Definitely, and that should be the answer to those:
"Alarm clock, on a computer!"
"That's obvious. Alarm clocks and computers both exist."

"But this was difficult because [intricate problem that's different with computer clocks] and we had to do [intricate solution]."
"Then put that in the patent claims."

Good patent examiners currently do that, but there's a bunch of terrible stuff out there.

Combine a program and a library and even before hitting compile, you should be able to tell exactly what the result is. Combine a benzene ring and a hydroxide compound and even if you done it at one position, move it someplace else and it could have the opposite effect. It's unpredictable.

True. Pharmaceuticals don't really seem to mesh with patent law anyway - right now, a company will defend their patent application as I did above, saying that the result of any compound is absolutely unpredictable, so therefore, nothing is ever obvious in drugs... and then when they get the patent and some competitors makes a biosimilar drug, that first company will leap up and say it's just an obvious variation on the patent and is covered under the doctrine of equivalents.

Or, as I suggested, we could actually do science and do a whole bunch of tests changing or removing one variable at a time: try cola and then try clear cola, rather than your suggested "try cola, try steak, gosh, different effects."

Most of the people out there shooting people aren't exactly what you'd call marksmen. They're still getting pretty close most of the time.

That's precisely why guns are important. A 90 pound woman is not going to be able to fight off a 250 pound man with her bare hands. She'll be able to do it with a pistol.

LK

They don't need to spread the disease, they only need to spread the fear. In other words...terror.

LK

Or even more specifically, having an item that was too easy to turn into a gun without a license.

LK

Even if it comes to pass that metal 3D printers become cheap enough for people to start whipping up high quality guns at home, people will still be willing to pay for new and innovative products.

I suspect that you do not have much personal contact with the American gun culture. I am deeply immersed in it. I see guys selling their Third generation Glocks to buy Fourth generation versions of the same model.

Despite the fact that the 1911 is old and proven technology that nearly any manufacture can copy, people are will willing to pay more money for a Kimber because they make a really high end product.

If you're going to argue that eventually 3D printing will be able to produce pieces that are identical to those that can be made by high end manufacturers, how can any law be enforced against them? Once they're out of the printer, there's no way to tell where it came from.

LK

How do you explain the fact that Japanese-Americans have a lower homicide rate than Japanese in Japan?

LK

But wouldn't faggots be pro-hellenic, or are the stories I heard about 'doing it like Greeks' incorrect?

Nope, no skyrocketing, and his own fiancee and family, who had the closest contact with him other than healthcare providers, are out of the 21-day window and are confirmed to be Ebola-free. You were wrong :)

That's actually the counter-argument: reference 1 teaches A+B, reference 2 teaches C, so they're obvious? No, because combining them is a biatch and raises additional problems, or combining them is unforeseeable because they're so widely different that they result in an unpredictable result, etc., etc. :)

That argument generally works better on the pharmaceutical side, where some benzene ring with a hydroxil component may be beneficial if it hangs off the first carbon, really beneficial if it hangs off the second, and absolutely toxic if hangs off the third. Doesn't work as well on the high tech/software side, where including a library or function in a program should have an absolutely predictable result. So, instead, it's better to argue that neither reference actually teaches "B" or something.

So is ESR trying to convert the NetBSD CVS repo in some weird and special way or something, and that's why it failed? Because it has already been converted and is on Github; if he needs info on how it was done, there's probably someone on the tech-repository mailing list that can help. It's been converted to Fossil too.

You had my curiosity, then I read this:

Now you have my attention.

(Not enough to RTFS however. This is Slashdot...)

I had heard of it, but never used it until earlier this year. I wanted some custom bottle caps made and the company only accepted files made with very expensive programs... or Inkscape.

Aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid or 2-(acetyloxy)benzoic acid. Acetaminophen is N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)ethanamide. It's an entirely different chemical. They didn't "invent" a new drug - they actually did invent a new drug.

And as you note, the two have different effects. Acetaminophen can be particularly bad for livers in high doses.

And finally, your timeline is off. The patents on aspirin expired in 1917. Acetaminophen was released in 1956. Aspirin was widely available at that time, with many different manufacturers competing.

It's anything in the art that was published or available to the public prior to the filing date of the application. There's nothing subjective at all about it. The Model T is prior art for the Tesla Roadster. UNIVAC is prior art for the Macbook Pro.

What you seem to be referring to is anticipatory prior art - that is, art that includes every element of a claimed invention. But even that is not subjective - either it describes the claimed features or it doesn't.

What you really want to be referring to is "what is obvious?" And that's a little more subjective, but not as highly subjective as you think - under the current law, if no one reference describes everything in the claimed invention, nothing anticipates it or it is "new", but if a combination of references teach everything in it, then it's obvious. So, if the invention claims "A+B+C" and one piece of art teaches A+B and the the other teaches C, then A+B+C is obvious. That's not very subjective at all.

In other words, lawyers (or other engineers) find a way to invent around it. The public ends up with two ways to accomplish the same thing. Innovation is increased. Hooray!

In other words, lawyers (or the inventor) find a way to invent around it, or come up with an improvement. The public ends up with two ways to accomplish the same thing, or a better way to accomplish the thing. Innovation is increased. Hooray!

What about the better batteries? What about wireless charging, fast charging, new battery management techniques that extend battery life, etc.? What about new transmission and data compression techniques that make that new smart phone able to communicate ten times faster, over ten times the distance, as the old model?

But let's say we go with your suggestion... No patents since they'd be way too expensive if you have to go through an entire trial just to get exclusivity before you even start making your product. Instead, "short term copyright and trade secrets".

Well, copyright doesn't apply to that smart phone, because when your competitor makes one, they're making a new one, not copying yours. In fact, copyright only really works when you're copying the exact thing - rip a DVD of Harry Potter and you've committed copyright infringement. Film the Mockbuster production Larry Kotter, and you haven't. Dream Heights isn't an infringement of Tiny Tower. GIMP isn't an infringement of Photoshop. A Nissan Leaf isn't an infringement of a Toyota Prius. As a result, copyright doesn't work when people care about the implementation, but not the exact thing. It's fine for movies and music and books, but not for software or hardware.

So, we turn to trade secrets. Great, now you have to sign a contract with every piece of software or hardware you buy. And those contracts can last a lot longer than the limited term of a patent - they can be lifetime contracts. Don't like it, don't buy the software or hardware - but without patents, every manufacturer is going to insist on non-disclosure agreements and non-reverse engineering agreements, so no smart phone for you.

Patents exist to destroy trade secrets - in exchange for public disclosure, we give a limited monopoly to the inventor. The alternative is going back to trade secrets, guilds, aristocratic patronage, and companies that hire mercenary guards to keep anyone from ever discovering what goes on behind closed doors. And that's bad for innovation.