Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score 1) 214

by jmullen (#8895463) Attached to: Inside Look at Patent Examination
I am not stating my opinion. I am stating a fact. If the patent description does not enable one skilled in the art to make it ... it will fall in court. Period. A good number of patent examiner's, however, are idiots. That is why in order to enforce a patent you have to litigate it (a place where the other side has the opportunity to find errors in the examination). There will always be some unpatentable disclosures that slip through the cracks because of idiot patent examiners. Such patents are worthless. What the "faster than light" examiner was supposed to do was rejected the patent for being inoperable because it "disobeyed known scientific principles." The patentee would then have to prove that the scientific priniciple is either wrong or provide a working model to the patent office to prove operability. In this manner, the examine would also reject it for not enabling one skilled in the art to make or use the invention. Hope this clears it up.

Force needed to accelerate 2.2lbs of cookies = 1 Fig-newton to 1 meter per second

Working...