|
| Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 06:07 AM EST |
How close do you need to be the real McCoy to make it patentable?
Not
very: A method to transmit
and receive electromagnetic waves which comprises generating opposing
magnetic fields having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a
longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating a heat source along an axis
parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating an
accelerator parallel to and in close proximity to the heat source, thereby
creating an input and output port; and generating a communications signal into
the input and output port, thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than
light. ---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for
in his heart he considers himself your master. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 06:08 AM EST |
A published novel can create precedent on an otherwise patentable idea.
Implementations of the idea may still be patentable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 08:05 AM EST |
The sweat and effort of developing a self driving car should be protectaable but
the general idea of a self-driving car should not.
I have not seen google's self-driving car, but I imagine that there are various
controls and servos hooked into the steering, brake, accelerator as well as
sensors to detect the road. All of this involves considerable development,
testing, money and time. Anyone copying this implementation has taken google's
work as their own.
At the same time, when someone develops a self-driving car on their own, even if
they have similar solutions (like modifying the power steering to add servos),
as long as they are actually designing and not copying google's implementation,
google should have no protection on the underlying abstract idea (an automated
mechanism for turning right or left or going straight).
The patent system should not give ownership of a general abstract idea to a
party that implements it first, that party may own their implementation, but not
the overall idea.
A rack and pinion design is protectable, the idea of being able to steer a
vehicle is not.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 08:54 AM EST |
Science fiction is prior art, if there is enough
detail that it matches the later patent and
gives a person skilled in the art a clear enough
idea of how to build it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 01:05 PM EST |
Since it goes straight to the heart of the patent troll business...
That's why a patent should not be transferrable or enforcable unless the
inventor is actively pursuing development.
The whole point behind a patent is to give an inventor a *temporary* monopoly,
for the purpose of allowing development without someone else taking the
invention in the meantime.
It is *NOT* to lock out competition, it is to give the inventor enough of an
edge over competitors to bring the invention to fruition.
So the rule should be: Use it or lose it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 03:52 PM EST |
And as someone else suggested here recently it's up to the
patentee to store the model in good working order for
the life of the patent. Failure = Forfeiture.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
