Lawyer Loses It In Letter To Patent Office 342
bizwriter writes "Nobody would ever say that the world of patent law is a roller coaster of excitement but every now and then something interesting happens. Take this attorney who was angry over a patent examiner's rejection of his client's application. Here are a few snippets from the lawyers letter to the examiner: 'Are you drunk? No, seriously... are you drinking scotch and whiskey with a side of crack cocaine while you "examine" patent applications? (Heavy emphasis on the quotes.) Do you just mail merge rejection letters from your home? Is that what taxpayers are getting in exchange for your services? Have you even read the patent application? I'm curious. Because you either haven't read the patent application or are... (I don't want to say the "R" word) "Special."....Your job is not a joke, but you are turning it into a regular three ring circus. If you can't motivate yourself to take your job seriously, then you need to quit and let someone else take over what that actually wants to do the job right.'"
I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you this (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course! Insulting the US patent office is a known technique to guarantee your submission will be calmly and objectively reviewed. Do it now.
Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (Score:5, Funny)
He should be disbarred for giving lawyers a bad name (yes, that's possible...)
Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (Score:5, Funny)
"It's just the bad 95% of us that give the rest a bad name" -- Ray Beckerman (quoted from memory, might be inexact)
Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (Score:5, Funny)
Probably misquoted as well, but I always liked, "It's just some of the lawyers out there that give a really bad name to the other three."
Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (Score:5, Interesting)
Tripod + Sprinkler != Patent (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one completely understand the rage.... It enraged my otherwise calm, quiet reserved patent attorney...
Perhaps it's time that patent lawyers got used to having patents rejected if they think that putting a sprinkler on a tripod is patent-worthy. I've no idea whether rejecting this patent was legal but, given the available details, common sense indicates that it should not be. Of course the law has no regard for common sense but still it is refreshing to see at least one stupid patent getting rejected.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Tripod + Sprinkler != Patent (Score:5, Funny)
You mean a dog?
Re: (Score:3)
:)
Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one completely understand the rage. I think I was assigned this examiner - some of the things done must have been very similar to what he describes. It enraged my otherwise calm, quiet reserved patent attorney to the point he had to wait a week before responding or it would have been in much the same way. This poor bastard just didn't wait the week.
or didn't call the examiner's supervisor. The supervisor's name and phone number are provided with every official notice that explains a rejection. And there is more than one option to appeal and get the Examiner's reasoning reviewed by people with higher pay-grades.
Full-blown appeals are admittedly expensive, but are far more worthwhile than raving and ranting like an unprofessional. Such rants will simply be ignored at best, or (at worst) circulated around the Patent Office as an example of a bad patent attorney to watch out for. And the inventor/applicant? On the hook for attorney fees, regardless.
Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (Score:5, Insightful)
Write the letter - never send it (Score:5, Interesting)
There's an old, probably ancient stress relief technique where you write a nasty letter but never send it.
Abraham Lincoln practiced it - they found scathing nasty letters after his death addressed to various generals during the war that were never sent.
Occasionally, one gets sent out by mistake...
Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (Score:4, Funny)
"When lawyers take Viagra they get taller ..."
- Bowser and Blue
Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (Score:5, Funny)
* Lawyer: "Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "Did you check for blood pressure?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "Did you check for breathing?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "How can you be so sure, Doctor?"
* Witness: "Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."
* Lawyer: "But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?"
* Witness: "Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere."
Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a joke, not something that actually happened.
It is apparently from a book called "Disorder in the Court: Great Fractured Moments in Courtroom History [amazon.com]".
Blurb reads: "Sit back and enjoy a collection of verbatim exchanges from the halls of justice, where defendants and plaintiffs, lawyers and witnesses, juries and judges, collide to produce memorably insane comedy."
So it is likely a true record of the exchange.
Also because the brain is removed during the autopsy, so it doesn't even make any sense.
As someone else posted, there are many reasons the brain can arrive separate to the body in an autopsy, so that part at least does make sens
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He should be disbarred for giving lawyers a bad name (yes, that's possible...)
Should someone who sends a snarky email to their boss once never be able to work with computers again?
