Досконально изучаем все тонкости Вашего заказа!

Ценовая политика:
от 1$ час
(индивидуальный подход к оптовым клиентам)

Связь/Support:
mail4900@rambler.ru

ddos minecraft, ddos bot g bot, illusion ddos bot, kaspersky ddos prevention скачать, программа +для ddos сервера, darkness ddos bot, ddos minecraft, trojan win32 inject ddos ci, ddos deflate, ddos кс сервера, +как провести ddos атаку, ddos prevention, crash ddos, скрипт ddos атаки, http www ddo ru, скачать ddos server, ddos программы скачать, ddos ucoz, ddos бот, скачать ddos атаку

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=w-SoAAAAEBAJ&dq=inassignee:intellectual+ventures

Given the small number of patents actually assigned to ‘Intellectual Ventures’ (according to Google) I wonder under what name most of their filings are actually held?

“In thinking about how to reform the patent system, a good yardstick would be to look for policy changes that would tend to put Myhrvold and his firm out of business.”

LOL

Ohmygod. Derivatives! Andy Grove warned about this in May: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=aw5EZ9BzrgtU

It seems that patent law is now a weapon that can be used to expose any trade secret, see Facebook Ordered (Again) To Turn Over Source Code. So now holding a typical vague all-reaching patent “associating a piece of data with multiple categories” is enough to get access to a well-known company’s entire body of source code – WTF?

I said earlier that I think the patent system should be abolished because it does more harm than good. Actually I’m not even convinced that it does any good at all.

This case alone convinces me of the value of the patent system (but then I am a patent attorney).

Peter T.

I would say that your example of a bird whistle is not dispositive.

Said whistle could be built, a high speed fan blown over it and the recording of the produced sound could be played to flock of starlings, repelling them. This parametric-level testing would be sufficient proof of implementaion for a patent. This could probably be done for a cost of the same order of magnitude as the legal fees.

If the intent is to eliminate patent trolls, anything that makes the mere generation of large amounts of paper (or computer files) profitable will do the job.

1. Allow the patent office to actually to do proper research, hire real experts in the field to examine whether an actual invention occurred

2. Eliminate companies filing for patents by the thousands. In some large companies engineers have quotas of patents to be filed per year.

3. Eliminate the backlog of patent applications – companies would not have to worry that what they are doing now may in fact be already in some application in the multi-year backlog at the patent office

4. It would eliminate the IV business model (too expensive to patent anything which comes to your head)

5. It would still protect ideas which took a lot of money to research (such as medical research into drugs, etc) – protection needed for things expensive to develop but easy to copy.

The only drawback would be that Joe Citizen in his garage could not seek patent protection. I agree. But who are we kidding? When was the last time the lonely inventor was protected by his patent? The lonely inventor may be able to afford a patent but not to fight it anyways. We should give up that notion and be done with it. Maybe there is another way we could protect the lonely inventor, but patents are not it.

Then sitting around blue skying wouldn’t patent out so well. A mechanical/electrical device that actually works isn’t something you can design very well at 50,000 feet.