borgunit2

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by borgunit2 3y ago

   Ding ding. We have a winner.
2. 2.▲
   by borgunit2 3y ago

   I don’t think it’s valid to exclude open source contributions. Not everyone supports their political representatives.
3. 3.▲
   by borgunit2 3y ago

   That’s not kinetic earthquake energy, though. I think in an apples-to-apples comparison, you would need to attach some kind of device to absorb the kinetic energy from the fault.
4. 4.▲
   by borgunit2 3y ago

   IANAL, but I feel like everything has basically been patented these days. The wording in many is so vague. They would probably be thrown out in court, but that takes time and money. Small startups have very little of either. I am really jus
5. 5.▲
   by borgunit2 3y ago

   Well we exist too, but it makes it a tiny bit harder to sleep at night having nightmares about trolls. Thankfully we haven’t been targeted. I do think a better system exists, and I’m all ears for any ideas around patent reform/USPTO fu
6. 6.▲
   by borgunit2 3y ago

   My point was that anti-gravity clearly isn’t possible yet, but a patent was granted. By that logic, I could generate an AI application to patent all possible things. IMO something is wrong if this is allowed. It presents needless legal hurt
7. 7.▲
   by borgunit2 3y ago

   I’m holding judgement until the case is investigated further. It’s my understanding that so far everyone has basically said, “there’s enough evidence to proceed in court.” Patent reform is something that is sorely needed (and more funding f