 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is actually a real-live patent application.
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/11/17/halliburton-tries-to.html
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20080270152&OS=20080270152&RS=20080270152
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> This is actually a real-live patent application.
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2008/11/17/halliburton-tries-to.html
>
It burns. The goggles, they do nothing.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> This is actually a real-live patent application.
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2008/11/17/halliburton-tries-to.html
>
>
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&
co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20080270152&OS=20080270152&RS=20080270152
Surreal. One patent to bind them all. :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:41:26 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> This is actually a real-live patent application.
Yeah, read about that a couple weeks ago. Tripped my WTF-o-meter(tm)
pretty hard.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Surreal. One patent to bind them all. :P
Best response yet!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-Nov-08 18:41, Darren New wrote:
> This is actually a real-live patent application.
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2008/11/17/halliburton-tries-to.html
>
>
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20080270152&OS=20080270152&RS=20080270152
>
>
I heard another way to make money from the patent system a few weeks ago
when preparing to write my own patent.
The idea is simple. A lawyer writes a letter to a company that holds a
patent claiming that it is going to sue that company because the patent
is invalid. Either because of non originality or prior art. The neat
thing is that often you can indeed find that if you search deep enough,
mostly because an inventor has talked about it to somebody before filing
the patent. And indeed most patents are rather obvious. Anyway you don't
have to specify on what grounds you are going to contest the patent
because you only have to start an investigation after the company
refuses to pay you for dropping the case. Even if you don't succeed, the
company will have to spend much more money in defending than in paying
you, so they will think twice the next time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> mostly because an inventor has talked about it to somebody before filing
> the patent. And indeed most patents are rather obvious.
The rules in the USA are somewhat different. IANAL. But "non-obvious" means
"it's not the same as a combination of things already patented." It doesn't
mean "any idiot would have thought of that."
And you get a year here between telling people about it and filing for a
patent, which seems to me a pretty stupid way of working things, given that
a patent is supposed to encourage you to tell people about it.
> have to specify on what grounds you are going to contest the patent
> because you only have to start an investigation after the company
> refuses to pay you for dropping the case.
That is a pretty interesting approach, tho. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
