On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 20:22:40 +0000, gareth wrote:

In fact, by rabbiting on endlessly about it in an off-topic polluting
thread he has destroyed any chance that he might have had for a patent.

If the thread is "off-topic polluting" surely your whining complaints are
only making it more so.

(David Platt) wrote in
:

but as far as I'm concerned it basically means one thing: I shall never
release my work. If the workd will not share it, it will die with me.
End of discussion.

That is entirely your right.


I just hope it's not my only one. We all die alone, so if it really IS
all, I shall bear it. And I shall know I am not the waster, I created, if it
dies like that, it will not be me who wasted it.

(David Platt) wrote in news:u2g7jb-
:

Frankly, patents don't seem to be a good protection for the small
innovator. Not only are they expensive and troublesome to get, but
the cost of enforcing them still falls on your shoulders... big
companies may (and often do) ignore them, use the idea, and figure
that the cost of prosecuting a patent infringement is beyond the means
of a small inventor.



Agreed. I do not think the system will reform. The world will tire of waiting
and make a new way. Given the way software licensing goes, this is already
hapenning. I think the main difference is those who want protection from the
world must either hide very well, or have a great deal of power, and be
effectively invincible already.

Fortunately, though the majority of wealth is owned by about 20 families, if
those families wiped out the rest of humanity, they'd die themselves within
weeks if they didn't learn to hunt berries in wild bushes. Self-preservation
is amazing, but I won't wait around for a philanthropist.

I'll settle for something that lets me go about my business without being
eaten while trying, same as most other animal.

wrote in :

The patent mearly provides probative evidence for your lawyer's arguements
in court.



Then it's worth nothing except to a lawyers, and people richer than their
lawyers. It's certainly worth nothing to me.

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3r6g8$28s$1@dont-
email.me:

Unfortunately, this is no longer true. The U.S. law changed last year
such that prior art isn't so important. Nowadays, it's "first to file".

See http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementat...t_inventor.jsp.


Ok, well, that's the absolute end. US as only world superpower, claiming
tyranny over all creation. Literally! THE END.
For now.... but any change will be after my lifetime, so I'm done.

Radiohead70 wrote in news:m3r76j$av$1@dont-
email.me:

In fact, by rabbiting on endlessly about it in an off-topic polluting
thread he has destroyed any chance that he might have had for a patent.

If the thread is "off-topic polluting" surely your whining complaints are
only making it more so.



Never mind that, the nincompoop doesn't realise that I have not described any
detail of the creation. No-where near enough to give it away. Not that I
want a patent...

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
Never mind that, the nincompoop

Grow up.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:17:03 +0000, gareth wrote:


Grow up.

You first.

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3r6g8$28s$1@dont-
email.me:

Unfortunately, this is no longer true. The U.S. law changed last year
such that prior art isn't so important. Nowadays, it's "first to file".

See http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementat...t_inventor.jsp.


I just learned that First To File is actually not new except in the US! Maybe
this isn;t the big scare after all...
I found this:

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/0...s-has-a-first-
to-file-patent-system-so-you-can-leave-that-prior-art-at-the-door/
"Update: It turns out my understanding of prior art was a bit off,
so the headline on this story is a touch wrong. As Luke Chamberlin
noted via email, prior art is material that was or is in fact
publicly available. He went on to point out that “‘First to invent’
claims on the other hand are often based on material that is *not
publicly available*.” This is in fact a key distinction. In short,
with the new system, if you have prior art, but were not first to
file, you will retain, and I quote Luke again “protection.”
Sorry for the mixup."

Assuming this is true, I should ask again: What form of publication can be
considered a minimum for adequate establishment of prior art to prevent my
work being patented by a troll and used against me?

On 10/11/14 13:50, Brian Howie wrote:
In message , Molly Mockford
writes
At 19:12:34 on Sun, 9 Nov 2014, gareth
wrote in :

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
And, of course, Wiltshire Police will get a copy of your post. Don't
think that just because I am abroad I cannot progress a complaint of
malicious communication against you.

That's fine because as it happens I had already approached Patrick
Geenty,
the chief plod, for his assistance in forwarding my complaint to the
Canary
Islands.

And you lot really think that you are promoting the case for a
moderated newsgroup?? Seems to me that you are in fact promoting the
case for radio ham euthanasia.
-------------

Sometimes it's hard to believe this is meant to be fun. I don't know
why some of you just can't lighten up.

B
========

+1

Frank , GM0CSZ / KN6WH in IO87AT