Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - An inventor's biological clock->

Submitted by
PdbAqB
PdbAqB writes "The average inventor is more likely to be:

1) Older -" there is a higher incidence of inventors aged in their 40s to 50s who file patents; and
2) Self determining — an inventor is less likely to be associated with a large firm or a university.

Inventors do not have disproportionally more genius genes, but are highly motivated and therefore are driven to make a difference. Studies of identical twins separated at birth indicates that creative thinking is:

a) less genetically based (estimated to be a one third contribution);
b) more learning based (estimated to be a two-thirds contribution) leading to creating confidence in the capacity to create.
What does the above profile represent? Why are inventors generally older? Is there a biological clock for inventing?

There are many exceptions to the above profile; however, perhaps we should consider the incidence of patent filing with the incidence of self-actualisation? That, to be a fully formed self, an individual has to move from the potential of "oewhat you can be" to realise what "oeyou must be". That is, you must fulfil your full potential.

Inventors need networks

To achieve self-actualisation as inventors, people need networks to form the basis of learning.

You and your hypothetical identical twin have the same ability and background. However, the outcome is different when you have an invention if:

a) you stay in the shed tinkering, whilst
b) your identical twin communicates with many people from diverse backgrounds.

In the above scenario, your identical twin will have a better output. The difference within these results are realised within a week. Thus, communication is critical to develop inventions.

What role can a patent have?
A patent helps an individual publish an identity as an inventor which provides the means to engage with a like community. The inventor then may learn from members of a like-focused community. This provides a basis for reflection for the inventor and growth for the inventive concept.

Patent filing, like self-actualisation, occurs at a later stage of one'(TM)s working life and has coincidences:

Self-actualisation takes place in less than 1% of the adult population. Likewise, inventors are also a rare species. Could this be because the tools to aid invention remain hidden from a large part of the population?

Inventors are nurtured and the tools for nurturing should be developed to capture invention.

Patent libraries are around the world could nurture inventors by incorporating communication tools and open their protocols to allow a web 2.0 site to flourish. Inventors and the community as a whole would benefit if patents databases become more accessible."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Patent Prosecution Highway = Patent Examination (Score 1) 77

by PdbAqB (#34937784) Attached to: 30% More Patents Issued in 2010
The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) has come into play so the USPTO does not have to re-examine patents where the patent has already been successfully examined in another jurisdiction (such as Australia, Japan etc) - I received a press release from the Australian Patent Office recently that stated that accelerated examination of a patent can take place where a corresponding patent has been examined with at least one successful claim in another jurisdiction that is party to the PPH. See www.uspto.gov & type PPH into the search box

Comment: Is patenting contradictory to Open Source? (Score 2, Insightful) 41

by PdbAqB (#32136506) Attached to: Law Professors Developing Patent License For FOSS
There are plenty of people who espouse the view that patent protection is simply a tool for big business to flex its muscle and block access to innovation by small players and competitors. However, the underlying rationale of patent protection is to force an invention onto the public record. Sure, the patent owner gets a monopoly but it is limited for a specific period of time (very limited if you compare it to the monopoly a copyright owner gets) and after that it is free for all to use – down to the very last detail. In fact, you can’t get a patent unless you put in the detail. So the patent databases in reality form the largest standardised library in the worldpublicly accessible (no paywall / subscription fees) and reliable (at least in relation to granted or issued patents). Why should the open source community consider patenting? Getting a patent for an invention blocks another party from getting a patent for the same invention. So, if a group of open source collaborators can secure a patent, it can choose to grant a royalty-free licence to the open source community to use it (just as open source software is licensed). This secures the invention for public use immediately. In other words, it blocks the ability for another party to patent that invention and prevents that other party from exploiting it for commercial gain. Check mate. Secondly, it secures the open source community the right to continue using the patented invention subject to the terms of the patent licence. A term of the licence may be that any modifications, enhancements or improvements are owned by the (open source) patent owner, thereby retaining all enhancements for public use. Thirdly, open source patented innovations reside on patent databases and thus form part of the same public record, which makes the public record more comprehensive and useful to the community at large. For more see http://bit.ly/dwJqE3 & http://1p.com.au/

+ - Diurnal aspergers-like symptoms - self diagnosis

Submitted by
PdbAqB
PdbAqB writes "I am RAZOR SHARP but not so social in the mornings: My mornings exist with social integration problems having one-sided communication & the inability to do things practical like get ready for work), but...
In the evenings I am laid back but not cognitively so astute:

This morning’s razor sharp insight:
Is there a prevalence of diurnal aspergers spreading in epidemic proportions for which the only cure is "don’t go to work in the mornings, but exploit the razor sharp insight by sharing it on the web (which thankfully is often a one-sided form of communication)?"

