[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Patents again
From: |
threeseas |
Subject: |
Re: Patents again |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:06:46 GMT |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (X11/20040626) |
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
File the patent and ignore it after it issues. It will be marked abandoned
when you don't pay your fees but it will be in the USPTO database and will
constitute prior art even by USPTO standards.
You don't need a patent for that. Disclosures aside for a moment,
SIR (Statutory Invention Registration) is good enough, so to say.
See also:
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200401/msg01114.html
regards,
alexander.
interesting, point 1 and 2 at that link provide something of a
contridiction. How are programmers to review patent applications while
not polluting themselves with the contents?. Not to mention how some of
the others play against each other.
And point #4.... obvious, useful and innovative....
Define these things in terms that are provable.... one mans trash is
another man treasure....... but the software industry knows this game of
rethoric well (or is the software industry not the experts of
abstraction fabrication and manipulation of assigned meaning ?)..... so
who is it really MAKING these points useless to try and apply in a court?
its like trying to argue about god and religion with the church, who
will burn you at the steak for being a witch....if you try to object
using any of their inherently self supporting biased rules.
So.... its rather pointless to make use of a system that is
fundamentally in error and inherently biased, to begin with (re:
software patent system), wouldn't you say?
What looks like an orange, smells like an apple, but taste like
something totally different..... like monkey brains.
Maybe we need to stop calling it orange juice (copyright), apple juice
(patent) and start calling it what it is. Even if it means we have to
first establish what it is first. And don't we have plenty examples and
practices of abstraction creation (fabrication) and use (manipulation of
meanings) by the software industry, to help us determine the monkey
brains it is?
or is that to........... subjective, to objectively see clearly?
- Re: Patents again, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: Patents again, Abdullah Ramazanoglu, 2004/10/15
- Message not available
- Re: Patents again, Abdullah Ramazanoglu, 2004/10/15
- Re: Patents again, threeseas, 2004/10/15
- Re: Patents again, Abdullah Ramazanoglu, 2004/10/15
- Re: Patents again, threeseas, 2004/10/19
Re: Patents again, Paul Barker, 2004/10/17