Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 04:29 PM EDT |
Must keep in the corporate environment, where it can be "properly"
monetized. Allowing students to develop and commercialize their ideas, is not
only anti-competitive, it induces others to infringe, thereby leading to the
theft of BEEEELIONS.
Next comes the bill requiring schools to get their curriculum approved by their
corporate overlords before ever allowing students near...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
"Retti says the main issue is that academic institutions often support
technological research without first checking to see if the work may violate
patents protecting others’ intellectual property."
So, their patent prevents research now? Perhaps she is developing something
better that doesn't depend on that patent. I thought one of the purposes of
patents was for inventions to be publicly documented, so others could build on
them.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 05:10 PM EDT |
Some High School kid does this and gets a writeup in the paper.
We've been slaving at it for years & haven't made a dime yet.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 08:00 PM EDT |
Intel and Google have already approached her, but they won't talk to Solaroad?
Is their patent bogus? Is it not viable commercially? Are their terms too
draconian?
What's missing in this story?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 08:26 PM EDT |
perhaps if a high school student develops it, and dozens of others have done the
same it's not non-obvious enough to rate a patent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 11:00 PM EDT |
Assuming this student never saw the patent in question, how obvious must the
invention itself be if an 18 year old can develop a similar idea?
To me this is proof that, though this student is bright, the invention itself
should be considered something "obvious to one skilled in the art" and
thus invalidated. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|