And why dosnt AMD sale the better CPU's then?
Or IBM?
This theory only works when theres no competition.
You could argue they are all in it together, like price fixing, which is possible. But theres little incentive to do that when you would have the power to whipe out the competition with this wonderfull invention.

Same thing happened to the transistor, it was kept in "vaults" all through WWII becouse of making lamps was such a huge business. Still with open source, sustainability, and free information distribution given by the internet, stuff like this will and are becoming a piece of a bygone era. Also, more advanced technology gives more creative power to the people not backed up be huge capital, hence the sort of a explosion with many different sustainable car makers. Advance in private space industry etc.

Darkflame it's a patent thing, you buy out the patent and through this you effectively block the invention.

I believe that a patent should be only and always a lifelong thing for the inventor, and if someone buys it, they have like 2 years to begin production and/or development or it becomes public domain.

I don't know, but I didn't make that up. As far as I know that's a fact.

Well they can be in it together, hence the Anti-Cartel laws. And yeah, buying out patents to block something IS a regular practice, like for instance Exxon mobil I think bought out the company that invented NiMH(or lit-ion can't remember now) batteries, and does not let them produce bigger ones then laptop size, for the obvious reason of making big-size car batteries. If you want a car powerred by those batteries, you got to buy a few hundred laptop batteries instead, wich is too big of a cost.

In Fishosland that would be illegal.

Yeah, patents are a stupid thing anyway, a buyer of a patent should only be able to pay for like a year or two years head start, after that it's public domain.

How about making a model to replace patents? If you/someone has an idea you could set up a website explaining the model and why it is better, and maybe eventually it will make a real change.

This reminds me, a brother of a friend of mine did an invention and sold the thing to General Electrics. He took one part out of a fluorescent lamp starter, or something. And the livetime of the fluorescent lamp would become longer. He was verry young when he did that. I don't belief they ever took it into production, but i'll ask next time if i see him.

Yeah patents are weird. I wonder if there are funny ways around them. Like saying: i made this line of cars as a satire or parody and therefore it is lawful. :D

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/280

Robert Full: How engineers learn from evolution

Robots and so on :)

Thing is, all patents are publicly accessible.
You cant have something a patent and at the same time, secret.
So if there is wonderfull invention X being blocked by company Y, then everyone would know.

Also, a side point, you can only patent a method, not a result. Most of mankinds inventions actualy are "secondary" to someone else already achieving the task, but the method is normaly vastely different and better to the first guys.
Sometimes it just takes someone to show somethings possible, even if their method isnt the one used.

Really?
Because I understood it was simply a scale of production issue.
Its cheaper to buy shitloads of small battarys because they are made for everything.
(heck, even those big 9 Volt battarys are made from AAA's :p)

Also, Exxon mobil are working on their own battary/hybred cars.
Buying a patent to actualy use it is a possibility too, you know.
Not that NiMH battarys are the only option, theres plenty of battary types, and probably the most interesting (imho) is the idea of having the battary fluid itself refilable.

-*edit*
I also found this artical that seems to paint a different picture;
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...1&client=opera

Sorry, but fuck that.
If someone invents something cool they should be able to profit from it.
Under that law, it would just mean any old company would merely just wait two years and copy it themselfs.
Why pay anyone for ideas when you can wait?

Lots of products take more then 2 years of research and development anyway. Not to mention setting up factorys ect. So for a big corporation, they probably wont even lose any time over it.
Seriously; Who's going to be able to bring an invention to market quicker?
The small company, or individual that invented it?
Or a big corporation with lots of adaptable factorys, distribution and advertising budgets?

Theres no way an individual with 2 years will make any impact whatsoever.
Thats just enough time to draw attention to yourself, but not enough to make any money or reward for your efforts.


Sorry, but I get REALLY pissed off with this.
Yes, Patents are abused by companys.
Mostly because the fucked-up patent office has forgotten what "Prior Art" means. (especialy when computers are involved)
But Patents are themselfs a GOOD thing.
They reward IDEAS.
They reward the one thing that really makes a different to the world.

If anyone...absolutely anyone...comes up with an idea, a design, something that will make a difference or is usefull they can, for just a few hundred at most, be given exclusive rights over it in the Western world.
No matter how big the company, that individual, that patent holder, has the power to be the only one profiting from his/her idea. Its upto the individual who he lisence's his invention too, if anyone.

Please dont let a few fucked-up discisions of recent years take away from the sprit of patent law :(

Of course, I would make some changes to the law ^_^;

DARKFLAMES PREPOSED PATENT LAW CHANGES (beta version 0.1)

1. Lifetime of the Inventor, no more, no less. When more then one inventor is involved, it goes to the lifetime of the longest one.
A minimum term of 70 years applys, however, in case's where the inventor/s die young. They are then allowed to pass the remaining years onto their next of kin. (Note; The original year limit stays though).

2. Absolutely, positively, non-transferable unless in the case of death. A holder can lisence the use of their patent, but not transfere the rights. A "company" can never hold a patent in this way, allthough a group of company members could.

3. A patent is only valid in a country if its avaiable within a set timeframe, for a price within 1% of its price in other regions, relative to the avarage national income.

Of all of these, number 3 I think would really help the world.
It would mean a patent dosnt apply unless the product is actualy avaible.
The rules about price relative to avarage income would also stop companys exploiting huge mark-ups between countrys.
It would also, imho, solve the drug-company problem with 3rd world countrys.
If these companys cant supply drugs at the same price as the west...relative to income...then they dont have exclusive rights over it.
They can still sale it, but so can anyone else.
If there argument is they cant supply it cheaper...fair enough, but then they shouldnt mind others having a go :D

On a less important note, I also think law3 should apply to copyrights.
So, if a videogame isnt for sale anymore in your country, its legal to download it.

