Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Did Amazon invent this? (Score 1) 164

What it does is make it harder for the real inventor to revoke a patent once it has been awarded.

Now I think you're just trolling. Section 6 of the AIA actually establishes a process for ANYone to challenge the validity of the patent right immediately after it is awarded and for MORE reasons than currently exist for filing a reexamination.

The purpose of AIA was to lower the amount of court cases contesting patents and free up the USPTO from having to handle "prior art" claims

That was just two sections of the 30+ sections in the bill, many of which have nothing to do with either of these. Please don't pretend like you know what the purpose of the bill is when you don't even know what it contains.

Comment Re:Did Amazon invent this? (Score 2) 164

God, your comment is so misinformed I want to explode.

  1. First-to-file actually doesn't go into effect until March 2013 so you are wrong on that front.
  2. This patent was filed in 2008, well before the AIA was signed into law, so even if the first-to-file aspect of AIA had gone into effect on Sept. 16, 2011, it would be irrelevant anyway to this patent
  3. Your comment - I assume - is some form of dig that first-to-file means companies have carte blanche to file patents on obvious ideas just because somebody doesn't already have a patent on it, which seems to be a viral misunderstanding of the law here on slashdot. First-to-file itself has nothing to do with determining patentability. The AIA - if anything - made it harder to get a patent because it increased what things could be considered when determining novelty of a claim, i.e., under the old laws, some invalidating product could be on sale in another country more than a year ago and it wouldn't be considered, whereas now it will be.

FFS, please STFU until you educate yourself on what you are commenting about.

Comment Re:In other news (Score 1) 171

Did YOU actually read the letter? The whole letter and not just the excerpt that you linked to? Here's the whole letter.

Maybe you should do a little more digging before you grab your pitchfork.

First, even in the excerpt you cited, Jefferson acknowledges that progress can be made towards forming a general set of rules. He's not saying there shouldn't be anything such as IP (which is what you and every other knee jerk engineer seems to quote this for).

Second, he actually requests that the very letter you're excerpting not be used to misrepresent what he's saying:

"I have thus, Sir, at your request, given you the facts and ideas which occur to me on this subject. I have done it without reserve, although I have not the pleasure of knowing you personally. In thus frankly committing myself to you, I trust you will feel it as a point of honor and candor, to make no use of my letter which might bring disquietude on myself."

Long story short, you do much disservice to your point when chastising me for cherry picking points but then rely on them yourself as your sole support for your main argument.

And I'M the troll.

Comment Re:In other news (Score 1) 171

You're supposed to be able to patent the cotton gin, but not "a process for separating cotton from seeds."

Based on what? Processes are absolutely meant to be patentable. 35 USC 101 says:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

It says processes are patentable right there in the statute and has for 50+ years.

Comment Re:Treble? (Score 1) 205

I disagree that it's disconnected from reality and common sense. It's the same invention, we're just looking at it from different angles. You claim to want to protect inventions, but are drawing a very narrow definition of what is an invention (apparatus) and what is not (process).

Slashdot Top Deals

Torque is cheap.