If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Lost In The Latest Apple Watch Patent Battle: The ITC Loophole Creates A Mess
- Stupid Patent of the Month: Selfie Contests
- Error 402: Information Sorta Wants To Be Expensive; Information Almost Wants To Be Free
- FTC Finally Goes After Big Pharma And Its Fraudulent Orange Book Patent Listings
- FTC Warns Pharma Companies That It May Go After Them For Sham Patent Listings Designed To Delay Generic Competitors
Comments on “What Else Can We Patent?”
InB4
1. nina sucks/is a pirate/is a freetard/is an idiot
2. dis comix iz stoopid/nut funne/nut ore-ih-ginal
3. omg nina you don’t know what you’re talking about!
5. TL;DR
6. omg nina you dumbass you shouldve licensed your songs first serves you right you pirate/freetard/imbecile everyone knos that why you are crying in the first place lololololol
7. trololololol
8. OH EM GEE NINA WHY DON’T YOU DO SUMTHING ORIGINAL FOR A CHANGE????? ALL YOU DO IS COPY!!!!!!!!!
9. *insert condescending remark here*
10. *insert rude sarcastic remark here*
Re: Re:
I want to laugh, but I just can’t bring myself to – this is far too realistic for humour. The utterly absurd is becoming commonplace.
Re: Re: Re:
The trolls are here because you feed them. Stop feeding them.
If they don’t go away, it’ll become clear they aren’t here to satiate some sadistic need for troll-food, but they are being paid to astroturf. In that case, click “report” and move on.
Internet 101. Seriously.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and by your definition a troll is anyone who happens to have a different opinion to what you have !!!
So by that definition, everyone you call a troll knows that YOU are a troll.
BWT: a troll is someone who posts in forums, but who does not in any way talk about the actual article.
Guess what, reading your trolly post I not that it fits that definition exactly.
(and therefor so does this…. wait).
Nina’s cartoon sucks..
Ok I am no longer a troll..
But YOU are !
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
umad bro?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
>> umad bro?
He was about to file a patent:
1. Claim a cartoon that mocks a flaw in US patent system, using 3 or more frames, using at least 3 rather different expressions to refer to the object of that flaw.
2. Claim 1, where the cartoon is part of a running series.
3. Claim 1 and/or 2, where the cartoon dialog takes place between 2 or more characters.
4. Claim 1, 2, and/or 3, where a digital version of the cartoon is created.
5. Claim 1, 2, 3, and/or 4, where a digital version is posted online.
6. Any of the foregoing claims, where a digital version is posted onto a blog or blog-like forum.
7. Any of the foregoing claims, where the object of the patent system flaw being mocked is the patentability of material not intended to be patentable by the male parents of the US and who also drafted the US Constitution.
8. Claim 7, where the specific category is emotions.
9. Any of the foregoing claims, where the cartoon depiction closely patterns a reaction humans would have under a similar scenario.
10. Any of the foregoing claims, where 6 or more colors are used in the segment.
11. Claim 2 and any of the foregoing claims, where a reference is made to the primary website associated with the cartoon series.
12. Claim 11, where the reference is presented in an other than natural reading style in the primary language implied by the reference and/or cartoon.
13. Any of the foregoing claims, where the cartoon text is in a Western language and uses 3 or more punctuation marks.
14. Claim 13, where the punctuation marks are normally used to end a sentence.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
>> 1. Claim a cartoon….
We can make it more likely to be awarded a patent by rewording,
“Claim a method which generates a cartoon….”
Re: Re:
This would be a lot funnier if you people didn’t think every opinion that doesn’t match up with your own is trolling.
Re: Re: Re:
this would be a lot more insightful if you could distinguish difference of opinion with knee jerk nay saying and attempting to get a rise from a group of people.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
this would be a lot more… report? Wait what
Re: your a bitch
Zot-Sindi, your a faggot… learn english, fuck-tard!
Re: Re: your a bitch
*you’re
Re: Re: Re: your a bitch
>> *you’re
Don’t be a spoiler.
English For Dummies doesn’t cover that until chapter 6.
Patenting gestures
We know Apple has patented gestures related their devices. Has anyone tried to patent use of the middle finger gesture to express outrage and noncompliance?
I laughed.. then cried....
Initially, I laughed when I read this… then I though about it for a bit…… it made me want to find a lawyer and strangle him with my cordless mouse cable…. sigh…
LOL! and yes! kill all the lawyers! those godless greedy bastard atheists!
