3 ms·

Great blog and fun idea. However, as far as I'm concerned the only 'innovative' part of this is the day-of-the-week indicator. Calendars like http://www.amazo

Great blog and fun idea. However, as far as I'm concerned the only 'innovative' part of this is the day-of-the-week indicator. Calendars like http://www.amazon.co.uk/2014-slim-month-black-calendar/dp/B0049MTCNQ/ref=pd_cp_kh_2 http://www.amazon.co.uk/2014-slim-month-black-calendar/dp/B0... or http://www.amazon.co.uk/column-large-month-planner-calendar/dp/B0041H67O6/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1377678624&sr=8-13&keywords=calendar http://www.amazon.co.uk/column-large-month-planner-calendar/... are actually better at conveying that information anyway and use less space to do so. Even if the design itself were completely new (which I don't think it is), I'd be very reluctant to say that a calendar design idea is something that should be given a legal monopoly, so that even if someone else were to come up with the idea independently they should be barred from doing anything with it. So I wish good luck to the poster, and thanks for clean design, an informative and interesting post, but also this: please compete on execution rather than trying to get the state to grant you a monopoly over an idea that is at best a small incremental change to designs that have been around for ages.

epo 13y ago
How to completely miss the point but use it as an excuse for some half-assed rant about patents. The repeated ignorant, ill-informed, incorrect amd emotive use of the word 'monopoly' merely betray your naivety.
- kybernetikos 13y ago
  > How to completely miss the point The post did not make a single point, but a large number of interesting points. I was responding to this one specifically, which the original author gave an entire headed section to: > Yes I wanted to file a patent. If I work my ass off for something I don’t want it ripped off. I don’t want to lose money in the future due to bad business decisions in the past. I hate software patents like the next guy but physical inventions deserve some kind of protection. Your criticism seems to imply that I should have to address every point that the original author made in his post which would be insane, especially when other commenters have already addressed them better. > The repeated ignorant, ill-informed, incorrect amd emotive use of the word 'monopoly' merely betray your naivety. I'm happy to be naive, but nevertheless, you're more likely to cure me of it with arguments rather than personal attacks. I will defend myself somewhat though: I could possibly accept emotive, but ill-informed, incorrect and ignorant? Good alliteration obviously, but here's the thing: patents literally are state granted monopolies. You can see them mentioned as such on the patent wikipedia page. The Mirriam Webster definition includes in its definition for Patent (noun): > 2a : a writing securing for a term of years the exclusive right to make, use, or sell an invention > b : the monopoly or right so granted http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patent?show=0&t=1377696704 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patent?show=0&t=13... Patent law in the USA has a lineage going back to the Statute of Monopolies in the UK. I find it strange to imagine how someone could reject the assertion that patents are temporarily granted state monopolies, but feel free to educate me out of my naivety.

epo 13y ago

How to completely miss the point but use it as an excuse for some half-assed rant about patents. The repeated ignorant, ill-informed, incorrect amd emotive use of the word 'monopoly' merely betray your naivety.

kybernetikos 13y ago
> How to completely miss the point The post did not make a single point, but a large number of interesting points. I was responding to this one specifically, which the original author gave an entire headed section to: > Yes I wanted to file a patent. If I work my ass off for something I don’t want it ripped off. I don’t want to lose money in the future due to bad business decisions in the past. I hate software patents like the next guy but physical inventions deserve some kind of protection. Your criticism seems to imply that I should have to address every point that the original author made in his post which would be insane, especially when other commenters have already addressed them better. > The repeated ignorant, ill-informed, incorrect amd emotive use of the word 'monopoly' merely betray your naivety. I'm happy to be naive, but nevertheless, you're more likely to cure me of it with arguments rather than personal attacks. I will defend myself somewhat though: I could possibly accept emotive, but ill-informed, incorrect and ignorant? Good alliteration obviously, but here's the thing: patents literally are state granted monopolies. You can see them mentioned as such on the patent wikipedia page. The Mirriam Webster definition includes in its definition for Patent (noun): > 2a : a writing securing for a term of years the exclusive right to make, use, or sell an invention > b : the monopoly or right so granted http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patent?show=0&t=1377696704 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patent?show=0&t=13... Patent law in the USA has a lineage going back to the Statute of Monopolies in the UK. I find it strange to imagine how someone could reject the assertion that patents are temporarily granted state monopolies, but feel free to educate me out of my naivety.