Algerian Gets Patent On Building Pyramids?

from the say-what-now? dept

Someone who prefers to be anonymous passed on this short, and not very detailed blurb, claiming that a doctor in Algeria, Assia Bennouar-Abdedaim, figured out "the secret of pyramid building techniques" and has now received a patent on it. Again, the description is lacking in a lot of details, but it says the patent was granted by the National Institute of Industrial Property, but that the doctor also "received recognition" from WIPO for the patent. It also says that both organizations were initially skeptical, but have since been convinced. Unfortunately, the reporting does not give any details for what's actually in the patent -- or if it's some sort of new method for building a pyramid. Of course, the claim that this was uncovering "the secrets" of pyramid building techniques certainly suggests it's not a new method at all, which makes us wonder why there should be any patent. Anyway, we look forward to someone presenting some of the pyramids of Egypt as prior art.

Filed Under: algeria, patents, pyramids

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Darryl, 29 Dec 2010 @ 6:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art

    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.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.