23 Jan
2007
23 Jan
'07
7:33 a.m.
I was lazily browsing the 'web when I came across this one - apparently
a project to create a storage medium with extremely long life times.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/300636_msftimmortal22.html
-Tore :)
23 Jan
23 Jan
11:43 a.m.
On 23 Jan 2007 at 13:33, Tore Sinding Bekkedal wrote:
I was lazily browsing the 'web when I came across
this one - apparently
a project to create a storage medium with extremely long life times.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/300636_msftimmortal22.html
Microsoft is trying to patent the gold-plated disc attached to
Voyager 30 years ago? I hope they cite it as "prior art"!
Cheers,
Chuck
11:51 a.m.
On 23/01/07, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 23 Jan 2007 at 13:33, Tore Sinding Bekkedal wrote:
I seem to remember the movie, "Ten things to do in Denver when your
Dead," has shows the concept of saving images and sounds (in the form
of video tape) for replay to other after the death of an individual.
Although I have to show my ignorance as I don't know the exact content
of the patent application.
Simon
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, an engineer is not concerned with the truth; that is left to
philosophers and theologians: the prime concern of an engineer is
the utility of the final product."
Lectures on the Electrical Properties of Materials, L.Solymar, D.Walsh
I was lazily browsing the 'web when I came
across this one - apparently
a project to create a storage medium with extremely long life times.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/300636_msftimmortal22.html
Microsoft is trying to patent the gold-plated disc attached to
Voyager 30 years ago? I hope they cite it as "prior art"! 
12:23 p.m.
"Prior Art" has no standing anymore. Its now, who gets there first
with the patent. Been that way for about 5 years now (maybe longer)
when they changed the law.
On 1/23/07, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 23 Jan 2007 at 13:33, Tore Sinding Bekkedal wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
I was lazily browsing the 'web when I came
across this one - apparently
a project to create a storage medium with extremely long life times.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/300636_msftimmortal22.html
Microsoft is trying to patent the gold-plated disc attached to
Voyager 30 years ago? I hope they cite it as "prior art"!
Cheers,
Chuck
12:38 p.m.
Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
"Prior Art" has no standing anymore. Its
now, who gets there first
with the patent. Been that way for about 5 years now (maybe longer)
when they changed the law.
I don't believe that's correct even in the US. I think the USPO will
only search the database of existing patents for prior art (along with
one or two other places). You can still invalidate a patent by showing
prior art (e.g. sales literature, technical manuals etc.) just as you
can invalidate it by showing that the idea would have been "obvious
to one skilled in the art". It's just that both of those options
are expensive even if you win and often a company targetted by a
lawsuit will pay licencing fees just because it is cheaper to do so.
Antonio
12:41 p.m.
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 11:23 -0600, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
"Prior Art" has no standing anymore. Its
now, who gets there first
with the patent. Been that way for about 5 years now (maybe longer)
when they changed the law.
That's about the proper summary statement. I think I'll file the
serial numbers off that, and use it myself! (You didn't patent that,
did you?)
Ahem. Do keep in mind, however, what a patent is, and what it does.
It is basically a contract with the government. You GIVE the idea into
the public domain -- you have to supply all relevant diagrams, source
code, or whatever, to be able to re-create the process being patented --
and in return, the government will prevent anyone else making money from
your idea.... (wait for it) ... for 17 years.
Unless this is a scam from the get-go, what is the point in trying
to patent an "eternal" protocol, if protection only lasts 17 years? As
I see it, about the time anyone wants to read these "eternal" systems,
the technology to produce readers will be in the public domain. Around
the time it would be successful, it becomes free. Can that be all there
is? I have a lot more respect for the marketing arm of Microsoft than
to think they just blew it. Could it be they are so focused on the next
quarter's profits? THAT is the mystery: How will M$ make a profit from
this after 17 years. Are they going to run a zombie version of MSN?
(Some would say it *IS* a zombie network now...)
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
12:42 p.m.
On Tuesday 23 January 2007 09:23, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
"Prior Art" has no standing anymore. Its
now, who gets there first
with the patent. Been that way for about 5 years now (maybe longer)
when they changed the law.
Sorry, not true. A large portion of my business (and Sellam's) is based on the
use of prior art in patent litigation suits. I love killing patents with
prior art :-)
Lyle
KF6CGI
On 1/23/07, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com>
wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2007 at 13:33, Tore Sinding Bekkedal wrote:
> > I was lazily browsing the 'web when I came across this one - apparently
> > a project to create a storage medium with extremely long life times.
> >
> > http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/300636_msftimmortal22.html
>
> Microsoft is trying to patent the gold-plated disc attached to
> Voyager 30 years ago? I hope they cite it as "prior art"!
>
> Cheers,
> Chuck
--
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
Mountain View, CA
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
1:25 p.m.