Disbarring is taking away someone's profession, and a good part of the value of their entire education. A single stupid decision, other than perhaps something like intentionally stealing from clients, should almost never result in disbarment.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a breach of professionalism, and enough that a client should almost always fire you, but there's a huge gap between that and making it impossible for you to work in the field ever again. Like the difference between your boss firing you and the entire industry collectively deciding you can't do any work, even tech support for your mother.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that depends on the jurisdiction technically.
E.g. prosecutors in Austria need to fulfill the requirements that judges need, both career path do not involve being a lawyer. Germany OTOH, has basically one generic exam for the classical legal career paths.
Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (Score:5, Funny)
Just be glad you don't have to pay a license fee for that technique. See, this lawyer tried to patent it, but...
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, he is pissed because he took the Patent on contingency and it was rejected, and now he isn't getting paid. Just a guess.
Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course! Insulting the US patent office is a known technique to guarantee your submission will be calmly and objectively reviewed. Do it now.
It always works for me at restaurants...
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to steal and then patent this idea of insulting the patent office to get your patents approved. Well played.
Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (Score:4)
There are some patents that merit acceptance. They are characterized by substantial up front investment more than by innovative brillance. Given the current population there is sufficient brilliance around that it's not in short supply. Diciplined foregoing investment of time and money is scarcer, and that's what needs protection. So I'll grant that 95+ percent of the patents that were granted should have been rejected, but not all of them...unless you invent an alternative approach.
OTOH, I'm not sure that even with proper patent examination the current system could be made to work, as it depends on lawyers and the court system for enforcement. But that's a separate argument.
that's how a 15 years old teenager (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Oh, let's not stop at gender! Anyone who doesn't specify they're child's race mix, body type, astrological sign, and major areas of academic and extracurricular focus in _every_ conversation is treating their child as nothing more than a lump of protoplasm!
You forgot the most important DNA sequence.
age is often the important factor (Score:5, Insightful)
In many cases the age is the salient factor....a given action from a 2yo is cute or precocious, but from a 5yo is just normal and from a 15yo is babyish. So the age is critically important, while the sex of the child is not relevant.
Also, given that it's not relevant, I think it's entirely reasonable to keep the gender of one's children a private affair rather than post it on the internet for all to see. I may not always do it myself, but it's still reasonable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(I can't believe I'm writing this, feels like feeding a troll, but whatever)
Because gender doesn't (usually) change. So it's not important to qualify.
Age does, so it's important to qualify.
Apparently, you don't realize this?
My two kids want to punch you in the nuts for cringing over this.
Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The lack of personal details about the child aren't important here to anyone but a creepy stalker.
I think we need more details on this stalker. For example, do they have a Slashdot user name which reveals nothing about them while complaining others don't post irrelevant personal details that do nothing to support the conversation?
Re: (Score:2)
My nine year old has more sense than you are displaying. And, no, the specifics of this particular lump of protoplasm are not going to be shared with you - ya fuckin' DEVIANT!
Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (Score:5, Funny)
We are Reagans children!! We are the Masters of the Universe!!
Uncle Reagan promised us money! Why is the Government getting in our way!??! This Dysfunctional world is our God given Birthright!!
Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you considered the fact that it wasn't just Reagan, it was Cater, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama that have all promised government will help you, and yet we have Black people in the worst shape in three decades? Oh right, because Obama, Clinton and Cater are all (D) and inherited their problems from (R) and the (R)s are all responsible.
So, because government hasn't fixed everything, that totally negates the actual fact that American conservative policy doesn't work?
Because the facts to be considered are that Reagan and Bush 1 did awful things to the economy and the country *and* gave us both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. And that Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity, by following the exact opposite of conservative economic and foreign policies. And that Bush 2 then went back to the standard conservative plan which resulted in 8 years of bad news, culminating in the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.
It's pretty clear what the deal is: rather than admit that American conservative policy in government is bad, American conservatives would rather say that **all government** is bad.
Which is a pretty clear definition of total immaturity, at best.
