What you do not need is the actual patent, what you do need is everything else before it. You need to know what has been invented in the art and what are "obvious" adaptations of something that exists. You need everything that leads to the patent, just not the patent....or the lawyer (except for research advise).
It should require a trip to DC.
Eventually, after exhausting on-line resources for prior art and existing patents, etc. to determine your products "uniqueness" requirement, you should make a trip to the US Patent Office to do your own research, up close and personal.
While there, look at the people busily going from the copy machine to the files, using the required listing of prior art to make a tree of information from the researched patent. I thought I saw 30 Asian countries with teams.
So the moral of the story is; first, you have to know the intellectual property required to get a patent and that your wigit is truly unique and second, if you get a patent, all your research becomes publicly available. Unlike in "applied for" state, it's confidential.
My wife, a journalist, explains to me that the AP doesn't even have an office in our state. They have no vested interest in bringing balanced news in my community. A small staff simply operates it as a business from another state, choosing what they want to pass on and what they don't. The comment about them respecting Fox request rings true as a way to eliminate "fair use", at the expense of their readers.
Fox knows there is a lot of ammo for the other side, which may or may not be the AP.
They want to shape the news... not report it. This has become a problem in mainstream news on-line comments also. They (media "moderators") are "censuring" in the name of moderation and when someone doesn't like a comment, even when it makes sense, is reasonably argued and contains no names or profanity...it is "flagged" and it is removed quickly.
I'm banned on Bloomberg, PBS, and censored significantly on CNN, especially CNN Money. They simply cannot argue and debate truthfully, openly, because often their arguments fail under analysis. Is that big brother controlling them?
Courts are doing the same thing (ignoring reasoned argument and pleadings) and fraud is prevailing often.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by tindiana.
Re: Need versus desirability
What you do not need is the actual patent, what you do need is everything else before it. You need to know what has been invented in the art and what are "obvious" adaptations of something that exists. You need everything that leads to the patent, just not the patent....or the lawyer (except for research advise).
It should require a trip to DC.
Eventually, after exhausting on-line resources for prior art and existing patents, etc. to determine your products "uniqueness" requirement, you should make a trip to the US Patent Office to do your own research, up close and personal.
While there, look at the people busily going from the copy machine to the files, using the required listing of prior art to make a tree of information from the researched patent. I thought I saw 30 Asian countries with teams.
So the moral of the story is; first, you have to know the intellectual property required to get a patent and that your wigit is truly unique and second, if you get a patent, all your research becomes publicly available. Unlike in "applied for" state, it's confidential.
Re: comments
They don't want commenters to pollute the propaganda. Can't have dissent among the civilians, you know.
Then there is the hired help that simply are paid to lead a conversation astray or disrupt it.
Some good sites still have them because they care what their readers think and can contribute.
Re: AP are a bunch of Progressive Tools
Since when do "sponsors" of public events have exclusive copyright? Were the Iowa organizers so desperate that they made some contractual agreement?
Listen to the crowd reactions to answers...Paul was a hands down winner.
I watched MSNBC News a few minutes ago and they didn't even mention Paul. Who owns/runs MSNBC for them to "shape" the news, not mentioning Paul
AP is subtly reminding us that they're not news reporters
My wife, a journalist, explains to me that the AP doesn't even have an office in our state. They have no vested interest in bringing balanced news in my community. A small staff simply operates it as a business from another state, choosing what they want to pass on and what they don't. The comment about them respecting Fox request rings true as a way to eliminate "fair use", at the expense of their readers.
Re: Re: Donnicaton
Fox knows there is a lot of ammo for the other side, which may or may not be the AP.
They want to shape the news... not report it. This has become a problem in mainstream news on-line comments also. They (media "moderators") are "censuring" in the name of moderation and when someone doesn't like a comment, even when it makes sense, is reasonably argued and contains no names or profanity...it is "flagged" and it is removed quickly.
I'm banned on Bloomberg, PBS, and censored significantly on CNN, especially CNN Money. They simply cannot argue and debate truthfully, openly, because often their arguments fail under analysis. Is that big brother controlling them?
Courts are doing the same thing (ignoring reasoned argument and pleadings) and fraud is prevailing often.