I'm not an engineer, but unless your fiber can transmit a house in less than one second, it may already be obsolete in light of this scientific development:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0164397.html And you called them "junk." JC On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Jim Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > I certainly don't disagree with your assertion that "the technical > world is filled with literally millions of junk patents". As early as the > early 1970's, I made a comment to my father (a few years later, he applied > for and received unrelated patent: > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4156706.html <http:///>) about news of > a patented invention that didn't seem to qualify, probably for the > "unobvious to those skilled in the art" qualification. He commented that > the Soviets had done a study of patents and declared that 4 out of 5 were > 'patent noise': They weren't actually worthy of patenting. I didn't, and > don't, disagree: I agree that the large majority of patents aren't worthy > of being granted. And thus, they have all the negatives you cited. > But that doesn't mean that no patents meet the commonly-accepted > criteria of being "new, useful, and unobvious to those skilled in the > art". Further, perhaps I dare point out that one major plot element in Ayn > Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" book was "Rearden Metal" (identified as being an > alloy of copper) and its patent, and how the US government extorted those > patent rights from Rearden. I don't want to be accused to "appealing to > authority", a well-known flaw in argumentation, although Ayn Rand is a > major authority. And, I don't want to suggest that I am a Randian (a > "Randroid"): I learned in 1975 that I'd always been a libertarian, and I > only first heard of the existence of Ayn Rand in 1976. But I think it is > by no means universally agreed (by libertarians) that some sort of patent > system shouldn't exist. Sure, it's a problem if that patent system is > enforced solely by 'government', and someday this problem ought to be fixed. > I fully agree that it would be better if there was some sort of > voluntary-ist 'patent system'. For example, a mark on a product (like > circle-C for copyright, and "UL" for Underwriters Labs, etc) which > identifies that the manufacturer complies with some voluntary patent > system. Companies (such as Telcos, Internet Co's, Costco, Walmart, etc) > might announce and agree that they would only buy and sell goods and > services which meet the voluntary-patent-system standards. Under that > situation, it might be rather difficult for non-patent-compliant items to > be marketed. We'd have the same system, but simply not government-enforced. > You said: " My threshold is if any strongly competent engineer can > dream this idea up in a week when asked the same questions, its clearly a > junk patent designed to sabotage and leach off other peoples > productivity." I certainly agree. If all such improperly-granted > patents weren't granted, that would solve 99% of the problem with the > patent system. > > Regarding my invention: On my release from prison December 19, 2009, > I promptly used an online service (freepatentsonline.com) and discovered > that there had been three patents granted on isotopically-modified > optical-fibers. Two granted to Corning in about 2004, (6810197 6870999) > and one to Deutsche Telekom in about 2002 ( > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6490399.html <http:///> ). For 30 > minutes, I was afraid that they had scooped me, only to find that their > inventions hadn't made the same isotopic changes that I had invented. > Keep in mind that I, having made my invention, am essentially > obligated to employ the existing patent systems, until another one > appears. Otherwise, I lose whatever rights I might have in the future. > Jim Bell > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Adam Back <[email protected]> > *To:* Cathal Garvey (Phone) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Jim Bell <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Adam Back > <[email protected]> > *Sent:* > *Subject:* patents in a free society (Re: Brother can you help a fiber?) > > In my opinion patents and copyright are incompatible with a free society > and > crypto-anarchy: ie with the right to privately contract, and right to > cryptograhically enforced privacy (encryption), and freedom of association > (pseudonymous/anonymous networks). > > You'd think Jim would get that given is previous explorations of the darker > side of Tim May's cyphernomicon catalog of ideas... > > Patents are also stupidly destructive as the technical world is filled with > literally millions of junk patents, with redudant overlap, so you cant do > anything without tripping over 100s of junk patents. Even the USG finally > started to try to belatedly reform the idiocy. > > (Without any aspersions of the junk or non junk status of Jim's patent as I > am not a hardware guy). My threshold is if any strongly competent engineer > can dream this idea up in a week when asked the same questions, its clearly > a junk patent designed to sabotage and leach off other peoples > productivity. > > Adam > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 09:12:53AM +0000, Cathal Garvey (Phone) wrote: > > I look forward to a world without patents, so I'm afraid all that > > waffle about obtaining a worldwide government-enforced-monopoly merely > > made me sigh a bit. > > >
