Abstract: You take a cube and then you cut away everything that doesn’t look like a pyramid.

Perhaps what should be invalidated is the job of the official who examined the application and granted the patent

I know techdirt likes to bash patents as much and as often as possible but is this the best you could come up with?

If techdirt’s goal is to make techdirt look bad, its working. Nice one.

Anyway, we look forward to someone presenting some of the pyramids of Egypt as prior art.

For prior art you have to show,, we’ll prior art, it is clear the pyramids were build ‘somehow’, but not knowing exactly how, is certainly NOT prior art..

And im sure he has patented A method of making pyramids, not necessarily THE method..

And if you can come up with A method, of how to build a pyramid, you are quite within your right to patent it.

But to say, the pyramids were build, therefore there is prior knowledge about EVERY method that could have possibly been used to build them is a JOKE..

Mike, you are supposed to KNOW about these things, why display such ingnorance ?

For prior art you have to show,, we’ll prior art, it is clear the people ‘can’ walk, but not knowing exactly how, is certainly NOT prior art..

And im sure he has patented A method of ‘how’ people walk, not necessarily THE method..

And if you can come up with A method, of how to walk , you are quite within your right to patent it.

But to say, the people can walk, therefore there is prior knowledge about EVERY method that could have possibly been used to walk is a JOKE..

Darryl, you are ignorant and continuously display it.

I thought Techdirt was a reasonably responsible news source.

haha, thats funny.. we’ll now you know 🙂

reasonable — no
responsible — fail
news — no just opinion
Source — if you consider anonymous tips, or Mike’s imagination as a source, then may be…. but really NO.

Once you sell out your reputation, you have nothing left, you just have to scrape the barrel for whatever picking you can find.

Trouble is Mike, believes what he says himself, or he thinks that he commands enough authority to make claims that are clearly untrue and he expects people to ‘buy’ what he says.. and some do !!!!!!!..

I do not understand why some people do buy mikes claims, I guess they just are not interested in independent thought..

I guess its just easier to follow the mantra of the ‘leader’, its saves alot on thinking and gives more time, to support mikes idealogy.

Its just a shame that reality of Mikes is clearly not reality at all.

The pyramids… As arts go it doesn’t get much more prior than that, does it?

You may have to pay a licensing fee to the Ministry of Silly Walks.

What a joke, so if you invent a new way to build a sky scraper, Mike or you are going to say “but skyscrapers allready exist, therefore prior art”.

You will look (correctly) like an idiot !!!

For a prior art case you have to be able to SHOW THE FREAKING PRIOR ART, the the result of that prior art.

You are trying to show A METHOD to do something, dont you get that ??

You are not trying to show THE METHOD, can you see the difference. Or is that just beyond you ?

so when the judge says, “ok, show me the prior art”, what are you going to do ??

Fly him to Egypt ? and go see !!!!! he will again say “ok, show me the prior art”.

Or, “show me the method you believe was used, that is the same as or very similar to the method propesed”.

Can you do that ??

What are you going to say “we’ll the pyramids were build SOMEHOW”. so this patent application has to be right and wrong at the same time.

But “SOMEHOW” is not “HOW”.. and it does not even have to be “HOW” it was done, its simply “A way, or a method” for how it can be done.

And for you or Mike to display such massive ignorance of the subject is amazing.

If I were paying Mike to be a patent and copyright expert, I would have no choice but to fire him.

He clearly, displays little or no grasp of the concepts involved.. or chooses to lie to make a point, but only succeeds in showing everyone who can think that Mike, is a joke and a laughing stock of the little corner of the tech world he pollutes.

Yes, it does annoy me when I see such rubbis trying to pass for actual comment.. and that he expects us to belive it !!!!.

Mike, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but certainly you cannot fool most people anytime..

I assume you’re are being humous.

But along those lines of thinking …
There are an unlimited number of methods with which to obtain certain proportions. I imagine that the various objects across the globe which are referred to as pyramids were probably constructed using a multitude of different methods. I do not see how any of these methods could be considered worthy of a patent unless it involved a new process.

You can patent a skyscraper?
Cool!

darryl:
Your argument that this patent is only one method of possibly many methods to do build a pyramid fails on another point.

It is certainly relevant to observe that many patents have been broadly interpreted in recent years. At times, anything remotely resembling the initial claims in a patent have been grounds for (often successful) lawsuits for alleged infringement.

no you cant, you can patent a method of building a skyscraper. note the difference ?? guess not..

When you say ‘the patent system’ which system exactly are you referring to?

How is it ‘abuse’ if a patent office approves a patent? That is ‘use’ not ‘abuse’. How is this use of the ability to patent something absurd? It may be a useless patent but that does not make it absurd or abuse.

The typical definition of a news source is one that provides news in various different categories; world, local, weather, sports, business, etc. There is some editing, little investigation.

A news story is one story – singular. A blog discussion does not necessarily provide any editing or investigation. There is a difference regardless of your opinion.

Please provide references to back up your claims that TD describes itself as a news source. So far you have not done so.

“Are there lots of people trying to build pyramids? Will this patent prevent anyone from building a pyramid if they wanted to? Will the patent holder become a patent troll and start suing lots of other companies that build pyramids?”

The answer to all three is – probably not. So are you suggesting that the USPTO should grant all patents that we think will not impact anyone? Wouldn’t this dilute the validity of other patents?

bait taken … lol, too easy.

Please provide a reference to a patent granted for a method to build a skyscraper.

Since most patents don’t make it to market, why is this one any different or special?

Why bother with a post at all? Because someone sent it in?

This is the lazy way for techdirt to fill its pages. Like I said, I know techdirt can do better.