Re: Re:
They aren’t godless greedy bastards, the give glory to the (not so much anymore) almighty dollar.
You spelled it wrong...
You should have patented emotICons. That might have stood up…
Process for the physical conveyance of a emotional state.
Seriously, doesn’t that run into the Bilski ruling?
I’m not kidding, I’m actually curious about that.
Re: Re:
“Process for the physical conveyance of a emotional state.”
Not “process for”, you need to use the expression “method and apparatus for [insert here the concept you are trying to patent] “. With those magical keywords, you can get anything through the USPTO
Nina, did you get a patent on truly horrible cartoons?
Re: Re:
No, I think Naturo and DBZ had that patented first. or Spongebob? Dilbert? the one that replaced FarSide (horribly)?
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, I like Dilbert…
Re: Re:
I think I get how this works:
Anonymous Coward, did you get a patent on truly horrible comments?
Re: Re: Re:
No, I think you beat me to it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, devolution:
No, you!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“I’m rubber, your[sic] glue” in 5…4…3…2…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
oh SNIZAP! WICKED BURN, MAN!
Shit, Squirrel, you just got Pizzzowned! Just hang it up… headshot!
Re: Re: Re:
Anonymous Coward> Nina, did you get a patent on truly horrible cartoons?
Squirrel Brains> I think I get how this works
Squirrel Brains> Anonymous Coward, did you get a patent on truly horrible comments?
What kind of shameful disrespect and exploitation of someone else’s intellectual property is that!
Next thing we know, the commenting on techdirt will deviate towards retelling retold jokes.
Re: Put up or shut up
Please show us your superior creative work.
Re: Re: Put up or shut up
I generally don’t like this argument. You can be an art critic without being an artist. However, the AC did not actually add anything of substance. He/She/It did not tell us why it thought the cartoon missed the mark and did not proffer any ideas or thoughts of the subject in general.
So I would say, either:
a) Show us your superior creative work; or
b) Please provide a clear, articulate explanation of why you don’t think Nina quite hit the mark on this one.
Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
b) you can’t patent emotions.
How hard was that?
Re: Re: Re:2 Put up or shut up
Clear and articulate… but wrong.
Well, to be clear, you’re not wrong in your assertion that one cannot patent emotions… you’re wrong in the thought that this was Nina’s point.
She was illustrating the absurdity of patenting the expression of emotions (through silly typographical marks) and the attempt at enforcing that.
Now, to Squirrel’s point… without you actually saying what you just did, I have no idea how you got from “Nina, did you get a patent on truly horrible cartoons?” to “You can’t patent emotions”. Your initial post was unduly critical and, well, assholish as you made an attack at Nina’s artistic ability without actually stating why. Nothing illegal about that or anything… just makes you look like a dick with no actual point to share… just chiming in to be heard and try to hurt someone’s feelings.
Re: Re: Re:3 Put up or shut up
Gabriel, to be fair, there are some patent and some copyrights that are silly. There are exceptional fringe cases in pretty much any legal setting, which don’t make the laws more of less appropriate. If we judged the validity of things only by exceptions, we could close Techdirt down because Mike occasionally makes typos or uses poorly structured sentences.
I didn’t attack Nina’s artistic ability (she has shown the technical ability to produce a cartoon, which is more than many of us can manage). I just find that the content, the actual meaning of most of her cartoons is lacking in any value, adds little to the discussion, and often seems mostly intended to add FUD in a humorous manner.
So for me, her cartoons,while techically well produced, generally are horrible because they either miss the mark, or intentionally misrepresent things to support the Techdirt position.
What I don’t get is how nobody seems to notice that Nina glommed onto Techdirt like a life preserver when she was in the middle of dealing with her errors in the land of Sita. She hasn’t gone away since, and instead has become sort of an in house propaganda tool. Another reason I find her toons to be horrible.
Re: Re: Re:4 Put up or shut up
Nothing of what you say is in error. What you just wrote is very well stated (even if I don’t agree with all of it).
Now where was that when you made an unnecessary attack against Nina? Your initial post was pointless and hostile… didn’t anyone ever tell you that if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything? In this case, if you don’t agree with Nina’s “agenda”, just shut up and don’t read it. Pretty simple.
By saying simply “did you get a patent on truly horrible cartoons” without any elaboration, you are attacking her as an artist. And I’m not the only one who things this, judging by the reaction to your initial post.
