, Copyrights and
Trademarks for Dummies". It's a good way to learn
the basics of the system, if only as a basis for
arguments. |
|
| |
I will.
I tried to find an IP course here in the Okanagan, but they have discontinued the program at the University.
Even then though it was only a two day lecture from one of the lawyers in town. |
|
| |
I would like to reclaim the rights to my dragonfly, but not if the only end result is taking their patent and giving it everybody else on the planet who is "not the inventor". |
|
| |
I am honestly surprised that there has never been a class action suit filed by irate inventors everywhere. |
|
| |
I once got my knuckles rapped by a friendly but formidable IP lawyer for using "trademark" when, she maintained most convincingly, the correct formation was "trade mark" and bashing the two words together was a gauche blunder unforgivable in a member of the professional class. |
|
| |
//the correct formation was "trade mark" // words
matter, especially to doctors and lawyers. |
|
| |
//Everybody else gets or has had exactly one
chance to screw me over. Until someone screws
me over I let my cheese hang in the wind because
the assholes can't pass up the opportunity and I've
learned that this is the cheapest way to determine
good people from con-men that there is.// |
|
| |
That must get very lonely after awhile. I find that
people are complicated and capable of both good
and evil. Over and over again. That's one of the
lessons that you learn as a parent is how to forgive,
over and over and over again. |
|
| |
It's not so lonely. Lot's of people refuse to screw me over.
It's just an ingrained survival mechanism. If you ever want to see if someone is trustworthy just "accidentally" drop a twenty dollar bill in front of them and see if they hand it back to you.
Cheapest con-man-o-meter there is.
I forgive... I just don't let anybody screw me twice.
I go out of my way not to use other people. I don't lie to them, I don't cheat them, and I sure as hell don't con them, (though God knows how easy it would be).
I kind of demand the same I return. |
|
| |
I've got an appointment with a lawyer on Tuesday to see exactly where I stand with my date-of-origination vs. first-to-file prior to the States getting screwed out of their rights thing.
He wasn't able to answer my questions with a preliminary discussion. |
|
| |
I refuse to patent-troll their dragonfly monopoly from them if it just means giving the rights to everyone and their dog, but if an IP attorney couldn't give me an answer off the top of his head it must be interesting, so I'll post the results here. |
|
| |
Yeah, it's about what I figured.
Yes, my date-of-origination claim will stand up in court against a patent filed prior to 2013, if their patent could have infringed on my design, and they would love to look into that for me.
... for a $2000.00 starting retainer of course.
Much... much more if I wish to proceed with a claim. |
|
| |
heh, if you scratch your screen you can actually smell the justice... |
|
| |
On a positive note there seems to be at least one class-action suit underway against Congress for the unconstitutionality of the blatant "theft" of our North American first-to-file rights. |
|
| |
It's a bold move Cotton... let's see if it pays off. |
|
| |
Setting high standards for yourself is excellent but, I have found, expecting it of others is a weight to carry. Other people have different resources, logics and unknown drivers. Only you know what you can and can't do. |
|
| |
Just be amazed when other people exceed your expectations. |
|
| |