Have it as you will, but the law was changed a few years ago, and I
noticed it because I have several "prior art" claims I could make.
When I saw it I realized that it was no longer a defense to say "I
meant to apply, but just dint get around to it, and here is the
documentation to prove I thought of it first." So I threw out all my
notebooks. Well most of them anyway.
But its your call if you want to waste the time.
On 1/23/07, Lyle Bickley <lbickley at bickleywest.com> wrote:
On Tuesday 23 January 2007 09:23, Jim Isbell, W5JAI
wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
"Prior Art" has no standing anymore.
Its now, who gets there first
with the patent. Been that way for about 5 years now (maybe longer)
when they changed the law.
Sorry, not true. A large portion of my business (and Sellam's) is based on the
use of prior art in patent litigation suits. I love killing patents with
prior art :-)
Lyle
KF6CGI
On 1/23/07, Chuck Guzis <cclist at
sydex.com> wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2007 at 13:33, Tore Sinding Bekkedal wrote:
> > I was lazily browsing the 'web when I came across this one - apparently
> > a project to create a storage medium with extremely long life times.
> >
> > http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/300636_msftimmortal22.html
>
> Microsoft is trying to patent the gold-plated disc attached to
> Voyager 30 years ago? I hope they cite it as "prior art"!
>
> Cheers,
> Chuck
--
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
Mountain View, CA
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
2:39 p.m.
Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
Have it as you will, but the law was changed a few
years ago, and I
noticed it because I have several "prior art" claims I could make.
When I saw it I realized that it was no longer a defense to say "I
meant to apply, but just dint get around to it, and here is the
documentation to prove I thought of it first." So I threw out all my
notebooks. Well most of them anyway.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2128.htm
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2129.htm
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200_2202.htm#sect22
02
All these suggest you can say "here is some prior art" and have it
entered
into the published patent. This doesn't immediately invalidate it (you
still presumably need a court case for that!) but it is free!
Antonio
12:45 p.m.
On 23 Jan 2007 at 11:23, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
"Prior Art" has no standing anymore. Its
now, who gets there first
with the patent. Been that way for about 5 years now (maybe longer)
when they changed the law.
Another sign that the bean counters are winning I used a checksum in
the last bit of code I wrote. To whom do I send royalty payments? ;(
Cheers,
Chuck
2:56 p.m.
"Jim Isbell, W5JAI" wrote:
"Prior Art" has no standing anymore. Its
now, who gets there first
with the patent. Been that way for about 5 years now (maybe longer)
when they changed the law.
Recent conversations with an engineer who works for lawyers finding
"prior art" would indicate there is some flaw in this comment.
They're certainly paying him regularly to find it, so it must have
some value in fighting patents.
(and I suspect that sort of thing causes some of the "does anyone have
a copy of frozzbozz version 2.0 disk + manual" traffic on this list)
-brad
5:34 p.m.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
"Prior Art" has no standing anymore. Its
now, who gets there first
with the patent. Been that way for about 5 years now (maybe longer)
when they changed the law.
Has anybody filed for chiseling data into stone?
How about flaking flint to get a sharp edge?
How about creating combustion (FIRE (tm))
6:39 p.m.
I believe those items fall under the other heading mentioned,
"obvious". Also, I doubt there would be much money to be made from
the first two of those patents......another motivation for seeking for
patents. As for the one that has commercial possibilities, creating
fire, that would not be patentable except as it applied to a
particular method. Fire itself is not an invention its a natural
process of decay. The commercial methods have all been patented in
one way or another...i.e. Internal combustion gasoline engine (patent
has run out), diesel engine (patent has run out), etc.
On 1/23/07, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
"Prior Art" has no standing anymore.
Its now, who gets there first
with the patent. Been that way for about 5 years now (maybe longer)
when they changed the law.
Has anybody filed for chiseling data into stone?
How about flaking flint to get a sharp edge?
How about creating combustion (FIRE (tm))
6:50 p.m.
They weren't considered "obvious" at the time.
(note also, that I proposed patenting "creation of combustion", NOT
patenting the existence of combustion (THAT I only trademarked))
EVERYTHING is "obvious" after some years.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
I believe those items fall under the other heading
mentioned,
"obvious". Also, I doubt there would be much money to be made from
the first two of those patents......another motivation for seeking for
patents. As for the one that has commercial possibilities, creating
fire, that would not be patentable except as it applied to a
particular method. Fire itself is not an invention its a natural
process of decay. The commercial methods have all been patented in
one way or another...i.e. Internal combustion gasoline engine (patent
has run out), diesel engine (patent has run out), etc.
On 1/23/07, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
> > "Prior Art" has no standing anymore. Its now, who gets there first
> > with the patent. Been that way for about 5 years now (maybe longer)
> > when they changed the law.
