Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
 21 
 on: 08-19-17 at 12:56 pm 
Started by mojobadshah - Last post by artchain

There are three aspects to the law:

(1) Statutory laws, as enacted by legislative and regulatory bodies

(2) Common law, derived from judicial precidents

(3) Actual practice, as defined by the actions of individuals under the law

Each of these three influences and affect the others, which is part of the reason that laws evolve.

The ideas and theories that you frequently post are not supported by any of the three, which means frankly that you have a snowball's chance in hell of ever seeing any of your ideas come to fruition.

And just out of curiosity, for all you fellas who made posts between this one and my last one, can I get a summary "show of hands" on how the language of common use here in the USA is supposed to be identified, exactly?   

If I were a judge tasked with making a decision that involved the common use of American English, I would refer to recently published dictionaries, which attempt to reflect the actual usage of language, and are probably the best authority on the subject.


 22 
 on: 08-19-17 at 11:11 am 
Started by mojobadshah - Last post by mojobadshah
is it absolutely necessary that there is only 1 "copyright registration system" like this here in the USA,
Yes.  Other than government, how are you going to bind others to any registration system you come up with?  Is there any point whatsoever in having the same government administer two or more different systems?

and what in your opinion do you think the prospects would be for bluntly "deregulating" a registration system of the like,
Zero.

If these aren't accurate summaries of your questions, then kindly rephrase your ten-page diatribe into a series of simple interrogatives of 20 words or less each.

I'll try to keep things short and simple...  Already indicated above an understanding that "copyright system" and "trademark system" are two separate protectionist "systems."  Also already indicated that I realized that, ultimately, what I was speaking to would probably be more appropriate in relation to "trademark regimes," but contemplating a copyright "system" that appropriates copy that comes in the form of individual words or "mechanisms" to their respective contributing "loanword" language subfamily groups or privatized corporate "registration systems" (either within the United States Copyright Office framework or separate from; in my view what is more important is that the Courts, not these "registration systems" themselves are there to sort out any disputes when it comes to legitimate "source" and "first use," etc...) in many respects does have its advantages.  To say that a "government run for-profit corporation" like the United States Copyright Office or the USPTO, even, does not have the potential to be deregulated when their is plenty of other "capital" in and around that has already been comes across as somewhat denialist and, honestly, slightly dis-honest. 

I get that it would be difficult to account for every last word or "loanword" speaking in terms of copyright and to then have copyright registrants track and register each and every one of these loanwords or mechanisms to their rightful cultural-linguistic custodian's privately owned or subsidiary "registration system," but putting into effect a more complex "registration system" such as this one from my perspective relegates a larger sense of "authenticity" and "genuiness" in regards to "source," and "witt" too.  I should probably also add that I'm aware that although most cases it would be difficult for any one "speech community" to apply 1 word copy (mechanism) from "foreign" speech community's "language system" that because, apart from the fact that 1 word copy can be developed "posteriori" or out of nothing and infinitely, there is also in existence in "language systems" such as in the case of the "language system" we call English or "American vernacular" a phenomenon we call "synonyms," which means that technically it would be possible to only speak a language and employ copy from exclusive language systems eg. "only English" severed from the rest of the world's myriad ~10,000 "language system" contributions and the copy or individual linguistic or "morphological" mechanisms exclusive to these "original source" language-subfamilies or groups eg. Greek, Italic (French), Sanskrit or Hindi "language systems" et. al. the "Greek-American copyright section or office," the "Italic-American copyright section or office," the "Indic-American copyright section or office" resulting in more accounting and efficient "function of signal" (see Carl Jung on "logos" in relation to its "usefulness"). 

And just out of curiosity, for all you fellas who made posts between this one and my last one, can I get a summary "show of hands" on how the language of common use here in the USA is supposed to be identified, exactly?

   

         

 23 
 on: 08-19-17 at 05:38 am 
Started by chipm9 - Last post by chipm9
Thank you very much for the info, I messaged the two offenders I found and asked them to take down all the copied listings and it seems, at least for now, that they have complied !

I will have to track them from now on to make sure they don't get put straight back on !

 24 
 on: 08-18-17 at 10:50 pm 
Started by EDCGadgetGeek - Last post by MYK
Reddit has a few.  Beware that absolutely anyone can answer.  Their "legaladvice" subforum is a complete shitshow of cops, random idiots, and "I'm a small business owner so of course I know all about the law" types who will be happy to explain that you don't need an assignment contract to transfer ownership of a copyright from a contractor to you because "no company would do business like that".

Their more-specific IP-related subforums are just as bad, but much lower traffic.  When I was trying to put together a reexam request a year and a half ago, I asked a few questions there, and the twelve-year-olds who were roleplaying as "patent attorneys" on their patent subforum couldn't even understand my questions (half the time it seemed like they didn't know what a "reexamination" was) -- unlike here, where people had no problem answering.  I don't think I got a single correct or useful answer over there. . . .

 25 
 on: 08-18-17 at 10:38 pm 
Started by oarakawa158 - Last post by MYK
under Category B, option 4, the CS course need not be accredited?
Correct.

 26 
 on: 08-18-17 at 05:08 pm 
Started by MR - Last post by Robert K S
Generally, no.  See MPEP 401 and 402 and 37 C.F.R. 1.32(c)(1) (a power of attorney may name as representative one or more joint inventors).

 27 
 on: 08-18-17 at 04:53 pm 
Started by MR - Last post by MR
Is it ULP for one (unlicensed) inventor, who invented something with a coinventor, to file a patent application listing both as inventors?

 28 
 on: 08-18-17 at 04:49 pm 
Started by Robert K S - Last post by rouleur
there is also https://dossier1.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/tri/all/odse/odse_gm101_top.action

The production value of the interface is on the low side, but it allows you to have everything (claims, specification, and figures) presented on one single webpage when you click on the "FULL CONTENT" link on the upper left corner.  Only downside is that the translation seems to be furnished using Google Translate as opposed to JPO's proprietary interpreter.  You can copy and paste everything into a word document, but the formatting will look a bit off

 29 
 on: 08-18-17 at 03:44 pm 
Started by fb - Last post by still_learnin
So aside from marketing are there advantages of making the preamble part of the antecedent basis?
Well, one instance is when you do not want to positively claim something as a claim element, but need that something for antecedence; for example:

1.  An apparatus for controlling the temperature of an internal combustion engine, the apparatus comprising:
at least one temperature sensor mounted on the internal combustion engine;
...

Hmm ... I think one could argue that putting it in the preamble and then referring to it in the body, does positively claim the engine as an element of the apparatus.

More so than simply referring to it in the body, as in:
Quote
1.  An apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
at least one temperature sensor mounted on an internal combustion engine,
wherein the apparatus is operable to control the temperature of the internal combustion engine.


It's not clear to me whether my rephrasing/moving the purpose/result language from preamble to body has any effect on claim scope or not. Some Examiners will probably ignore "control[ling] the temperature" as intended use regardless of where that language appears.


 30 
 on: 08-18-17 at 03:28 pm 
Started by EDCGadgetGeek - Last post by EDCGadgetGeek
Just curious...I do LOVE this IP (patent...cough...cough) forum, but are there similar patent forums out there like us in the universe, or are we alone?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10


Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.17 seconds with 18 queries.