classic patent

[dragongodz]

ok this patent is 30 years old but it just won an award. some good reading for those thinking the U.S. patent system is ok. :)

for an explanation with pictures
http://www.totallyabsurd.com/extremecombover.htm

and about the award
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3708278.stm

plenty of other funky patents can be found in the archives section of the first link aswell. that is if you want to risk dieing from laughter. :D

[Mug Funky]

hehe... i like the 12 gauge 1-wood. i'd like to give that a go - i'm already a disgrace on the golf course.

[mpucoder]

I must be a herring.

[2COOL]

Interesting reading. Something to bring up on a Monday morning at work with your geeky co-workers. :p

Winners of the Ig® Nobel Prize (http://www.improb.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html)

[adam]

Following up from an earlier thread...
Score: dragongodz 1, adam 0.

I admit, hairstyle patents are silly. Lots of other well known hairstyles were also the subject of prior patents. I'm not sure if there are still any existing ones though.

But they are also pretty harmless. Its not like you can prevent anyone from styling their hair how they want to, or prevent others from marketing products specifically for that process. These patents are just to establish finder's rights. Its so you can sell a product and legally claim that it is being sold by the inventor of the (insert hairstyle here). This patent holder planned on selling hairspray with such a claim, he just never got around to it.

However, I can assure you that my grandpa and every one of his friends would NOT find this patent silly at all. They are all indebted to this man...unfortunately. Have you ever seen one of these guys before they've combed their hair? They look like Hulk Hogan. Or when its windy? They look like Bozo the Clown.

[dragongodz]

Score: dragongodz 1, adam 0.
damn and i didnt even know we were keeping score. ;)

Or when its windy? They look like Bozo the Clown.
i have seen footage of 1 of our prime ministers(from the 30's i think) with the single side comb-over on a windy day. its like a bird with 1 wing.
hmm prior art ? no this is a fun thread so lets NOT get serious. :)

actually you should check out the archives in the first link as i said. some damn funny stuff.

[Wilbert]

How about the following patent?

Czechoslovakian patent #91304
--------------------------------------


The specific claims came from a Czechoslovakian radio engineer, Karel Drbal, who obtained Czech patent 91304 for the Cheops Pyramid Razor-Blade Sharpener. It supposedly generated some unknown and mysterious "energy." Unfortunately, subsequent tests of the claims failed to substantiate them. Pyramids preserved organic matter no better than did containers of other shapes; nor did placing razor blades in pyramids restore their sharpness, despite the subjective judgments of people fooled by their own expectations (Hines 1988).

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_26/ai_88826365

[dragongodz]

nice. :D

[Wilbert]

MS filed the following patent: BASIC's IsNot operator (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959)

[Mug Funky]

man, i really feel like flying off the handle here and getting a million strikes for obscene (but appropriate) language.

but i wont :)

this one's still pending, isn't it? hopefully it'll get thrown out, but something tells me it'd be naive to think that it would.

grrr Microsoft. grrr software patents. grrr Kodak, Thomson, CompuServe and all those other mother-grrs.

a legalo-philosophical question (pending trade mark on that word i just invented :)):

is there a point where so, so many people are infringing a stupid law that the law becomes void? i mean void morally, not legally.

so if say the entire US online population (how many million is that?) openly admitted to backing up their DVDs and thus circumventing an ineffective technological measure of copyright protection, could they all be sued? or would the powers that be be forced to acknowledge that repealing this stupid law would be in the best interests of a very very very large group of voters?

after all, a democracy is supposed to do what's best for the majority.

at the very least, i think both the courts would be pushed beyond breaking point and the RIAA/MPAA would be bankrupted from the costs of filing suit against such a large number of people.

it's the whole civil disobedience thing - if enough people break a law, there must come a point where the law should be reconsidered - you can't jail everyone, even if you wanted to. not even Stalin could do that, as there'd be nobody left actually running the place.