Again, then why do you read them? And if you’re reading them just to come on here and attack her freetard agenda, that’s a pretty sad hobby, in my opinion.
You know what I took out of that cartoon? “Gee, they sure do try to patent some pretty silly things out there… hahaha”. That was about it. I didn’t look at it as a rallying-cry to abolish the patent system. I looked at it in the same light as Carlin’s 7 Dirty Words… a humorous take on censorship, not a call to abolish the FCC.
So, with all that, what was the point of coming on here and shooting your mouth off about how horrible her comics are?
So this is your hangup? Your view that Nina is a propaganda tool? Really? Wow. Nice strawman, by the way.
She’s a cartoon artist who illustrates her opinion through sarcasm. I don’t think there’s one of us (well, except you, apparently) who thinks Nina really believes these kinds of patents are commonplace. If I took cartoon artists that seriously, I would call the cops on RK Milholland because he’s obviously going to kill the next person who pisses him off and would never own a cat again after reading Two Lumps.
Bottom line… it’s a cartoon. You seem to be the one coming on here to make some kind of “us v them” point.
Re: Re: Re:5 Put up or shut up
>> I don’t think there’s one of us (well, except you, apparently) who thinks Nina really believes these kinds of patents are commonplace.
At least for software, I get the feeling that for every 10 “sophisticated” patents you can find, someone else will be able to find (a) 100 pathetic ones that clearly would stifle the progress, as well as find (b) 100 more sophisticated works where the author did not seek a patent.
Einstein was very smart to have left the world of patenting and sought his contributions in an area free of patents. He knew he had to leverage off society (like every patent author does frequently without giving credit) in order to be able to make great contributions to society.
Re: Re: Re:5 Put up or shut up
>> Nothing of what you say is in error
Funny, but I think I mostly agree.
“there are some [of something of which in reality at least 1 exists]”
“There are exceptional fringe [.. ditto]”
“I just find [some opinion or other — unverifiable]”
“So for me [..opinion ..unverifiable]”
“What I don’t get [.. expression of confusion — unverifiable and likely]”
However, I have my doubts about
“If we judged [something or other], we could close Techdirt down”
Don’t mean to be disrespectful to AC, but his/her views on patenting are anti-social and anti-progress.. in my opinion of course.
Re: Re: Re:4 Put up or shut up
So for me, her cartoons,while techically well produced, generally are horrible because they either miss the mark, or intentionally misrepresent things to support the Techdirt position.
I suppose that just about anything that pokes fun at your source of income is horrible, isn’t it?
Re: Re: Re:4 Put up or shut up
What I don’t get is how nobody seems to notice that Nina glommed onto Techdirt like a life preserver when she was in the middle of dealing with her errors in the land of Sita. She hasn’t gone away since, and instead has become sort of an in house propaganda tool. Another reason I find her toons to be horrible
we’ll said…
Re: Re: Re:5 Put up or shut up
“What I don’t get is how nobody seems to notice that Nina glommed onto Techdirt like a life preserver when she was in the middle of dealing with her errors in the land of Sita. She hasn’t gone away since, and instead has become sort of an in house propaganda tool. Another reason I find her toons to be horrible”
“we’ll [sic] said…”
Awww, look, it’s an industry troll love affair. Aren’t they cute together?
Re: Re: Re:4 Put up or shut up
With 45 patents issued per year in the US alone I doubt very much that the “fringe cases” are the exception there.
Re: Re: Re:4 Put up or shut up
>> to be fair, there are some patent and some copyrights that are silly. There are exceptional fringe cases in pretty much any legal setting, which don’t make the laws more of less appropriate.
I would be embarrassed to get caught saying this.
Let me check… yes, you did protect your identity with “Anonymous Coward”
You know what the inventiveness standard is in the US. For those who don’t know: “non-obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.”
So AC, do you still want to maintain that a 20 year monopoly given to someone who demonstrates the “non-obvious” to someone of “ordinary” skill helps society?
Do you know of the millions of software developers that exist, how many are above average?
You want to hand-cuff all of those?
Do you know how many are smarter than above average?
You want to hand-cuff all of those?
Do you know how many are genius?
You want to hand-cuff all of those?
Do you know how many are ordinary, yes, but who persevere over problems they first found to be non-obvious?
You want to hand-cuff all of those?
