| Author |
Message |
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:06 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes:
| Quote: | Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
Not to mention that if the builders knew it, then it wouldn't be
novel.
But that the builders knew 3-4-5 needn't mean they understood the
generalization.
|
Good point. You'd have to distinguish your notion from the prior art,
but that's doable (using wording like "a right triangle of arbitrary
size"). You'd probably have a hard time getting past the "law of
nature" though. And it's not clear what you'd patent. If it was
merely constructing triangles with those dimensions, obviously
everybody already does it, whether they understand how or not, so it's
not new. So it would have to be something like a "method for
calculating the length of a side of a triangle", and I'd expect that
to get rejected under the argument that you didn't actually invent
anything, you merely discovered what the relationship already is.
On the other hand, if you discovered a novel *way* of computing the
length of the side (say, using a laser and some mirrors), you'd have
no problem.
| Quote: | So if it's a general law, you can't take out a patent, but if it's a
mathematical method, you can?
|
That's my understanding. A method seems to have to have a series of
steps that don't merely reflect the law.
| Quote: | At this point, I wonder about copyright in prime numbers: as a
non-mathematician I'd guess that you might reasonably have copyright
|
You can't copyright a number. Period, I believe. I'm fairly certain
that you can't even trademark one, which is why Intel named the
follow-on to the 286, 386, and 486, "Pentium" and why car
manufacturers make sure that their model numbers have letters in them
as well.
| Quote: | or a patent in some method for discovering prime numbers, but not the
number itself. You haven't invented the number, after all; and that
it's prime looks like a "law of nature" to me.
|
Right. (Standard disclaimers.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The law of supply and demand tells us
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that when the price of something is
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |artificially set below market level,
|there will soon be none of that thing
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |left--as you may have noticed the
(650)857-7572 |last time you tried to buy something
|for nothing.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:08 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | So if it's a general law, you can't take out a patent, but if it's a
mathematical method, you can?
|
It still has to be tied in some formalistic way to the real world, like a
method implemented on a computer in some way. Plus, the mathematical
method can't be of a sort of 'general law' sort (e.g., a mathematical
method that computes something in accordance with the Pythagorean formula
would be no good [even if it were just discovered]). Outside the US there
are generally greater restrictions, but these are currently in flux, from
what I understand.
--
Steny '08! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:08 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
R J Valentine wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:37:35 GMT Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote:
...
} I don't know what's been happening lately, but it used to be
} the only thing you had to provide a working model for was a
} perpetual-motion machine.
I'm suspecting a little spark of humor there, but isn't that the one thing
they wouldn't even look at? Is that by law or is it right there in the
Constitution? (ObBob: IWLIUBICBBJN)
|
You are correct sir. It's at least in the MPEP and I suspect there's case
law that talks about perpetual-motion machines being inherently
unpatentable on grounds of total bogosity. I, too, suspect more than a
little spark of humor.
--
Steny '08! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Heindl
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:03 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I don't know what's been happening lately, but it used to be
the only thing you had to provide a working model for was a
perpetual-motion machine.
|
In earlier days (up till 1880) a working model was gnerally required.
See <http://www.patentmodel.org/History.aspx> for more than you
probably care to know about the subject.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply to: xvortren-news@yaxhoo.com) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:06 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In message <vcbzn0nlfrs.fsf@beta19.sm.ltu.se>, Torkel Franzen
<torkel@sm.luth.se> writes
| Quote: | "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes:
At this point, I wonder about copyright in prime numbers: as a
non-mathematician I'd guess that you might reasonably have copyright
or a patent in some method for discovering prime numbers, but not the
number itself.
Nothing reasonable about it. It's all just a matter of what a
particular judge or court happens to decide.
|
Copyright has evolved around works of artistic and literary character
(irrespective of artistic or literary merit, if you can work that out).
A number tout simple falls short.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:15 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In message <4qivfk46.fsf@hpl.hp.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
<kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> writes
| Quote: | "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes:
So if it's a general law, you can't take out a patent, but if it's a
mathematical method, you can?
