BS.

There are many many patents with extensions ... for example .. just randomly typing patent numbers you can find many .. for example US patent# 7349837. It's patent term was extended by 715 days. Just look up that patent in the uspto website and then click on images to see the pages .. you will see halfway down that it says "Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 715 days."

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?D...

Before you accuse me of cherry picking .. try typing searching random patent numbers on the USPTO website above 7,000,000 and below i guess 8,500,000. It wont take you long to find ones that have had their patent terms arbitrarily extended. Especially ones for stuff like communications, images, video etc.

Dude, my point is that there is no fixed 20 year time period, you can keep extending the patent issuance for as long as you like by using 35 USC 135 (c) to trigger 35 USC 156 (a). If you managed to delay it more than 3 years (very easy btw) then the clock of those 20 years starts after the issue date. SO for example, you if you filed a patent in 2000, you keep pushing for delays under 35 USC 135 (c) so that the patent gets issued in 2020 .. then you have a monopoly on the invention until 2040. You can sue any infringers for back royalties on your invention if someone else built it (knowingly or unknowingly).

35 USC 135(c) Deferral of Decision.— The Patent Trial and Appeal Board may defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding until the expiration of the 3-month period beginning on the date on which the Director issues a patent that includes the claimed invention that is the subject of the petition. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board also may defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding, or stay the proceeding after it has been instituted, until the termination of a proceeding under chapter 30, 31, or 32 involving the patent of the earlier applicant.

(c) Any agreement or understanding between parties to an interference, including any collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of the interference, shall be in writing and a true copy thereof filed in the Patent and Trademark Office before the termination of the interference as between the said parties to the agreement or understanding. If any party filing the same so requests, the copy shall be kept separate from the file of the interference, and made available only to Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause. Failure to file the copy of such agreement or understanding shall render permanently unenforceable such agreement or understanding and any patent of such parties involved in the interference or any patent subsequently issued on any application of such parties so involved. The Director may, however, on a showing of good cause for failure to file within the time prescribed, permit the filing of the agreement or understanding during the six-month period subsequent to the termination of the interference as between the parties to the agreement or understanding. The Director shall give notice to the parties or their attorneys of record, a reasonable time prior to said termination, of the filing requirement of this section. If the Director gives such notice at a later time, irrespective of the right to file such agreement or understanding within the six-month period on a showing of good cause, the parties may file such agreement or understanding within sixty days of the receipt of such notice. Any discretionary action of the Director under this subsection shall be reviewable under section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The move is likely to anger patent reform advocates given Johnson’s past efforts to block legislation aimed at reining in patent trolls, and in light of his positions that appear to contradict the White House’s professed goal of fixing the patent system...
In December, Johnson testified before the Senate on behalf of the 21st Century Patent Coalition, a group of companies who opposed a bill that would have made it easier for defendants to challenge low-quality patents, and to recover legal costs in the face of frivolous patent lawsuits. (Johnson’s group ultimately prevailed last month when Senate Democrats killed the bill altogether.) Johnson has also opposed previous patent reform initiatives, describing them as “almost everything an infringer could ever want.”

Not disagreeing with the other facts you stated, but the girls did not press charges, nor did the swedish gov't - the got an extradition warrant so that they could question him. The fact that the refuse to do this via webcam, phone, letter etc and that they are doing this even though the women don't want to press charges shows that the extradition is political.

I'm fairly convinced that if I claim the moon is not made of cheese you will insist that it's hand waving unless I present you with a core sample and video to prove it was taken from the moon. If you want to go all starry eyed and say OOOOOOOOOOoohh every time someone describes common knowledge using the word plurality, beat my guest.

Everybody poops. Most people don't feel a need to write a paper about it each time (not even the author of "Everybody Poops").

Why wouldn't resource cost (as determined by scarcity or, TADA how tight the quota is and how close to the limit you are) be considered when deciding how important something is. Ever notice how when people are moving they start out carefully wrapping and boxing everything but by the end when they are tired and the truck is full they become willing to just chuck it? Same idea. Did you consider that I skipped it because it was unremarkable? Good programmers know when NOT to get bogged down in the details too. If you had relevant expertise in the art, you might know that.

Aggregates of pretty much anything have been dealt with that way for a very long time. It's not a 'gut' thing, it's based on work I have personally done in file systems.

Again, I *DO* hope you're not a patent examiner. You seem to be impressed very easily.

Do you know what an aggregate file is? It's a file! Do you know what the modification time of an aggregate file is? The latest modification time of any chunk of the file. So, do we want the least or greatest credible TTL figure? Six of one, half dozen of the other, so which to pick.....OH OH Mr. Kotter! we can split the difference! Wow, nobody's ever thrown up their hands and split the difference before!

I'm not saying it wasn't good thinking, just that pretty much any competent team faced with the same problem would have come to a very similar solution. I *DO* hope you're not a patent examiner.

No, it means if you make noise, your bogus patent gets the approval. Then a bunch of poor suckers get to spend everything they have in court reversing the bad decision.

Keep in mind, the rejections include a big pile of some idiot patenting something that came and went before he was born but he's totally convinced nobody ever thought of it before because he packs the bearings with cat hair plus the ones that are just a vague thought with no reduction to practice at all. That and a pile of zero point energy anti-gravity whoosiewhatsises.

If not, how do you explain this?

1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
selecting a file having a path name in a distributed file system, wherein the file is divided into a plurality of chunks that are distributed among a plurality of servers, wherein each chunk has a modification time indicating when the chunk was last modified, and wherein at least two of the modification times are different;
identifying a user profile associated with the file;
determining a memory space storage quota usage for the user profile;
deriving a file time to live for the file from the path name;
determining a weighted file time to live for the file by reducing the file time to live by an offset, where the offset is determined by multiplying the file time to live by a percentage of memory space storage quota used by the user profile;
selecting a latest modification time from the modification times of the plurality of chunks;
determining that an elapsed time based on the latest modification time is equal to or exceeds the weighted file time to live; and
deleting all of the chunks of the file responsive to the determining.

That's the first action non-final ruling. Once you prove you're serious by appealing the matter, you get the approved stamp.

The problem is that the USPTO assumes the courts can work out the validity for them and they rubber stamp things when they don't have a relevant expert in the art (or if they're busy, or it's Tuesday).

Genuine question - this seems like an interesting thing, but as someone whose expertise in physics is incredibly limited, is there anyone who would be willing to provide an "explain it like I'm five" version for an individual like myself who is interested in understanding the speed differences observed in the particles?

Thanks, internet!

If what is said in the summary is true, we're past the point of a "strong risk" of it not ending well and are well into that being a reality. Apparently, this genius radio engineer was also causing interference for the two-way radio systems used by first-responders.

The main number 1 problem that needs to be cleaned up is the Patent Office they are creating this unnecessary lawsuits, wasted billions because they haven't an idea what an Abstract Idea is? I just don't believe that they are that stupid.

The process language was aimed at chemistry originally, with the aim to make patentable novel and useful chemical processes.

3. The method of producing undulations in a continuous voltaic current by the vibration or motion of bodies capable of inductive action, or by the vibration or motion of the conducting wire itself, in the neighborhood of such bodies, as set forth.

The courts have recognized it would be idiocy if read literally and generally declined to do so. But even with it in, it is not a free pass on the rest of the requirements, one of which is that mathematical algorithms are explicitly excluded.