Are you sure about this? Do you really want to go on record as saying you want all of these people tied down for each patent that gets passed? Are you really out to destroy America?
Millions of people unable to legally create freely in each of hundreds of thousands of areas covered by so many software patents is sickening. Anyone wonder why the US is slipping?
Software is cheap to create and distribute. You don’t need 100 million dollars nor will the quantity run out. The manufacturing process is instantaneous. The complexity of software makes re-use and collaboration as important as it is in any academic field (arts or sciences). Many have written top notch software in use by Apple, Google, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, Wall Street, the US gov, the top supercomputers in the world, and many many more groups.. as volunteers as well as by making a healthy salary and name for themselves.
Software-based inventions implemented on general purpose re-programmable devices make the world turn. … Ah, perhaps that is why you like patents! That spells a lot of money for the greedy patent owners and their lawyers.
Software patent claims, being broad descriptions of something else protected are idea monopolies. The SCOTUS will in time clarify that ideas cannot be owned, neither in relation to copyrights nor in relation to patents.
AC, keep your anonymity for wanting to hand-cuff America’s best and brightest (and many “ordinary” as well) and violate the US Constitution wholesale. You would be egged off some stage somewhere if people who saw you knew what you represented.
Re: Re: Re:4 Put up or shut up
>> If we judged the validity of things only by exceptions
We’d all agree the patent system was doing a spectacular job and arguably abiding by its Constitutional requirement to promote the progress.
Re: Re: Re:4 Put up or shut up
>> when she was in the middle of dealing with her errors in the land of Sita
I’m sure you have loads of evidence of these “errors”.
For example, from http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/arts-entertainment/filmmaker-nina-paley-freeing-copyright-for-art-and-profit-53342.html :
“While trying to market the film, one reputable distributor told her that she might realistically expect to make $25,000 over a 10-year contract, perhaps $50,000 in her wildest dreams. The highest advance she was offered by a distributor was $20,000. “
“From March 2009 to March 2010, ?Sita Sings the Blues? brought in $132,259, nearly $75,000 in donations and voluntary fees from screenings and broadcast, $12,500 from awards, and $45,000 in merchandise sales from the film?s website.”
Yeah, sure, perhaps in the early days she made a lot more by sharing than the greedy copyright distributors forecast for her if she exploited the monopolies, BUT how is she doing *today*:
We can take a glance at a single distributor’s current numbers
http://questioncopyright.org/files/finances/store-details.txt to see that each month Sita Sings the Blues continues to bring in significant donations and sales, for example, over $1000 in July.
Do you know how many hours people making minimum wage have to work each month to earn that money? This is only one distributor (at least that is my interpretation of those numbers). This isn’t peanuts or pennies. It’s equivalent to a lot of physical labor each month. She has many other sources of income. This isn’t a bad way to make a living. And it happened, not thanks to copyright law, but thanks to the Internet and the removal of copyright restrictions.
I appreciate you helping us gain insight into Nina’s many errors.
Re: Re: Re:3 Put up or shut up
Is that like masturbation? Or is it more like just being flaccid? Are you’re saying the AC’s comments are masturbatory ejaculate? Or that the AC’s comments are limp and lame?
Re: Re: Re:3 Put up or shut up
I wouldn’t bother with the Shill/troll. He could of said he disagrees and gone on to explain why without personally attacking the author and/or engaged in honest debate. But what did he do? He just insulted Nina like a child…pathetic
When the Shills result to insulting you Nina, you’ve hit your mark. Good Job.
Re: Re: Re:2 Put up or shut up
b) you can’t patent emotions.
How hard was that?
As easy as saying SONY.
SCEA Experimenting With ?Laugh Detecting?, Emotion Tracking Software – August 14, 2009
“Laughter? as a ?controller?? It sounds funny on paper, but Sony Computer Entertainment America seems serious about the concept considering they filed a patent for a laugh detecting program.
The application picks up on metadata, which includes laughter recorded by the microphone and a user?s expression from the camera. Both devices are linked to a ?game console?, shown as a PlayStation 3 in the diagram, which identifies the user, notes emotions, and transfers the data over a network.
How will Sony identify emotions? The patent mentions identifying body gestures and tracking group interactions ?such as when two individuals give each other a ?High Five.?? Sony also developed smile detecting software for their Cyber Shot W120 camera which could be used too.