Comment: Patents can be open sourced and helpful (Score 1) 172

by PdbAqB (#31886128) Attached to: Is the Tide Turning On Patents?
Open source patenting is a possibility and beneficial for software: There are plenty of people who espouse the view that patent protection is simply a tool for big business to flex its muscle and block access to innovation by small players and competitors. However, the underlying rationale of patent protection is to force an invention onto the public record. Sure, the patent owner gets a monopoly but it is limited for a specific period of time (very limited if you compare it to the monopoly a copyright owner gets) and after that it is free for all to use – down to the very last detail. In fact, you can’t get a patent unless you put in the detail. So the patent databases in reality form the largest standardised library in the worldpublicly accessible (no paywall / subscription fees) and reliable (at least in relation to granted or issued patents). Why should the open source community consider patenting? Getting a patent for an invention blocks another party from getting a patent for the same invention. So, if a group of open source collaborators can secure a patent, it can choose to grant a royalty-free licence to the open source community to use it (just as open source software is licensed). This secures the invention for public use immediately. In other words, it blocks the ability for another party to patent that invention and prevents that other party from exploiting it for commercial gain. Check mate. Secondly, it secures the open source community the right to continue using the patented invention subject to the terms of the patent licence. A term of the licence may be that any modifications, enhancements or improvements are owned by the (open source) patent owner, thereby retaining all enhancements for public use. Thirdly, open source patented innovations reside on patent databases and thus form part of the same public record, which makes the public record more comprehensive and useful to the community at large. So, how is open source patenting workable? One of the key hurdles to patentability is that an invention needs to be novel (new). This means it cannot be publicly known or used before the patent is applied for. How can open source collaborators collaborate without destroying novelty? One suggestion for making it workable would be to exploit the “grace period” available under patent laws in countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan and the USA. A grace period means that you can still apply for a patent after disclosing your invention (sharing it with open source collaborators) so long as you lodge your patent within 6 to 12 months (depending on the country). Sure, it’s not foolproof because not every country has a grace period (Europe is a notable exception) but we’re talking about ways to overcome hurdles to enable open source collaborators to tap in to the benefits of patenting. Another suggestion is that a project be flagged for patenting at its inception (before any detail is provided) and collaborators sign up under an NDA before they can view and contribute. For example, an inventor could: provide a high level view of their invention onto a site; invite contributions or help from the peer to peer to join in drafting a patent description; interested participants could subsequently request to join the community specifically associated with drafting that patent description; The inventor and associated community can then let the new contributor join if they show skills that are helpful to the patent’s description generation; and All contributions would be logged against each contributor so as to determine if they are making a technical or inventive contribution. What about costs? Building a community of particular skill sets to help draft the description of an invention for a patent would offset patenting costs and aid in obtaining a contribution by a community in an Open Source manner. The patent once described (e.g. as per the steps above) could have a patent attorney draft the claims or oversee the claim drafting, rather than being involved throughout the process. If the patent is successful, then: it could be offered as a kernel to build further inventions off via divisional patents, etc. if there is a commercial use (even by donation) then any funds received can be made available for use: by the contributors/inventors, or the community to promote further open source patent opportunities such as a contribution for payment of Official Fees in each jurisdiction. We see this approach as an open source solution to promote access and availability to the excellent resources available both in the community and in the patent offices around the world. First published in http://www.1place.com.au/wptest.php

+ - The Open Source patent - Disruptive or Middle Way->

Submitted by PdbAqB
PdbAqB (1534237) writes "Is open source patenting a possibility? Is patenting totally contradictory to the idea of open source?

There are plenty of people who espouse the view that patent protection is simply a tool for big business to flex its muscle and block access to innovation by small players and competitors.

