bdowling

83 ms·

931.
by bdowling 8y ago
Patents and trade secrets are tools for two different types of IP. If you've got a thing you can keep hidden, then you keep it as a trade secret. The quintessential example is a secret recipe like the formula for Coca-Cola or Google&#x
932.
by bdowling 8y ago
In the article it’s noted that the Aum cult borrowed the idea of Armageddon from Christianity.
933.
by bdowling 8y ago
Your response reflects some misunderstandings about patent law. It's true that the law is complicated and there is a lot of misinformation out there. And, unfortunately the EFF doesn't help that situation when it misconstrues the
934.
by bdowling 8y ago
I did not intend to accuse the EFF of anything unethical. Just because their positions on patent law are aligned with those of certain corporate sponsors does not mean that their views are influenced by those corporate sponsors. I assume th
935.
by bdowling 8y ago
Putting up more barriers to protection would do nothing to protect authors or encourage their creativity. Most works protected by copyright have no value and aren't even worth registering. Of those that are registered, most aren't
936.
by bdowling 8y ago
Patent reform is fundamentally about business interests, which are non-partisan. Some business want more patent protections, others want fewer. None of them care whether it is a Democrat or a Republican who makes their desired reforms. Grou
937.
by bdowling 8y ago
For the EFF, the letter and article is an easy opportunity to both (1) help out someone described as an activist and social worker and (2) take cheap jabs at the patent system. This both furthers the goal of the EFF presenting itself as a c
938.
by bdowling 8y ago
I’m really glad that my sewer system isn’t expected to handle 1000 times the traffic it did 20 years ago.
939.
by bdowling 8y ago
I don't doubt that that's true, but it's also educated, intelligent people who are more likely to have the kind of money that makes them targets for con men.
940.
by bdowling 8y ago
To be a bit more accurate, the judge’s decision was only on a motion to dismiss. So, he didn’t actually decide that there was a contract, he decided that if you assume that plaintiff’s assertions are true, then there could have been a contr
941.
by bdowling 8y ago
No. Even in that case, the GPL wasn’t considered a contract. There was an open offer to anyone, essentially, “If you’d like to use this software, either buy a commercial license or abide by the terms of the GPL.” The defendant accepted the
942.
by bdowling 8y ago
There's nothing to see here. "Party" (capitalized) and "person of a Party" have specific meanings in this document, as defined in the definitions section: "Party means any State or separate customs territory
943.
by bdowling 8y ago
It's not necessary to spend the money to obtain a patent in order to prevent others from patenting an invention. All you need to do is make the invention available by publishing it somewhere discoverable by the relevant public. The pub
944.
by bdowling 8y ago
You're right that any publication will not be sufficient. A publication needs to be discoverable by the practitioners of the relevant art. However, it does not need to be well-known to them, nor does it need to be actually known by an
945.
by bdowling 8y ago
Clinical trials and regulatory approval are independent of the patent process. This should make sense because a patent is a right to exclude others, not a right to do something. For example, just because you have a patent on a new drug does
946.
by bdowling 8y ago
No. Patents grant a monopoly for a limited time and there is no compulsory licensing regime for patents. Many patent-owners do license their inventions, but others don't.
947.
by bdowling 8y ago
It doesn't matter who created a copyrighted work first, because independent creation is an absolute defense to copyright infringement.
948.
by bdowling 8y ago
A public disclosure by a first inventor prevents a later inventor from receiving a patent on the same invention. Even if that publication happened only one day before you file your application and you had no chance to be influenced by it
949.
by bdowling 8y ago
Assuming a patent issues with the claims as presented, all of the elements need to be present for there to be infringement. Claim 1 of the application you cited takes up almost an entire page of text and comprises more than a dozen limitin
950.
by bdowling 8y ago
Often a patent will include background information to assist the reader in understanding the claimed invention. The text will usually also point out the shortcomings of prior inventions and how the present invention is an improvement. Neith
951.
by bdowling 8y ago
Every patent application needs to have a title, but the title just needs to be short, accurate and descriptive. MPEP 606.[0] Validity (subject matter eligibility, novelty, non-obviousness, etc.) is a separate question. I think I would even
952.
by bdowling 8y ago
This can't be emphasized enough. The title of the patent is virtually irrelevant .
953.
by bdowling 8y ago
He also writes, “Anyone can do whatever they want with our code, for free.” The MIT license does allow one to do almost whatever one wants (e.g., sell a product based on a closed-source fork), so his statement may be consistent. Or it’s po
954.
by bdowling 8y ago
The default in the U.S. is that actions are legal unless they're made illegal by some law. There's no law against this, therefore it's legal.
955.
by bdowling 8y ago
Spending all day on a fishing boat when all you want is a fish is an apt analogy to building GNU cross toolchains for embedded targets.
956.
by bdowling 8y ago
Crossdev (or variants like crossdev-ng) may work, but only if you stick to the most well-tested build and target combinations. Otherwise, there are O(ludicrous) configurations, most of which are untested.
957.
by bdowling 8y ago
The title of the book is “Beautiful Racket: How to Make Your Own Programming Langauges with Racket”. It’s reasonable to expect that a reader unaware of the distinction would get the impression they’re learning about Racket.
958.
by bdowling 9y ago
There’s nothing illegal about only hiring people who like to play golf. (Unless you think that’s a proxy for being white or male or Protestant.)
959.
by bdowling 9y ago
It looks like he’s not building a house for himself, he’s getting paid to build one for someone else. Still badass though.
960.
by bdowling 9y ago
He’s Canadian, so OSHA doesn’t apply. Even if he were in the US, it seems he’s an independent contractor and not an employer, so he would be exempt.

More ›