>
> Has anybody filed for chiseling data into stone?
> How about flaking flint to get a sharp edge?
> How about creating combustion (FIRE (tm))
6:58 p.m.
But I don't think the patent office was open yet when those
"inventions" were made? Now they cannot be patented because they are
obvious....
On 1/23/07, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
They weren't considered "obvious" at the
time.
(note also, that I proposed patenting "creation of combustion", NOT
patenting the existence of combustion (THAT I only trademarked))
EVERYTHING is "obvious" after some years.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
I believe those items fall under the other
heading mentioned,
"obvious". Also, I doubt there would be much money to be made from
the first two of those patents......another motivation for seeking for
patents. As for the one that has commercial possibilities, creating
fire, that would not be patentable except as it applied to a
particular method. Fire itself is not an invention its a natural
process of decay. The commercial methods have all been patented in
one way or another...i.e. Internal combustion gasoline engine (patent
has run out), diesel engine (patent has run out), etc.
On 1/23/07, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
> > "Prior Art" has no standing anymore. Its now, who gets there first
> > with the patent. Been that way for about 5 years now (maybe longer)
> > when they changed the law.
>
> Has anybody filed for chiseling data into stone?
> How about flaking flint to get a sharp edge?
> How about creating combustion (FIRE (tm))
24 Jan
24 Jan
12:26 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
When you consider many of the patents they have accepted,
"swinging sidewise on a swing set" for example, I don't think
you'd have much problem patenting anything you wanted to.
But I don't think the patent office was open
yet when those
"inventions" were made? Now they cannot be patented because they are
obvious....
Good point.
I guess that I'll have to file quicker next time.
5:24 p.m.
New subject: HP 9836 on Dovebid
http://www.dovebid.com/assets/display.asp?ItemID=tbd311914
No bids yet @ $25
Bob
5:36 p.m.
New subject: HP 9836 on Dovebid
On 1/24/07, Bob Rosenbloom <bobalan at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
http://www.dovebid.com/assets/display.asp?ItemID=tbd311914
No bids yet @ $25
Bob
Also a 9826. Ends 1/25/07. Reading, PA. Large lot. Shipping would
be expensive.
http://www.dovebid.com/assets/display.asp?itemid=tbd312252
5:59 p.m.
New subject: HP 9836 on Dovebid
In article <1e1fc3e90701241436k14fcca31vdd6a4cae9cf7f751 at mail.gmail.com>,
"Glen Slick" <glen.slick at gmail.com> writes:
Also a 9826. Ends 1/25/07. Reading, PA. Large lot.
Shipping would
be expensive.
http://www.dovebid.com/assets/display.asp?itemid=tbd312252
"Expensive" would depend on where you are. If Reading, PA is within
driving distance, then shipping will be just time and gas.
FWIW, my crappy CTS experience cost me $550 to have one pallet shipped
from Reading,PA to SLC,UT.
I won't use them again, of course, it was a night and day difference
between Craters & Freighters and CTS. C&F was awesome and CTS sucked.
BTW, the "Tektronix Monitor 920 IT" is actually a Tektronix 9201T
terminal -- which is really just a 4205 color graphics terminal
rebranded for test instrument bundles. My guess is that the terminal
originally went with one of these:
<http://www.dovebid.com/assets/display.asp?ItemID=tbd311738>
<http://www.dovebid.com/assets/display.asp?ItemID=tbd312190>
<http://www.dovebid.com/assets/display.asp?ItemID=tbd311479>
I didn't see any mention of the keyboard, so it might be thrown in
with another lot of "PC keyboards" since they seem to think the
terminal is a "monitor".
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
23 Jan
23 Jan
8:09 p.m.
I make the claim of a device to detect radio-frequency signals. Said
device employs a mineral (e.g. galena) and a method of making
electrical contact to a sensitive portion of said mineral. Said
method may include, but is not limited to a fine wire or other
electrically conductive material.
There. I've invented the crystal set.
Cheers,
Chuck
11:27 p.m.
Wow, and I suppose you will now become rich with the proceeds. Can I
be your friend since I knew you when you were just poor?
On 1/23/07, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
I make the claim of a device to detect radio-frequency
signals. Said
device employs a mineral (e.g. galena) and a method of making
electrical contact to a sensitive portion of said mineral. Said
method may include, but is not limited to a fine wire or other
electrically conductive material.
There. I've invented the crystal set.
Cheers,
Chuck
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
6390
days inactive
6391
days old
21 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
arcarlini＠iee.org -
bobalan＠sbcglobal.net -
brad＠heeltoe.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
fryers＠gmail.com -
glen.slick＠gmail.com -
jim.isbell＠gmail.com -
kth＠srv.net -
lbickley＠bickleywest.com -
legalize＠xmission.com -
toresbe＠ifi.uio.no -
wizard＠voyager.net