4 ms·

I guess a software could insert a "blink break" every couple of minutes. They could even display an a video commercial during that time, to monetize your blinks

by paulftw 13y ago

I guess a software could insert a "blink break" every couple of minutes. They could even display an a video commercial during that time, to monetize your blinks. Since everyone seems to try to patent everything: in this comment I claim the invention of a killer business model for speed reading apps. 25 Feb 2014, 4:30pm Sydney time :)

gcb0 13y ago
couldn't care less. it is first to file now, biatch.
- axman6 13y ago
  Congratulations on being one of the millions of internet users who have no idea how the patent system works. First to file is purely for determining priority of an application; the date at which the patent office (or another patent office under the Paris convention) comes to know about the invention. It's used to resolve a) which prior art is relevant (anything published publicly before this date) and b) if two people try to patent the same thing, which one gets it (gross simplification here). America was the only country which had the "First to invent" priority, which the rest of the world has deemed for decades as completely daft and a huge administrative nightmare.
  - philbarr 13y ago
    I've read your comment twice, and it seems to me that it actually validates the "first to file, biatch" comment..? According to (a) if someone files a patent first then if there is any prior art that and any subsequent patent applications will fail. According to (b) if someone files a patent first then out of that and any later patent applications the first one will win. Seems to fit with "first to file" to me.
    - dangrossman 13y ago
      The "invention" has been made public (in paulftw's dated comment) before anyone has filed for a patent. It's no longer patentable material in a first-to-file system as there's now evidence that it's obvious to practitioners of the field, and this evidence predates any filing gcb0 can make. In first-to-invent, he could've claimed an invention date prior to the comment. Sound right?
      - gcb0 13y ago
        giving an idea is not like presenting an invention/prior-art.
        axman6 13y ago
        If it's enough for a person skilled in the art to produce the invention without needing any inventive thought, then yes, it is.
axman6 13y ago
I'll keep this disclosure in mind when it comes across my desk. But now you've got no chance of patenting it yourself, so touch luck =).
- paulftw 13y ago
  All I wanted is take this patent out of the equation forever. My thinking is that I've created prior art that would make the idea much much harder to patent. Not a patent lawyer, so may be wrong. As for how harmful it was for my anonymity to mention Sydney - well, NSA knows way more than that. Besides, I could be sending you all down the wrong trail. or better - confusing a ML algorithm.
visarga 13y ago
Ha! You're not anonymous any more, paulftw. Now we know you're from Sydney.

by paulftw 13y ago

gcb0 13y ago

couldn't care less. it is first to file now, biatch.

axman6 13y ago
Congratulations on being one of the millions of internet users who have no idea how the patent system works. First to file is purely for determining priority of an application; the date at which the patent office (or another patent office under the Paris convention) comes to know about the invention. It's used to resolve a) which prior art is relevant (anything published publicly before this date) and b) if two people try to patent the same thing, which one gets it (gross simplification here). America was the only country which had the "First to invent" priority, which the rest of the world has deemed for decades as completely daft and a huge administrative nightmare.
- philbarr 13y ago
  I've read your comment twice, and it seems to me that it actually validates the "first to file, biatch" comment..? According to (a) if someone files a patent first then if there is any prior art that and any subsequent patent applications will fail. According to (b) if someone files a patent first then out of that and any later patent applications the first one will win. Seems to fit with "first to file" to me.
  - dangrossman 13y ago
    The "invention" has been made public (in paulftw's dated comment) before anyone has filed for a patent. It's no longer patentable material in a first-to-file system as there's now evidence that it's obvious to practitioners of the field, and this evidence predates any filing gcb0 can make. In first-to-invent, he could've claimed an invention date prior to the comment. Sound right?
    - gcb0 13y ago
      giving an idea is not like presenting an invention/prior-art.
      - axman6 13y ago
        If it's enough for a person skilled in the art to produce the invention without needing any inventive thought, then yes, it is.

axman6 13y ago

I'll keep this disclosure in mind when it comes across my desk. But now you've got no chance of patenting it yourself, so touch luck =).

paulftw 13y ago
All I wanted is take this patent out of the equation forever. My thinking is that I've created prior art that would make the idea much much harder to patent. Not a patent lawyer, so may be wrong. As for how harmful it was for my anonymity to mention Sydney - well, NSA knows way more than that. Besides, I could be sending you all down the wrong trail. or better - confusing a ML algorithm.

visarga 13y ago

Ha! You're not anonymous any more, paulftw. Now we know you're from Sydney.