“So are you suggesting that the USPTO should grant all patents that we think will not impact anyone?”

No. This post isn’t really about the USPTO anyway, this is WIPO. You know there are patents that have nothing to do with the USPTO, right?

“Wouldn’t this dilute the validity of other patents?”

No, patents are independent from each other. Let’s say that you graduated from the top of your class, does the fact that someone else graduated at the bottom of the class dilute the validity of your education?

What do they call an MD that graduated at the bottom of his/her class? Doctor.

What am I to learn from discussing a patent that has no affect on anything? There is nothing new to discuss here. Why continue to beat a dead horse?

I can understand talking about smartphone patents and many other computer tech related patents. But an Algerian patent on a method to make a pyramid, come on. This has no relevance to our daily lives and little relevance to much of what is on techdirt.

Why is it a problem for you if I point out where I think techdirt gets it wrong? Maybe if you stopped dismissing my comments you would learn something.

haha, and you call yourself a “wiz”, sometimes I have to take a wiz too !!! 🙂

explain, what you mean that my style is infringement please, if you can ?

“There is basically one way to do it without making it insanely difficult on yourself”

You are an archaeologist or civil engineer? Upon what is this conclusion based?

re Egyptian pyramids, I watched a few pbs shows some time ago and remember that there were several competing ideas as to what construction methods were used. On a side note, there also was evidence presented that indicates the workers were not slaves as stated in many sources on the topic.

Feel free to make it up as you go to support your own BS.

and they are not skyscrapers, either, that is an amateur term,

a civil engineer, would call them highrise buildings.

You are correct.
Fair criticism.
— An illustration of how something can be so obvious to a you that you can forget that others can’t read your mind.
How I could have forgotten that on this blog is beyond me.

I cannot believe the amount of tripe that is being posted about this. It really feels as if a couple people have the need to hi-jack any attempt at intelligent conversation on this board.

At any rate, this guy figured out how Stonehenge was built, how the obelisks in Egypt were erected, and how they moved the stones for the pyramids as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4&feature=related

Wouldn’t be nice if we tried finding actual information and cited resources instead of the circle-jerk these comments have become?

Repeating the same thing over and over thinking the result will be different.
There are those who state this is the definition of insanity.

You can lead a horse to water…

Watch the video and think. I was commenting that a guy figured out how to do it not that he claimed to know how our ancestors did it.

We can’t attempt to learn or discuss by shooting from the hip. Not you personally ABC, but a couple other posters have all but ruined any hope of a real discussion.

“Perhaps you’ve been slightly misled by the blog’s name, but Techdirt is by no means strictly limited to technology topics. IP law and economics are huge parts of what gets covered here – even when they don’t directly relate to technology.”

Who said that techdirt should be limited to tech? I used technology as an example but no where did I say that techdirt should stick to just tech. I said that this post is not relevant. So, not sure what you are arguing there, just pointing out what we all know. You must be trying for the Mr. Obvious award for the day.

By the way, no one is ‘worked up’ except maybe you.

Sorry to have misunderstood, but you did state that:

“this guy figured out how Stonehenge was built, how the obelisks in Egypt were erected, and how they moved the stones for the pyramids as well.”

so – you can see how this might be interpreted as I did.

no my ‘strategy’ is more simple than that, when I see bullshit, I respond to it with facts. Not opinion.

You see, in the real world, things do not work the same way as they seem to do in your head.

In the real world prior knowledge has a specific legal definition, it also has a clear moral definition.

Prior knowledge, must be one more thing, that is KNOWLDEGE.

you cannot have prior knowledge with first having knowledge, I know you dont seem to understand that concept, that is probably why I find myself having to repeat myself over and over again, hopeing one day you might ‘get it’.

but if you never get it, thats ok with me, there are at least some here that understand these concepts.

they do not find them confusing at all, I do not need to direct my comments to those who actually understand, I need to try to convince those that think they are right, when they are wrong, those who have little grasp of reality.

Dont you think to have ‘prior knowledge’, you would need some knowledge, that is prior to what has been submitted ?

You dont have that knowledge, but you assume it exists, it did exist at one time, but that method is not necessarily the method used.

They do not know the method they used, but if this method works, by definition there is no prior knowledge.

And I would not have to repeat myself if some of the people here had a better understanding of the real world.

its has great value, it is a constand source of amusement, to see what crazy things mike is willing to claim everyday is almost something to look forward too !!.

Its fun because its just SO EASY, sometimes I wish you guys could actually put up a decent logical argument, that would make me work harder.

But here, that never seems to happen.

maybe I just do not like people who talk bullshit, especially when they are trying to convince others to believe him, for the goal of making money for himself.

I do not understand why someone would sell out their reputation to such a degree for a quick dollar.

Or how someone who claims to be so knowledable in the area seems to get it so consistently wrong…

The main reason why I do it, is because it pisses you guys off so much, its annoying when people make you think right 🙂

The discussion at hand is about someone who claims to have
“penetrated the secret of pyramid building techniques”
and subsequently
“obtained a relevant patent”

This person claims a patent on pyramids and you claimed that one could get a patent on skyscrapers. It is funny.

Yay, RJR! You’re back to comments with less content than your hilariously bad signature.

The next will be the Egiptian Pharaos and Maian Kings being sued for violating his IPR rights… Lets see if the Algerian gov will take his suit.

wow! i see people dont understand what a patent is. She is not looking to patent pyramids she is going for a patent ON HOW TO BUILD A PYRAMID. two different things.
apparently she was successful is finding a great way and a more convincing way of how to build a pyramid. as we know there are plenty of skepticism on how pyramids are build and all the theories put forth have holes in them. her plan seems to be very sound. instead of hating on her, open a book and educate yourselves.