[adam]

Practically, it would most certainly happen but only for political reasons. If the vast majority of the country doesn't like a piece of legislation, politicians are going to want to be the ones to get it repealed to please their constituents. Legally, no it doesn't matter how out of hand the violations get, if the law is sound and constitutional then it should stand regardless of how many break it. Take speeding for example. I don't know about a majority but many many people ignore speed limit laws, but I don't think anyone would truly want them repealed altogether. Widespread violations would only undermine a law if they negated that laws purpose or showed that the law was antiquated. Take trade secrets for example. Even if something qualifies for trade secret status, if enough people ignore this protection and make use of the information, then there is no longer any reason to keep it a secret. This is most likely exactly what has happened to CSS. There's just no benefit in keeping its exact functions secret anymore now that you can find the circumvention code printed on t-shirts. As for antiquated laws, you could argue that the law is no longer enforced because it no longer serves a valid function. States have repealed their laws probiting sodomy and adultery on similar grounds for example.

But I'm not sure which laws you are referring to. If its patents good luck. Its provided for in the US Constitution and is considered a fundamental power of our government. There are obviously many very valid patents as well. I know I've said this in the past but you really only see people talk about the bad patents. There are alot of really innovative technologies that would not exist without a patent system. There isn't much incentive to invest millions of dollars on research and development if your competitors gain access to your findings the day after you first use them. You'd actually become less competitive everytime you discovered something because you'd raise the status quo of the entire industry but you'd be the only one paying for it.

If you are referring to the copying of DVDs, good luck again. Even with burners commonplace the amount of people who make backup copies is still an extreme minority. Most people I talk to are amazed that it is possible to copy a commercially pressed DVD. They just have no idea.

@Wilbert: I will be very suprised if that patent is issued.

[Joe Fenton]

Originally posted by adam
@Wilbert: I will be very suprised if that patent is issued.

I wouldn't. MS already stated they plan to flood the USPTO with thousands of patent applications this year. This is probably typical of the patents rolling in. Given the volume of applications like this just from MS, I would guess that quite a few (maybe even this one) will make it through.

[dragongodz]

to quote from that application
[0013] Similarly, (for example), if a user wanted to perform Z if the variables a and b do not point to the same memory location, the following code, combining two operators, "Is" and "Not" (a negation of the expression) would be required:

3 Dim a, b As x a = New x( ) b = New x( ) . . . If Not (a Is b) Then (Perform Z) End If

[0014] Such a language construction is ungrammatical, requires more typing and violates the philosophy on which BASIC rests. It would be helpful therefore, if a single more intuitive operator could perform the function that the combination of the two operators Is and Not typically performs.
so in other words they have not invented a new function but renamed/shortened it to be more "grammatical", less typing and not violate the philosophy of basic(as if they know what that is). what a big pile of steaming B.S. i must say. :D

so their claim is basically inventing a new word for an existing function. wow lets all rewrite a program but just make up function names and then we too can claim patents galore. :devil:

[Wilbert]

I splitted the rest of the thread to the following thread:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85714

[Wilbert]

Here's another nice patent owned by Creative:
Automatic hierarchical categorization of music by metadata

Abstract

A method, performed by software executing on the processor of a portable music playback device, that automatically files tracks according to hierarchical structure of categories to organize tracks in a logical order. A user interface is utilized to change the hierarchy, view track names, and select tracks for playback or other operations.


http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,928,433.WKU.&OS=PN/6,928,433&RS=PN/6,928,433

[Joe Fenton]

Is there any other way to organize music? Here's the key to getting a patent in the US - look around for something people have been doing for a hundred years, write a description, and then (here's the key part) add the magic words: using a computer.

Guaranteed patent, every time.

[_SoLaRiS_]

I thought that, ( and I am sure someone can correct me) 'if' a concept was in the public domain then a patent cannot be granted. I.e. It has to be novel and new. It sounds like some of the above 'patent' applications fail both tests. IMHO

[Wilbert]

afaik it was new when Creative applied for the patent (that is before Apple came with the iPod).

[Joe Fenton]

I thought that, ( and I am sure someone can correct me) 'if' a concept was in the public domain then a patent cannot be granted. I.e. It has to be novel and new. It sounds like some of the above 'patent' applications fail both tests. IMHO

As far as the USPTO is concerned, "using a computer" means it's both novel and new.