Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not the end... (Score 1) 789

by midav (#47811697) Attached to: Invasion of Ukraine Continues As Russia Begins Nuclear Weapons Sabre Rattling

He did not want to use it against NATO troops, what is even stupider, he wanted to use it against Ukrainian troops. Considering how close Luhansk and Donetsk to Russian territories including quite a big city of Rostov, if there were fallout, good chance it would be also over Russia.

As for defending the Ukraine in return of becoming non-nuclear state, it was not NATO, it was US, GB and Russia in Budapest Memorandum of 1994. After taking over the Crimea peninsula, Russian Premier Medvedev effectively reneged of their responsibilities, stating that the memorandum meant to protect the Ukraine against the third countries and not the guarantors themselves.

Comment: Re:Prior Art Exists. (Score 1) 264

What are you talking about? It is PI with a period.

Word Mark PI
Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms. FIRST USE: 20090622. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20100622
Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM
Serial Number 85785006
Filing Date November 21, 2012
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition November 12, 2013
Registration Number 4473631
Registration Date January 28, 2014
Owner (REGISTRANT) Paul Ingrisano AKA PI Productions Corp INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 1933 73rd street brooklyn NEW YORK 11204
Description of Mark Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the pi mathematical symbol followed by a period.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Comment: Re:Some fundamental, unchecked assumption here ? (Score 1) 210

by midav (#44103495) Attached to: Patents Vs Innovation - the Tabarrok Curve
This is the coolest picture I have seen for a while.

If you look where we are, it is about on the same level as if there was no protection at all.

What it means, is that the current system exists solely for the benefits of the patent lawyers. Moreover, if the protection is strengthened it will reduce the innovation further and thus diminish lawyers' area of application. If the protection is relaxed the innovation will boost but it also will leave some money on the table to be converted into actual innovator's revenue.

So the level of protection is stabilized at the level where all the innovation benefits are fully converted into patent lawyer's benefits thus maximizing their revenue from bang for buck perspective without being actually beneficial to a patent holder.

But that conclusion should be pretty obvious, is not it?

The reward of a thing well done is to have done it. -- Emerson

Working...