4 ms·
Not only in software: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exercising_a_cat http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exercising_a_cat The documentary by Th
by vibrunazo 15y ago
Not only in software: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exercising_a_cat http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exercising_a_cat
The documentary by This American Life about patents had an IP researcher claiming that over 1/3 of all patents ignore prior art, just by comparing identical text between them: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/android-app?destination=radio-archives%2Fepisode%2F441%2Fwhen-patents-attack http://www.thisamericanlife.org/android-app?destination=radi...
- talmand 15y agoI'm curious how many patents there are for devices that are impossible to actually build. You know, fun stuff like warp drives and time machines.
- dominicmauro 15y agoPresumably zero. Patents are only permitted for "useful" subject matter. Useful is a term of art: you can still patent silly things like Slinkies: http://www.google.com/patents/US2415012?printsec=drawing http://www.google.com/patents/US2415012?printsec=drawing – but whatever you patent has to actually function as advertised. So while the Slinky is objectively useless, it does what the patent says it does. A warp drive would be objectively useful, but when you build it, it won't do what the patent says it does; therefore, it's not patentable.
- alok-g 15y agoThough not quite in practice of course. I cannot substantiate my claim with data, but have come across several (approved) patents which are actually not even correct -- the described does not function as advertized.