While the patent focuses on laugher it can identify other emotions such as sadness, excitement, anger, joy, interest, and boredom. For example, boredom may be detected if a user is ?looking away from the presentation, yawning, or talking over the presentation.?
The software isn?t limited to video games. It can also be used for TV shows, films, and other media presentations, but we?ll drop those for now.
What do you think of a game that can read your emotions? Perhaps, an RPG that changes its story or the way the characters interact based on how you react.
Can’t wait for the patent lawsuits to fly when Xbox and Wii start detecting emotions.
Re: Re: Re:3 Put up or shut up
Tracking the emotion, not patenting the emotions. Try again.
Re: Re: Re:4 Put up or shut up
It’s all part of the same ball of wax. Use “emotions” in controlling a video game, and watch how fast SONY sues you for violating their patent. It’s “all” about “controlling”, because you can’t perpetrate a “Con” without a “Troll”… Patent Trolls.
Next, I suppose you’ll be telling us that human gene sequences that occur naturally in DNA are unpatentable because they appear in nature.
Re: Re: Re:5 Put up or shut up
They will then start patenting the use of the emotions (aka emotion-script) to control games or whatever.
Re: Re: Re:5 Put up or shut up
Someone patented the action of plucking them (with any and all technology imaginable) and putting them in a petri (or any imaginable) dish to do anything useful or imaginable with them. This is all that is patented.
It’s still NOT an intellectual property violation of that inventor if you keep your genes on. As long as no one can look or touch, you are OK.
Re: Re: Re:4 Put up or shut up
>> Tracking the emotion, not patenting the emotions.
Do you also mean something similar to how a computer is instructed by the software?
I can see a device which behaves according to the verbal cues and emotions installed on it by its owner.
Then we’ll start seeing the emotionware patent lawsuits.
1. Claim a process where a smart house is coordinated to turn on the TV to a comedy channel and possibly play certain pre-recorded video segments by cues given to it by the house inhabitants.
Then when Mary Robinson programs her new house by setting the house to learn mode and speaking into the house “ear” a sample of her voice and laugh patterns, subsequently changing to the video feed for comedy and setting a few options, she will have violated the patent. And when she sends a copy of this recorded emotionware to her friends so they too can get the same effect, she will be infringing on the patent as well.
Once upon a time, software developers, hardware engineers, and mathematicians, laughed when you mentioned that software would be patentable.
Re: Re: Re:2 Put up or shut up
I think you miss the point. I am do not believe she is actually saying that you can, or that you will be in the future. There is a certain level of hyperbole, a little over the top for a chuckle.
I think the main point is that businesses love monopolies and will use their organizational skills and resources to try to expand what they can get a monopoly on. The patent system is a tool that has been fairly effective in granting those monopolies beyond the intended purpose of a patent. It would not be a stretch of the imagination for some entity to try and so some as ridiculous as patent emotions (if they haven’t done it already.
Re: Re: Re:2 Put up or shut up
If the entirety of your dislike for the cartoon is your lack of comprehension of the fact that Nina is not actually suggesting that emotions could be patented, you should experience more of the use of absurd humor as a method of criticism.
I am so gonna do it....
I am going to patent a way to make it legal process for me to make a monopoly of making it legal to do things. Then I will have the US congress by the gonads.
Re: I am so gonna do it....
would we even notice if congress couldn’t do legal things?
What Else Can We Patent
I would like to patent patents please.
Re: What Else Can We Patent
Find a way to phrase it as though its a new technology and you would probably be granted one.
“An electronic method by which one exerts an artificial construct over both tangible and non-tangible inventions”
I actually think that is less vague than some of Apples recent patents.
Well Done
I have read dozens of Nina’s “Mimi And Eunice” comics and laughed silently. This one made me laugh out lud and it was quite loud at that =)
Which patent did I just violate with the =) emoticon?
It’s a trademark and not a patent (and was done somewhat as a joke) but the concept is close enough for this discussion:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=75502288
and
http://www.despair.com/frownonthis.html
I Second That Emotion
Oops, copyright violation.
Re: I Second That Emotion
Oops, copyright violation.
Yep, Smokey Robinson, 1967.
Patent is A freaking METHOD, not a RESULT... Geezz
Of course you cannot patent a emotion, but you can patent A METHOD of achieving an emotion.
But if you think there is ONLY ONE POSSIBLE METHOD to create an emotion then this would be an issue.
Now it’s just purile, and stupid, and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of something THAT FREAKING SIMPLE !!!!!!
