Comments on: Fraunhofer Lines

By: Duvets

Duvets — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:56:14 +0000

While patents and copyrights were originally designed to encourage creative behavior they have begun to do the opposite, and therefore need to be changed to match the original intent. People are now creating for the sake of others instead of themselves and so patents and copyrights need to be changed. Just my opinion

By: Tim Roberts

Tim Roberts — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:16:17 +0000

I think there are one or two misunderstandings. As has been pointed out, the document you quote has not been allowed: it is merely an application. But, if granted (a big ‘if’), it need not be unenforceable. To start with, there is no recognised exception in US patent law for private use as such (unless it amounts to ‘philosophical enquiry’?). Secondly, jokes are not necessarily told only in private. Thirdly, a main object of the invention is not the specific jokes related, which are given by way of example only, but the general idea of protecting novel jokes by filing patent applications on them. That act is not private.

By: bobby

bobby — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:01:02 +0000

Someone who prefers to remain anonymous writes: “We’ve seen people use bogus DMCA claims to shut up speech they don’t like. Now, it turns out that if you demonstrate security vulnerabilities, you may have to deal with the threat of patent lawsuit as well. IOActive, a security firm based in Seattle, built a hand-held device capable of reading and cloning the prox cards used for building access in many companies. They demo’d the device at the RSA Conference and were going to give an in-depth talk at Black Hat in DC. HID Global, who makes the cards, found out about it and sent them a letter claiming that the cloning device infringes on HID patents. Faced with the threat of a patent infringement lawsuit, IOActive pulled the presentation.” Jennifer Granick, over at Wired News, does a good job highlighting the ridiculous consequences of an action like this: “Imagine if, in the 1970s, the tobacco companies had patented devices to measure the health effects of smoking, then threatened lawsuits against anyone who researched their products.

By: Pat Patterson

Pat Patterson — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:42:29 +0000

Hi JP – good to see you posting regularly! The ‘joke patent’ is just an application – not an granted patent. It will be interesting to watch its progress, though, and see what happens… Here is a link that should find this patent if/when it is granted.

By: Dannie Jost

Dannie Jost — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:51:57 +0000

Sad and true. But you must not forget that what you quote there is a A1 document meaning a patent application and that can be any nonsense under the sun as long as the formal requirements for the filing office are met. Translate that to the fact that if such an application would become a granted patent, an unlikely occurence, but the USPTO is always good for a surprise or two, it is totally unenforcable even by present patent law as the telling of a joke in private is still… not a commercial activity, thus excluded of patent protection.

There are a lot of such applications and in themselves, they are the best jokes.

By: Niko Nyman

Niko Nyman — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:53:48 +0000

Friend of mine works in a small startup that does add-on services for telcos. He said their clients are reluctant to buy anything from a small vendor like them if they don’t have patents to protect their product. Doesn’t sound good, indeed.

By: Ric

Ric — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:00:01 +0000

JP: First – it sounds like you’re feeling better; there’s a bit more bite returning to your posts.
Second – how much damage to innovation and creativity do you see occurring before we collectively smarten up about patents? I fear that the damage my well be irreversible until such time as an entire economy collapses … pessimistic, maybe – but possible.
What steps can we take to avoid that outcome?