Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:New and interesting technology (Score 1) 180

So this basically describes speech (emiting and understanding audible signals). Does it mean one has to obtain a license to speak or listen to someone speaking in a language others can understand? If I speak more than one language do I need to obtain multiple licenses? Wouldn't that patent be violating The Freedom of Speech?

Comment Re:Not as strange as it sounds (Score 1) 976

And assume that the guy on the bus also eats asparagus and brearhes. The real question is whether the difference between normal and heavy breathing outweights the difference beween production and runing a bike vs, say, 1/20 of a bus. Keep in mind that diesel fuel for the bus must be dug out, refined, transported and eventually burned, bus driver breathes and eats asparagus so on.

Comment Patent idea (Score 1) 29

Herby I patent the method of creating patent applications *on a computer*. It's novel and non obvious by the existing standards (noticed the "on the computer" part, right?) and it should at least slow the other ridiculous patent applications down. A clear win-win!
Patents

Submission + - Patents law vs. the laws of physics

t0mek writes: Patent law demands the people to defy the laws of physics. Can an inventor or small company be held responsible for not doing the impossible?

USPTO granted 247,713 patents in 2011 alone. Assuming a full-time job (240 working days and 8 hours a day) this equates to 129 patents per hour. It's physically impossible to read read the monopoly rights granted to patent holders at that rate. Even if that was possible it's still impossible to analyse and understand the selected patents that my be related to the line of business. The court cases show that examining the true meaning, depth and breadth of a single patent can take months or years. There are far more "possibly relevant" patents granted than 1 in "months or years".

It's physically impossible to keep up with the current rate of patent granting. Can anyone be held responsible for not defying the laws of physics? Would that be a sufficient defence line in case of any patent litigation?

Analogy: can a person be sues and found guilty of trespassing if:
1. The forbidden area is not clearly marked, but only described in broad and fuzzy terms,
2, There were millions of forbidden areas and
3. New forbidden areas were added in form of a complex, multi-page descriptions at the rate of 130 per hour?

Slashdot Top Deals

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...