If I invent a machine that makes you fell “happy”, that machine uses “A METHOD”, that does not stop you inventing a machine to make you happy it only stops you re-inventing something that someone else has allready invented.
That’s probably there is more that ONE Joke in the world, or more than one comidy, or more than one ‘tear jerker” movie.
Because if you could patent the RESULT and not the METHOD that would be the case.
“You cannot produce that movie, it might make people happy and that is a violation of my patent !!!” yea right….
Get a grip !!!! how about actually LEARNING something, like WHAT A PATENT IS before shooting off without thinking…
If you do not understand the patent system, or even the basic concept of what a patent is. What right do you have to comment on it ?
Lucky there is not a patent on stupidity !!!
Re: Patent is A freaking METHOD, not a RESULT... Geezz
I suppose you think you had a point. Unfortunately for you, you completely failed to make one. Try again?
Re: Patent is A freaking METHOD, not a RESULT... Geezz
I suppose you think you had a point. Unfortunately for you, you completely failed to make one. Try again?
Re: Re: Patent is A freaking METHOD, not a RESULT... Geezz
You are right, I was not making a point, I was just stating a FACT….
Here is me making a point:
– Patents are a Method of achieving a result
another point:
– There is more that one way to skin a cat.
You do not ever patent “A printing machine” you patent a METHOD of printing on paper.
So if you were smart enough to invent and patent a “dot matrix printer” you are most certainly not locked out of the printing on paper industry.
No, if you patent ANOTHER METHOD of printing on paper, may be a Laser Printer nothing is stopping you patenting that NEW METHOD of printing.
You do not get a patent on “printing” but a patent of a WAY to print.
And that is why I find it so sad and amazing that Mike does not appear to understand that basic fact !
I do know why, because it would mean that his entire ‘argument’ against patents would fall in a hole.
Why someone who claims so much knowledge in a field would make and continue to make these kinds of statements is quite odd to me.
I have presented several patents, and I clearly well know the process that is involved. According to Mike I would have never been able to patent anything I have had patented.
I have even patented a method that was applied to another technology, and applied it to a new technology, that was totally different, same method two different results, two different patents.
Because the original patent was “A method of charging batteries”, my patent was a method of modifying the transmittance of electrochromic glass.
It just so happend that the electrical nature of the electrochromic glass substrates had similar charasics to electrochemical cell’s (batteries).
I did not invent that by looking at battery chargers, I invented that method by an electrical analysis of the device, and tailored the circuit to suit the application.
Starting from first principles (clean room if you like), the fact that it ended up the same method that was applied in another field ment it was a NEW method and application of something allready known.
I doubt if too many people here would understand that, and the rest (most of) will probably not want to hear that.
I believe Mike is either being deliberately decepting, or we’ll I dont know, he MUST know what a patent is, he talks about them enough, says he even reads them !
I have also patented a “depth sounder” or fish finder, have you ever seen one of those things ?
Common right, I could of purchased one and reverse engineered it, or I could get text books out and design it as any engineer would from first principles.
Mike, how many patents have you prepared ? how many times have you gone through the quite long and involved process of submitting a patent and having it approved ?
Do you know the process ? or do you prefer to just guess ?
?!
so if a little bubble pops up above your head with a questions mark and an exclamation mark then we had better watch out.
have you seen much of that recently ?
would not ?! be prior knowledge ?! (woops)…
since when does the two charactors ?! = helpless outrage ?
Oh yea, since Mike found Nina… (how you two getting along now??????!!!!!)
Re: ?!
I don’t think you have watched SIGGRAPH 2011 technical presentations yet dude LoL
Pay special attention to things like augmented reality, realtime camera tracking that can be used to animate 3D characters.
Easy steps to fame, fortune, and 20 years of monopoly
Mimi: I overheard my smart coworkers discussing an advanced new invention.. and went and patented it!
Eunice: Can you do that?
Mimi: Why not? I’m “ordinary”, found it “non-obvious”, and beat them to the post office.
Re: Easy steps to fame, fortune, and 20 years of monopoly
It’s not clear in this dialogue that Mimi need not really understand the invention. Mimi can just write up an outline of it as patent claims in order to pass the inventiveness test: “non-obvious” to a person having “ordinary” skill in the art.
Subliminal delay
Eunice: [frustrated] Patent law evolves so slowly.
Eunice: 20 years for each new step
Mimi: Patent law is auto patented