Hi folks and all,
At 10:04 06/04/00 JST, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Online business patents are, at large, ineffective and harmless.
We can have servers outside of US and there is no legislation (even
under US laws. note that the servers can serve yet another countries)
to make the servers illegal.
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Even if it's not true in the general case, a sufficiently expensive lawyer
might be able to convince the court that, since the Internet makes location
irrelevant, the location of the infringement is irrelevant.
that US patents are applicable even if both servers,
as ye sow, so shall ye weep...in reading this thread i guess i saw
several problems:
oxymoron alert
"thought...patent"
tautology alert
"sufficiently expensive...lawyer"
internet bogon alert
"find the server"
is a server where the ip address, DNS name, lat/long of the CPU,
memory, disk, or
Check with the lawyers, but I think that you will find that this
is strictly a US view of patents. In every other country any public
disclosure anywhere immediately voids the right to patent. Even
NDA disclosure can be tricky, because an offer for sale counts
as a disclosure.
Stewart
Doug
Brijesh Kumar wrote:
Granting of patents only means that a person grated a particular patent
was first to make "a claim" about the novelty of an idea or technique
as far as the patent office knows on the basis of "previous claims submitted
to it.".
At least in the US, at least sometimes,
Masataka Ohta wrote:
We can have servers outside of US and there is no legislation (even
under US laws. note that the servers can serve yet another countries)
to make the servers illegal.
Mmm...that sounds like a grey area. A company using patented tech to do
business in the US may be
John;
We can have servers outside of US and there is no legislation (even
under US laws. note that the servers can serve yet another countries)
to make the servers illegal.
Mmm...that sounds like a grey area. A company using patented tech to do
business in the US may be subject to US
Dave Miller wrote:
- I wonder how much of government we can get rid of if we keep chipping away
at it?
I see this a lot in discussions of government reform: Imagine your
reform happens, and bureaucratic rot sets in. After a hundred years
or so, you will have something very similar to the
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
After publishing your idea somewhere, for public critique, you have
a year to file your patent application. After that it becomes a
public prior art.
Am I wrong?
Or if it is a little past a year, and you can show that you
have done your best - you can also get the
I suppose it depends which conferences you attend. I can tell you from
personal experience (and the angry phone calls...) that papers from
"famous" people do get rejected, frequently. Are you arguing that there
should be no peer review, given that it fails on occasion or because
some people are
Would you have the same people checking the claims of how much it cost
to develop an idea that now check the technical claims...?
Excellent point. The problem, as usual, is in the execution.
So could self-regulation be the answer?
(I'm not a lawyer, but...) Consider a voluntary public
My thought is this: I'd like to see a presumption of lack of novelty if an
idea gets raised in a public forum, even if it happens _after_ a patent has
been applied for, unless it can be shown that the information came from
leakage of proprietary information.
intersting idea
i would
From: Jon Crowcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
perhaps the length of patent protection should be directly related to
the cost of developing an idea - in pharmaceutical industry, long
patents make sense because of the large investment in testing a new
drug safely - similar i nthe automotive and
13 matches
Mail list logo