Re: (Score:3)
OH, and FYI - Bush 1 started the Somalia conflict. For no good reason, except that the first Iraq invasion was over, he failed to topple Saddam, and he was looking for a way to shore up his numbers for re-election. Thankfully, Bush failed in reelection and we got a competent Presiden
Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not just lawyers. I had a telemarketer call me once at work to pitch some ridiculous SEO 'get on the front page of Google' service, and when he figured out that I wasn't listening to him he just went into a rant about how unprofessional "I" was and how if I worked for him he'd fire me. I was laughing my ass off when I hung up on the idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
If you worked for him, he would be glad you didn't waste time listening to a telemarketer call. I would find it hard to resist the bait to argue that point.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, who these PATENT EXAMINERS think they are ? God incarnate ?
ANSWER: Yes!
I had a valuable patent rejected because the patent examiner said a straight spline item in my product was a helical spiral and therefore was prior art like all other screw threads.
I didn't ask my patent attorney to yell at them, but nothing he could do including a personal call resulted in the examiner backing off their erroneous position. I just had to give up.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, can we all just stop using the title as the beginning of a post?
No, please carry on. It comes in handy for people who browse at +1. I don't, but then again I'm a -1 masochist.
Shame the patent application isn't linked... (Score:5, Funny)
It would amusing to pick it apart and see how much prior art and how many ridiculous claims it contained.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (Score:5, Informative)
Two links from the summary: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/dont-write-this-letter-to-the-patent-office.html [patentlyo.com]
It contains the letter and an excerpt of the patent application. This is a case of the USPTO doing it's job.
Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (Score:5, Informative)
Brueske; David November 15, 2012
Telescoping tripod sprinkler cart
Abstract
A Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart comprising a tripod junction unit, a plurality of support members, a sprinkler support assembly, and a telescoping assembly. In some preferred embodiments, the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart may also include a carriage assembly to enable the portability of the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart.
Inventors: Brueske; David; (Olympia, WA)
Serial No.: 068530
Series Code: 13
Filed: May 12, 2011
Current U.S. Class: 239/722
Class at Publication: 239/722
International Class: B05B 3/00 20060101 B05B003/00
Claims
1. A Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart comprising a tripod junction unit, a plurality of support members, a sprinkler support assembly, and a telescoping assembly; the tripod junction unit comprises a first leg, and a second leg, and a hose conduit; the plurality of support members are sized to mate with the legs; the legs comprise a detent orifice sized to mate with a detent on a support member; the support members comprise a detent for the purpose of fastening the support member to the tripod junction; the sprinkler support assembly is disposed upon the hose conduit of the tripod junction.
2. The Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart of claim 1 further comprising a carriage assembly; the carriage assembly comprises an axle, an axle housing, a pair of wheels, and a pair of struts.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0001] The present invention is in the area of lawn sprinklers, and more particularly pertains to an apparatus for irrigation.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] One of the most common chores for a homeowner to address is watering or irrigating a lawn. While some people may use a simple lawn hose to manually irrigate their lawns, most people use various irrigation systems. These irrigation systems can be used to cover large swaths of landscape quickly and efficiently.
[0003] However, the problem with sprinkler systems is their relative high cost and attendant installation. Their relative high cost can stem in large part from the installation thereof. Effective installation requires that underground tunnels or troughs be dug. In many instances, these distances can exceed 50 yards in length. As a consequence, this installation can require a substantial amount of back-breaking work.
[0004] Therefore, what is clearly needed in the art is an apparatus which enables someone to irrigate a large lawn, orchard, or garden and cover a large diameter of space.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0005] It is an object of the present invention to provide an apparatus to elevate an irrigation sprinkler to increase the surface area to be covered. By manually adjusting the height of the sprinkler head above ground, a person will be enabled to cover wide areas of lawn, landscape, gardens, orchards, or other areas where constant irrigation is required.
[0006] It is an object of the present invention to provide a portable apparatus with pneumatic wheels to place an elevated tripod sprinkler cart in its desired destination. Oftentimes, long hoses can become heavy, and with the wheels, the towing thereof can be made substantially easier.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING FIGURES
[0007] FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.
[0008] FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.
[0009] FIG. 3 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.
[0010] FIG. 4 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.
Re: (Score:2)
Attorney/Agent Information
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW SCHROEDER
P.O. Box 6731
Santa Maria CA 93454
310-256-0925
Reg # 53565
Now you know who not to use to file your patents.