That's my understanding. A method seems to have to have a series of
steps that don't merely reflect the law.
|
A mathematical method is definitely a no-no in Europe.
| Quote: |
At this point, I wonder about copyright in prime numbers: as a
non-mathematician I'd guess that you might reasonably have copyright
You can't copyright a number. Period, I believe. I'm fairly certain
that you can't even trademark one, which is why Intel named the
follow-on to the 286, 386, and 486, "Pentium" and why car
manufacturers make sure that their model numbers have letters in them
as well.
On the other hand, you can have a trademark for a number in Europe. |
Boeing owns 747, for example.
| Quote: | or a patent in some method for discovering prime numbers, but not the
number itself. You haven't invented the number, after all; and that
it's prime looks like a "law of nature" to me.
Right. (Standard disclaimers.)
See above for the method: a European no-no. |
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:35 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In message <31pmcqF3fe43aU1@individual.net>, Areff <me@privacy.net>
writes
| Quote: | Paul Wolff wrote:
I am told that Unisys Corporation have patents which are expiring about
now (I think their US patent may have expired, but not yet in Europe)
for the use of a certain data compression algorithm to form GIF files,
but these won't monopolise the algorithm as such. If you can use it for
planning the planting of your vegetable patch, go right ahead.
I don't believe that's generally correct under US law, as I was saying to
Erk. The patent monopoly isn't restricted to a particular contemplated
use.
|
It depends, doesn't it?
| Quote: | If you make some software that performs the same data compression
algorithm but for vegetable patch planning purposes, that sounds like
patent infringement to me. Nay? Of course in a formalistic sense the
algorithm isn't monopolized, but we can ignore that.
We can't really say without looking at the source documents. If the |
patent claims only making compressed data files, I'll stick to my
comment; but if it in fact claims something else, all bets are off until
we know what it does claim.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:45 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In message <MPG.1c2144e45fe7dafb989d10@news.individual.net>, don groves
<dgroves@domain.net> writes
| Quote: | In article <pt1kwjgp.fsf@hpl.hp.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum at
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com exposited:
don groves <dgroves@domain.net> writes:
Depends on one's definition of "frivolous". Originally, a patent
was only awarded for a "thing", a made device which did something
original.
When was that? I'm pretty sure that the three main categories of
invention have always been patentable, and one of those is a "method"
for doing something (either something that wasn't done before or a
method for doing something in a novel way).
But I thought the "method" had to be demonstrable in some
physical way, ie, one had to have actually built or designed
something using the method. You either had to have a physical
implementation or detailed drawings of such an implementation
complete with scientific data proving (to the satisfaction of the
examiner) that it would work.
|
You don't usually have to prove it would work. You have to describe how
to make it work.
You would need to provide data if, say, the prior art says use a metal,
and you have discovered that, unexpectedly, titanium gives much better
results than known theory predicts.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:47 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In message <EJXWeRQO6MuBFwOB@fpwolff.demon.co.uk>, Paul Wolff
<bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> writes
| Quote: | In message <4qivfk46.fsf@hpl.hp.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> writes
You can't copyright a number. Period, I believe. I'm fairly certain
that you can't even trademark one, which is why Intel named the
follow-on to the 286, 386, and 486, "Pentium" and why car
manufacturers make sure that their model numbers have letters in them
as well.
On the other hand, you can have a trademark for a number in Europe.
Boeing owns 747, for example.
I just checked. Also in the USA. |
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:04 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In article <Xns95BAA3479D2CCamfmssb@130.133.1.4>, Ray Heindl at
me@privacy.net exposited:
| Quote: | Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote:
I don't know what's been happening lately, but it used to be
the only thing you had to provide a working model for was a
perpetual-motion machine.
In earlier days (up till 1880) a working model was gnerally required.