(allthough remember, realisticaly, you have to give companys a timescale to work with, and that would vary depending on product. So maybe if it isnt availible in a country for 2 years or something).
Hell. this would also encourage more legal download distribution :p

:D :D :D

And I guess every person out there checks out the hundreds of patents issued every month all over the world... that's doubtfull. Even more so, that the US patent office will give you a patent for anything, you don't have to prove it works or have a sound theory backing it up.

As I said, I'm not sure if it was Exxon, but the whole deal was a fact, and it's a 2003 or sometihng like that thing, I heard an interview with the inventor who ran the production, that they where strictly forbidden to make bigger ones, and yet there was demand all the time. Also not sure if it was NiMH batteries.


Of course, but humanity should also profit from it

2 years is just an "idea" it could be like 10, whatever. Look at it from this side, you invent something, find capital to back it up, and then throw it into production, you get your share it's all fair. But say you invent something ground braking and then say you don't want to produce it despite demand and the magnitude of it, or someone buys it from you and holds the patent for years, couse it's not in their interest for anyone to make it. How fair is that then? I believe there should be a fixed time after wich the patent becomes public domain, but not like 100 years, after wich it cannot no longer make any impact.

And that's great, but the majority should also not suffer for the selfish decisions of a single person.

Also I think you can reward the inventor in better ways then just acknowledge his right to his invention... for a fee... that's ludicrous. Something like this should be natural, free of charge. However if he is not willing to implement it, or if the one who bought the rights to use it does not to wish to implement it, it should become public domain.

If the inventor is not willing to implement his idea into real applications that's not acceptable.


I also believe that it should not be sold. The inventor should have sole rights to sell a license to anyone.

And that's what I'm talking about ;). But I don't think it should make the patent invalid, couse that would just open a way for someone else to claim it. It should become public property.

Well I don't know with that price thing, they can't sell it below production costs, and western wages are higher. I think what you're proposing would actually make 3rd world markets inaccessible to western companies, unless they move their production to that country. By making a law such as this you could make a lot of products inaccessible in many countries.

Absolutely a must. It could make the situation however more stable, if it would also state that after a product or patent has moved into the public domain it does not leave it. Otherwise a copy you downloaded when it was legal, would be considered illegal when a product moves into production again, and you wouldn't be able to prove you downloaded it when it was free - no receipts... that would be a real mess.

That's just a figure, those 2 years. I don't think it can be long too, the patent, when it's released into the public domain, has to still be relatively "fresh" to make any impact.

Also it's only a recent thing that the Oil and car industry makes an eco face to us. The end of the 90's and early "00's" where a real panic for them. Frankly I don't care about them, they could all fall and topple over for all I care. Revolutionary changes should be applied the minute they leave the drawing board. The world can't afford to wait for a company to reassign it's production line and have a slightly lesser income at the end of the fiscal year, if they can't make it fast, someone else will, and the industry will evolve and move on.

Darf: By making anything "lifetime" you just have a murder waiting to happen.

How about, patents aren't blockable - anyone can use any idea of anyone. But while making a profit of someone's patent, you have to give them percentage. The more people worldwide profiting from the idea, the smaller this percentage becomes (while at the same time, the profit of the patent holder increases).

Isn't that just some internet-myth? Have you actually tested it or got it verified from a non-youtube source?

That is what came to my mind too. :)
Mmm, then what about use by nonprofit organizations? Or what if the holder doesn't want for others to make a profit out of it?

I think patents are mainly shit. It's like you steal or discover something that was already there in the first place. They even patent living beings.
Sure effort and creativity should be rewarded. But I mean what is being owned is the way stuff works, I find it sad. Even more so when they own it just to prevent stuff to work.
Maybe I can patent "trowing rocks to hurt someone"... so no one can do it anymore without paying the prize.

Cool idead!!

Lets patent wars too!

And Monopolies

The patents that go with weapons are interesting to look at that is for sure.:)

metacafe of course :eek:

Good point though. Those videos could be fake, but you never see reply videos showing otherwise...

It would be a rather odd thing to fake.
Guess I could buy one once to test, but it might depend on brand.

Fair point.
But it would at least be a murder in the family, so easier to get the killer :D

In theory remember, murders could already happen if a patent is split between two owners with a dissagreement.

You have to patent the method of throwing rocks. :p
And in theory, it has to be a method not used before.
But the current patent office hardly seems to check that.

==========================

Nifty Music lighting thing;

http://www.n3k4.com/digital-art/antivj/


Google expirements with speach-to-text search on youtube;

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/...al-videos.html

(limited to political videos at the mo)

What are you guys on about? Of course that battery video was fake, they didn't even try to hide it.
He patented a method of hurting someone: throwing rocks.

I don't remember the video even slightly suggested that it was a joke, I remember it tried to be 100% real and serious

Ditto here.
Maybe theres two videos? Or we are talking at cross purpose's.

Seemed perfectly plausible to me, given that companys find mass-produceing and altering stuff often easier then making seperate things.

Ahhh...touche!

Now, as long as the patent office dosnt spot that people have thrown rocks at other people before ^_^

Large Hadron Collider...

The surrounding terminology made some people scared of it. Monopoles, black holes, big bang and more of that hypothetical blah blah.
Still, they will be working with big amounts of energie and will generate some unseen extreem conditions.
I belief they will put the first set in orbit next month to collide them this november.

What to make of this +/- 9 billion dollar thingie? Will they find the Higgs particle or will France be wiped from the earth? or will the earth be wiped from France? :P

I think they will probably half the number of possible string theorys.

I still don't know what String Theory is.. remind me to look that up on Wikipedia sometime...