|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 08:55 AM EDT |
| Money. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: artp on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 08:58 AM EDT |
Helps to actually put a URL in the "a href" section.
Duh. Guess I'll have to
patent that.
Why Do
We Assume Patents Are Valid When Patent Office's Own
Numbers
Show They Get Things Wrong All The
Time?
'salright? ---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 01:37 AM EDT |
I do believe there are serious problems with the USPTO and that software patents
should either be abolished or tightened up several orders of mangitude. That
said, there would seem to be a problem with selection bias in the (now correctly
;-) linked article's argument. Namely, it talks about the perecentage of
patents submitted for re-examination that have problems rather than the
percentage of all patents. IOW, somebody already thinks there might be a
problem when a patent is submitted for re-examination. I wonder if the argument
could be tightened up some.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
Instead of granting a monopoly, give a grant. The idea/invention is then
available to the people to enrich society, not locked in some legal construction
that denies the use to the rest of the world. Don't want to share, don't apply
for the grant and sue based on trade secrets. But don't try to have your cake
and eat it too the way they do now.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