Re: (Score:3)
its a telescoping tripod sprinkler cart, google it. lots of them. don't know how novel this guy's invention was but the idea is not new
Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (Score:5, Funny)
Instead of water, this sprinkler cart sprays juvenile insults.
Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot the most important part.
sprays juvenile insults on the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
maybe it sprays Brawndo.
Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/20120286075;jsessionid=01F66ADD5B77B6F5B576659888D85D1B [patentbuddy.com]
here you go. products on the market look just like this
Re: (Score:2)
Omg wow! Yeah that product already exists. I've seen em' used in profesional landscaping, although not at houses, well you only need wheels if the sprinkler is heavy. It's a trivial invention, but an old patent application form 1977 does exactly the same thing. I suppose the telescoping business might be new, but what the hell is the point in making it telescoping?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Telescoping is useful for a portable device. It allows you to use it in between bushes to shoot over them. I have a few spots like that around my house. Normally you'll want the head low to not create a central dead-spot, but when that area might be something else already (e.g. non-grass ornamental shrubs, mulch, shells) a higher spray is desired, a telescopic function on a portable device is a boon. The benefit of a portable device is that you can use it to cover just the area(s) you need without having to
Re: (Score:2)
Such as this one.
http://www.tripodsprinklers.com/sd350.html
But wait, this one goes to 11!!
Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (Score:5, Informative)
You picked a bad example, because this is actually the one that the patent is applied for. Notice "PATENT PENDING: Copyright 2011 Slip Fit Manufacturing." A search will show applicant David Brueske as a representative of "Yelm Farm & Pet And Slipfit Manufacturing". http://transportation-services.findthedata.org/l/1413764/Yelm-Farm-And-Pet-And-Slipfit-Manufacturing [findthedata.org]
Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (Score:5, Informative)
As usual, the better article is not the one linked to in TFA, but in a deeper link:
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/dont-write-this-letter-to-the-patent-office.html [patentlyo.com]
Has a picture. Looks like a sprinkler on a tripod and you can raise or lower the sprinkler head. Somehow I'm guessing this is not the first such sprinkler.
Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.google.com/search?q=tripod+sprinkler#q=adjustable+tripod+sprinkler&source=univ&tbm=shop [google.com]
Indeed, many such things exist, though it looks like the difference is that in the ones on the first page of google shopping, you adjust the height by adjusting the leg length rather than raising or lowering the center column as in this patent. Adjusting the leg length would better handle uneven ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Shame the patent application isn't linked... (Score:3)
Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.google.com/patents/US20120286075
The clever bit, you see, is that you film it. And then you watch it ... backwards!
Wonderful way to relax.
Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (Score:4, Insightful)
For starters, he mentioned taxpayers in the letter.
The patent office, like the postal service, is self-funded. Taxpayers don't pay a dime to these people. In fact, a part of the money the patent office brought in used to go back into the bigger federal budget to fund other things.
I'm highly suspicious that this is an actual patent lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. My suspicion is that the patent application was so bad that there was no choice but to reject it. I "hope" this is a case of a patent examiner actually doing his job properly which includes rejecting bad patents. I suspect this is a case of lawyers submitting garbage and having it approved on the basis that it is too complicated for the patent examiner to understand.
Waiting for response (Score:2)
Nice... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are being retarded, but not because they are denying so many legitimate innovations, but because they are approving so many illegitimate non-innovations.
The "product" in question (Score:5, Informative)
A tripod sprinkler. Seriously, a tripod sprinkler with telescopic legs.
I agree with the patent office worker in this case, maybe the lawyer should try and patent a method of getting a patent application rejected, consisting of plurality of idiotic patent application and an angry letter by the said lawyer to the patent office.
Re: (Score:2)
A tripod sprinkler. Seriously, a tripod sprinkler with telescopic legs.
I agree with the patent office worker in this case, maybe the lawyer should try and patent a method of getting a patent application rejected, consisting of plurality of idiotic patent application and an angry letter by the said lawyer to the patent office.
Absolutely, this is akin to trying to patent the pencil. I am sure that I have seen similar things if fields for years!
Re:The "product" in question (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Hi-Rise, in particular, looks like it was the model used to make the drawings in the patent application.
Re: (Score:2)
But it has wheels! It is a revolutionary change to the telescoping tripod sprinkler industry!