However, the underlying rationale of patent protection is to force an invention onto the public record. Sure, the patent owner gets a monopoly but it is limited for a specific period of time (very limited if you compare it to the monopoly a copyright owner gets) and after that it is free for all to use ââoe down to the very last detail. In fact, you canâât get a patent unless you put in the detail.

So the patent databases in reality form the largest standardised library in the world...publicly accessible (no paywall / subscription fees) and reliable (at least in relation to granted or issued patents).

Why should the open source community consider patenting? Getting a patent for an invention blocks another party from getting a patent for the same invention. So, if a group of open source collaborators can secure a patent, it can choose to grant a royalty-free licence to the open source community to use it (just as open source software is licensed). This secures the invention for public use immediately. In other words, it blocks the ability for another party to patent that invention and prevents that other party from exploiting it for commercial gain. Check mate.
Secondly, it secures the open source community the right to continue using the patented invention subject to the terms of the patent licence. A term of the licence may be that any modifications, enhancements or improvements are owned by the (open source) patent owner, thereby retaining all enhancements for public use.

Thirdly, open source patented innovations reside on patent databases and thus form part of the same public record, which makes the public record more comprehensive and useful to the community at large.

So, how is open source patenting workable?

One of the key hurdles to patentability is that an invention needs to be novel (new). This means it cannot be publicly known or used before the patent is applied for. How can open source collaborators collaborate without destroying novelty?

One suggestion for making it workable would be to exploit the âÅ"grace periodâ available under patent laws in countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan and the USA. A grace period means that you can still apply for a patent after disclosing your invention (sharing it with open source collaborators) so long as you lodge your patent within 6 to 12 months (depending on the country). Sure, itââs not foolproof because not every country has a grace period (Europe is a notable exception) but weââre talking about ways to overcome hurdles to enable open source collaborators to tap in to the benefits of patenting.

Another suggestion is that a project be flagged for patenting at its inception (before any detail is provided) and collaborators sign up under an NDA before they can view and contribute. For example, an inventor could:

1. provide a high level view of their invention onto a site;
2. invite contributions or help from the peer to peer to join in drafting a patent description;
3. interested participants could subsequently request to join the community specifically associated with drafting that patent description;
4. The inventor and associated community can then let the new contributor join if they show skills that are helpful to the patent's description generation; and
5. All contributions would be logged against each contributor so as to determine if they are making a technical or inventive contribution.

What about costs?

Building a community of particular skill sets to help draft the description of an invention for a patent would offset patenting costs and aid in obtaining a contribution by a community in an Open Source manner. The patent once described (e.g. as per the steps above) could have a patent attorney draft the claims or oversee the claim drafting, rather than being involved throughout the process.
If the patent is successful, then:
1. it could be offered as a kernel to build further inventions off via divisional patents, etc.
2. if there is a commercial use (even by donation) then any funds received can be made available for use:
a. by the contributors/inventors, or
b. the community
to promote further open source patent opportunities such as a contribution for payment of Official Fees in each jurisdiction.

We see this approach as an open source solution to promote access and availability to the excellent resources available both in the community and in the patent offices around the world.

Published in http://www.1place.com.au/wptest.php"

Link to Original Source

Comment: Prediction by profiling? (Score 1) 2

by PdbAqB (#31870502) Attached to: Innocent Until Predicted Guilty
There are traits the can reveal an intention in a statistical sense; however, I am not aware of how this can apply significantly to the individual (other than on the TV). Also should such predictive power be only used by the criminal justice system? I would imagine that if true prevention was intended to take place with our juveniles then this should involve skilled psychologists etc. not just the criminal justice system, since help is better than harm!

+ - +/- Genetic code & mental perception extremes

Submitted by
PdbAqB
PdbAqB writes "Autism and psychotic-affective disorders are developmental opposites, two sides of the same coin – according to the theory developed by researchers Bernard Crespi (a geneticist at Simon Fraser University, Canada) and Christopher Badcock (a sociologist at the London School of Economics) that the brain’s balance is set by a “tug of war” between our genes.

