I can hear the CEOs of all the big companies now saying... "Shit, we can steal the best inventions of all the small tech startups and they can't do a thing to stop us and our employee wouldn't think of leaving us to start their own company now !"
I agree, the 2 painted bands are much different than grooves. Just goes to show you how incognitive some people are. And they send letters to their Congressman saying that patents are ruining their life. Oh brother. Alexa Jackson should get a job at the CDC.
The patentability of a design (shape) extends to every nuance, the size of the stripes, the number of stripes, even the curvature and size of the pick. Every feature must be shown in another reference, in complete detail. Apparently, no reference exactly like this toothpick exists. Show me a reference, and chances are, I can point out a difference between the reference and this pick, however small. On the other hand, to infringe, the infringing toothpick must be exactly the same as in this toothpick patent.
Did anyone commenting here consider that the toothpicks in the link from Michael (patent fool) Masnick has 3 indentations, and the design of the design patent shows 2 indentations.
Since design patents are limited to the exact design in the drawings of the design patent, there is a difference. Design patents protect the aesthetics of the shape, which includes every little difference.
Agreed. People wouldn't want their data encrypted if the U.S. gov't wasn't reading all of our communications trying to find incriminating information in the first place. Many people worry that their emails and phone calls criticizing gov't policy are stored somewhere and will be used by some presidential administration to audit their tax returns or put them under some special surveillance. The general surveillance of all electronic communications that is being conducted w/o any "probable cause" for a search warrant is just wrong and unconstitutional. These are private communications and not public communications, which requires a search warrant.
I know a retired chief petty officer from the Navy, who retired about 4 years ago, who told me, before Snowden's revelations "that all calls are recorded." The retired Navy guy has alluded to even greater extent of the surveilance.
Software should be a patentable for the same reasons that any invention should be patentable. I say this as a person whose has spent 18 years of his career as a software engineer for which one of my ideas back in the 1990's is now used by a lot of people.
Not really. What will happen is that the patent attorneys, all being engineers by training, will specialize in forensic discovery in divorce cases to uncover all the bad allegations from your spouse from your theft of the inventions of other programmers, and justice will finally be served against the invention thieves that congregate on this board. Ha ha ha !
Perhaps the patent attorneys should become divorce attorneys that specialize in divorce against people who have made a career out of stealing ideas from other programmers and laughed all the way to the bank until their spouse found out they were hiding their ill-gotten gains.
Be careful of what you hope for. Patent attorneys just might want to become divorce attorneys. Next thing you know, you get a petition for marital dissolution, you look up the attorney, and find out the attorney used to work in patents and is now asking the judge for all of your money and your business ownership. Good luck with that.
If I were to make the rules, I would make minimum infringement much higher that the $1000 for which that company is suing consumers, such as at least $50,000, which I think would take away a lot of the fear of patents. That company is the poster child of abusive patent litigants. http://patent-counselors.com/?p=224
Yes, for a limited time (20 years), product competitors get to shut each other out of their inventions, it's been that way in England for almost 1000 years and always that way in the U.S. since the U.S. became a separate nation. If it makes you happy, the 2006 decision Ebay v. Merc prohibited injunctions by patent owners who do not make products in that industry, so they cannot enforce a monopoly.
Yes, the possibility that we could obtain some ROI in the event that a big computer company stole our inventions and put them in their own products and outsold us using their superior marketing and financial power was a factor in our original investment decision 6 years ago. Patents did help us put nearly a million $ in investment in our R&D over 5 years ago, so yes, patents were an incentive. As Pres. Lincoln said "the patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln%27s_patent. App developers wouldn't want patents because they have a short time horizon, but we were in this for the long haul.
BTW - read my other posts here, we do have sales; just atarted sales in 2014; but we are still worried about a large tech company squashing us with superior marketing and financial power. We are involved in voice control of The Internet of Things, and we know from CES that large companies have a huge interest in this market. If they could, they would reverse engineer everything for $100K and steal us blind. We have worked in the computer industry for a long time and have seen that happen to a lot of companies along the way.
My guess is that someone on this board wants big tech companies to steal the inventions of small companies. Where did you ever get the notion that the company with the best technology always wins in the marketplace ? There are many forums of competition; such as technology, marketing, finance and patents. Patent protection is written into the U.S. Constitution, but not technological innovation, marketing prowess or financial prowess.