See <http://www.patentmodel.org/History.aspx> for more than you
probably care to know about the subject.
|
Very nice, thanks! That explains why I thought something
physical was necessary, 1880 was about the time I was old enough
to read the newspaper.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:06 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Paul Wolff wrote:
| Quote: | In message <4qivfk46.fsf@hpl.hp.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> writes
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes:
So if it's a general law, you can't take out a patent, but if it's a
mathematical method, you can?
That's my understanding. A method seems to have to have a series of
steps that don't merely reflect the law.
A mathematical method is definitely a no-no in Europe.
At this point, I wonder about copyright in prime numbers: as a
non-mathematician I'd guess that you might reasonably have copyright
You can't copyright a number. Period, I believe. I'm fairly certain
that you can't even trademark one, which is why Intel named the
follow-on to the 286, 386, and 486, "Pentium" and why car
manufacturers make sure that their model numbers have letters in them
as well.
On the other hand, you can have a trademark for a number in Europe.
Boeing owns 747, for example.
|
Looks like Boeing owns several 747 trademarks in the US too. Seems like
there's something special going on with the x86 stuff that ITLTLUN.
--
Steny '08! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:06 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
don groves wrote:
| Quote: | In article <Xns95BAA3479D2CCamfmssb@130.133.1.4>, Ray Heindl at
me@privacy.net exposited:
[...]
In earlier days (up till 1880) a working model was gnerally
required.
See <http://www.patentmodel.org/History.aspx> for more than you
probably care to know about the subject.
Very nice, thanks! That explains why I thought something
physical was necessary, 1880 was about the time I was old enough
to read the newspaper.
|
And how do you like (and explain) this bit?...
"The Patent Act of July 4, 1836 reestablished the examination system
of 1790... At first the application fee was $30 for United States
citizens, $500 for British subjects, and $300 for any other alien."
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:06 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In message <31s50pF3fe1k5U1@individual.net>, Mike Lyle
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes
| Quote: | don groves wrote:
In article <Xns95BAA3479D2CCamfmssb@130.133.1.4>, Ray Heindl at
me@privacy.net exposited:
[...]
In earlier days (up till 1880) a working model was gnerally
required.
See <http://www.patentmodel.org/History.aspx> for more than you
probably care to know about the subject.
Very nice, thanks! That explains why I thought something
physical was necessary, 1880 was about the time I was old enough
to read the newspaper.
And how do you like (and explain) this bit?...
"The Patent Act of July 4, 1836 reestablished the examination system
of 1790... At first the application fee was $30 for United States
citizens, $500 for British subjects, and $300 for any other alien."
I think that was fixed by the Paris Convention of 1883. Equal rights |
for all!
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:09 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In article <31s50pF3fe1k5U1@individual.net>, Mike Lyle at
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk exposited:
| Quote: | don groves wrote:
In article <Xns95BAA3479D2CCamfmssb@130.133.1.4>, Ray Heindl at
me@privacy.net exposited:
[...]
In earlier days (up till 1880) a working model was gnerally
required.
See <http://www.patentmodel.org/History.aspx> for more than you
probably care to know about the subject.
Very nice, thanks! That explains why I thought something
physical was necessary, 1880 was about the time I was old enough
to read the newspaper.
And how do you like (and explain) this bit?...
"The Patent Act of July 4, 1836 reestablished the examination system
of 1790... At first the application fee was $30 for United States
citizens, $500 for British subjects, and $300 for any other alien."
|
Clearly 60 and 24 years were not enough to erase all enmity.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:20 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In article <slrncsiq09.43.peter@EEPJM.newcastle.edu.au>, Peter
Moylan at peter@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au hath writ:
| Quote: | Bob Cunningham infrared:
I don't know what's been happening lately, but it used to be
the only thing you had to provide a working model for was a
perpetual-motion machine.
How long would it have to keep running in order to substantiate the
claim?
|
The patent was held pending until it didn't stop. If it stopped,
no patent. Known as the Yosarian Rule.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in