Their theory proposes that an epigenetic disruption results in either:
(a) under-development of the 'social' brain, which is linked to autism; or
(b) over-development of the ‘social’ brain, which results in psychotic-affective conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression.

The extremes of these disorders – autism to schizophrenia — are up to 80% heritable and expressed by DNA copy-number variants – that is, the number of copies of each region of human DNA, which is ordinarily diploid: having two copies, one per chromosome. However, this varies for particular DNA regions due to deletion or duplication of the genetic code leading to disorders such as under or over development of the “social” brain.

Nature Medicine reports in its April issue that research by Crespi has found that five sections of DNA with copy-number variants were associated with both extremes, and of these sections, four acted in opposite directions. That is, for some of these copy-number variants:
(i) too many copies were associated with autism, and
(ii) too few with schizophrenia, or vice versa depending on the actual variant.

Why does the deletion or duplication occur?

DNA matched copy-number variants were uncovered with completion of the human genome project, which enabled observation of disorders such as:
(c) cancer — where the level of duplication was found to be elevated; and
(d) lupus and other inflammatory autoimmune disorders were associated with deletion.

This deletion or duplication may have an epigenetic origin.

Gene expression can be altered by non-genetic factors causing the organism's genes to "express themselves" differently depending on the cell’s memory. For example, a famine three generations ago in males giving rise to trans-generational epigenetic expression of lower heart disease and diabetes compared to a control population.

This recent work by Bernard Crespi and Christopher Badcock has tied genetics, psychiatry and perception in a unified fashion.

see:
A meeting of minds Nature Medicine 16, 353–355 (2010)
Epigenetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

First published in my blog at http://www.1place.com.au/wptest.php"

Comment: We need a means to detect of Counterfeit Drugs (Score 1) 56

by PdbAqB (#31802566) Attached to: A New "Medical Lab On a Chip" For Every Home?
A diagnostic assay would be a solution over and above the current solutions proposed. For example, according to Nature Medicine 16, 348 (2010) the law is responsible the success of counterfeit drugs? Why the law is poor Nature Medicine proposes that the reporting of counterfeit drugs is not mandatory and therefore is underreported. This may be true for the USA where pharmaceuticals are bought online, which is a major distribution source of counterfeit drugs; however, in countries like Australia, this is not a major source of counterfeit drugs. But where is the problem most endemic? In countries such as India, it is a huge problem since the recipients of counterfeit drugs cannot generally buy legitimate drugs through legitimate means. In my mind, the first question arises is how does one know that a drug is counterfeit and therefore know to report? This is the first step. The problem with counterfeit drugs is that they do not contain the pharmaceutical required for its action, or may contain a poison. More laws do not remove the problem There are many laws already available to stop the sale of counterfeit drugs; however, we are not seeing these laws being used. Why? The main problem is detection. How is an individual or even a practitioner to know if a drug is not working? Is it because of the patient’s own response, the profile of the drug (many drugs are not 100% effective in all patients at all times) or because a drug is counterfeit? Increasing the policing of counterfeit drugs by putting a mandatory obligation onto reporting of counterfeit drugs will not address the above problems. This really in turn is making a recipient of a counterfeit drug a criminal if they do not report it. Further increasing policing of reporting has a huge cost with little return. Use reward, not the stick! I believe that increased reporting is necessary, but not by imposing penalties. A reward for reporting counterfeits would have a much more positive outcome for all concerned. This will help stop counterfeit drug trafficking, because it: 1. will not cause criminalisation the innocent recipients, thus further expanding the black market; and 2. will help the recipients of counterfeit drugs, who are the most vulnerable due, afford the legitimate channels for legitimate drugs. Further, industry should support the development of readily available objective tools for proper screening of drugs to allow recipients to determine the legitimacy of drugs they have received, thereby facilitating the reporting of counterfeits. http://www.1place.com.au/wptest.php

Comment: Murdoch going in opposite direction to Obama? (Score 2, Informative) 412

by PdbAqB (#31772106) Attached to: Rupert Murdoch Hates Google, Loves the iPad
In contrast to Rupert Murdoch hatred of Google, there is a growing demand, including that of President Barack Obama, for greater public access to publications of particular interest - for example biomedicine, which may also extend to other research agencies. In the journal Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/464813a.html) it was reported that the "US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to make authors' or publishers' versions of research papers publicly available in the PubMed Central repository within 12 months of publication." PubMed Central repository is a bit like a Google listing. Further, it is speculated in the nature article that "President Barack Obama might soon issue an executive order extending this requirement to all federal research agencies".

+ - Why We Need More than more of same

Submitted by
PdbAqB
PdbAqB writes "Today it was reported that Apple may build its own search iPhone-centric search engine to keep valuable iPhone-user search data out of the hands of Google: http://bit.ly/bqrk9z

Why would Apple produce another search engine? Google is the default search engine on the iPhone and data about what iPhone users are searching for can help Google tailor software and services for its own mobile smartphone.

But is just another search engine valuable to consumers?

I say that as consumers we need something more:

Think: what is the next step from search engines? What if you could have a “Transaction Engine” that would allow you to type in your search and that then takes the search results and places the information sourced from multiple places into a coherent answer – like a self-forming Wikipedia.

Imagine — you have a legal question and you can place your question into a Transaction Engine so that it could ask you questions, and form say an agreement, essay, advice, ... from multiple sources of information.

Consequently, the Transaction Engine also acts as a learning– teaching device. Our website at http://1place.com.au/ has a question/answer expert system. Expert systems are known. However, a Transaction Engine would allow users to draw from the masses of information on the net — quite a different tool, which would be valuable in many contexts.

Would this provide us with something more than another search engine – I believe that it would."

Comment: Why We Need More than more of same (Score 1) 276

by PdbAqB (#31727630) Attached to: Talk of an Apple Search Engine To Thwart Google
Why would Apple produce another search engine as a slow follower? We need something more such as a transaction engine: search a question and a transaction engine places the information from multiple sources into a coherent answer - like a self forming Wikipedia. Imagine - you have a legal question and you can place your question into a Transaction Engine so that it could ask you questions, and form say an agreement, essay, advice, ... from multiple sources of information. Consequently, the tool also acts as a learning teaching device. Our website at http://1place.com.au/ has a question/answer expert system; however, if we had a tool to draw from the masses of information on the net then it would be different and worthwhile.

+ - Our Brains Our Limitations

Submitted by
PdbAqB
PdbAqB writes "We have a limited number of "learning tools" to perceive our environment.

These tools evolved:
1) by exploiting neuronal plasticity to "recycle" brain area(s) to optimize our perception for survival;
2) to enable our understanding of information by putting it into a form that is perceptible to our brain — that is, to enable learning; and
3) in the form of reading, mathematics, tool use, music and religious systems according to Cook (2010).

Consequently, our culture has evolved by what was to be able to be understood by our brain using the filtering enabled by learning tools.
Our learning tools have evolved to limit information to what is, in evolutionary terms, necessary for survival.

Are these learning tools, by filtering information, now limiting our innovation flow?
That is, what learning was required for survival may be very different to what we now require in terms of innovation?

Computer learning: Are our evolutionary next steps may now unhindered using computers so as to remove the limitations of our human:
a) learning "tools" filtration; and
b) culture perceptions.

See:
1. Gareth Cook (2010) Scientific American Mind; Mar/Apr2010, Vol. 21 Issue 1, p62-65, 4p, 4
2. http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/03/how-do-we-measure-innovation.html"

Comment: An edit of the above post (Score 1) 1

by PdbAqB (#31697714) Attached to: 10 years since Human Genome was Sequenced, but ...
The race started with the establishment of neuro-informatics, using software to analyse the 120-million-base-pair genome of the fruit fly. USA's Craig Venter, via his firm Celera, challenged established government funded science and started the race to sequence the human genome. Along the journey his firm patented software and algorithms that were used to analyse the genome, along with patents on a 150 drug targeted genes. My understanding is that these patents did not, & do not, limit academic research into the human genome and that Venter's team was a major contributer to public gene libraries. Where does the race end? Craig Venter in his book "A Life Decoded" stated that the artificial cell was the next step, where drugs could be trialled by inserting cassettes of genes into DNA to model answers to disease and genetic deformities: Craig Venter is inspirational & what a decade!"

"Don't talk to me about disclaimers! I invented disclaimers!" -- The Censored Hacker

Working...