Re: (Score:2)
"...patent a method of getting a patent application rejected"
This seems to be a hard thing to actually do. Especially in software patents I think this may be a novel idea.
Wow. (Score:3)
Guess who's never getting a patent approved again, *ever*?
Mail merge would be an improvement (Score:5, Informative)
Shoe's on the other foot (Score:2)
Actual substantive complaint missing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, he's a lawyer, in what particular does he think the rejection is wrong?
The nearest thing to a substantive accusation is that the examiner is simply rejecting the application because he's lazy and that's easy. But it's my understanding that, in fact, patent examiners face a lot of pressure to approve applications, which is faster and easier than rejection, because it takes less effort to justify approval, and because approvals don't generally get appealed by the applicant. So while I am sure laziness afflicts patent examiners from time to time, it's not obvious that this is an example.
As for "doing his job", his job is not to approve applications, it's to examine them and make a determination. Rejection is one possible outcome, and is not by itself proof that the job wasn't done.
So, yeah, faceless bureaucrats are lazy and stupid, ha ha. Tell me again what problem you solved by making this assertion?
Opposite of expectation (Score:3)
Strange, somehow I would have expected such a rant after seeing some of the idiotics patents that have been approved. It's somehow even more disheartening to find that the rant is in regards to an apparently non-unique patent being rejected (as it should be).
Examiners mailing rejection letters from home... (Score:3)
Last dating Rebecca Martinson (Score:2)
Soon to be followed by Rebecca Martinson / Patent lawyer sex tape.
Do you realize that these two people could.... breed?
Fake Story (Score:5, Funny)
I am amazed at how many Slashdotters fell for this story. The part that made it obviously fake was when the patent office rejected an application.Try to be a bit more discerning Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Either brilliant or venting (Score:3)
If this letter generates enough static around the patent situation (and I tend to agree, in general, with the spirit of the letter) then maybe it was a brilliant ploy on the lawyers part to drag the issues out into prime time news feeds using drama as the winch. Sometimes any exposure to a corrupt problem is better than none at all.
Points quota system (Score:4, Interesting)
First rejections are so common there is a theory that examiners are motivated to automatically reject patent applications the first time they review them. The theory goes like this:
Patent examiners are on a quota point system. They have to accumulate so many points for an acceptable performance rating. They get points for all sorts of activity. But one of the most visible ones is an office action.
So they could get a point for approving a patent. Do the work, get a point, move on to the next patent.
But they also get points each time they reject a patent. Naturally the inventor will file a response to the rejection. The examiner can now earn another point by responding to a patent he or she has already invested time reviewing and is familiar with.
This can go on several times until a statutory limit requires a final decision. Once they approve a patent or give a final rejection, the stream of points for that file ends.
So there is an incentive to find a trivial reason for initial rejection, especially if there is a chance it can be overcome. That just leads to a chance for a second rejection.
I don't know how true the theory is, but if you're trying to explain to yourself why you got a dumb rejection, it makes as much sense as anything else.
Errr... that makes no sense (Score:3)
Given that the patent office is self-funded, and rejections only make more time-consuming work, it'd be silly for some Machiavellian Patent Office executive to hand out incentives for rejecting patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Au contraire. Given that the patent office is self-funded, and rejections only generate more filing fees, it'd be Machiavellian for some silly Patent Office executive to hand out incentives for rejecting patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Your theory makes no sense because the patent office gets more money when they grant a patent than when you simply file. They are motivated to grant patents.
Re: (Score:2)
That strategy would work if the Patent office didn't have a humungous backlog. But it does, so there are always more patents to process (and points to earn).
According to what I've read the problem is currently that the backlog is causing the Patent Office to approve patents too easily, reducing the quality of the patent.
No, my experience as a patent holder is that the patent process is one of negotiation. The first filing is make overly broad in order to see what you can get away with. When it's rejected yo
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly, you don't know how the count system works at the USPTO. Here's how it works:
For each case, you get a total of two counts. You get 1.25 counts for the first action on the merits in the case, which can be a non-final rejection or an allowance. You get 0.25 counts for an action that closes prosecution (which can be a final rejection or an allowance). And you get the remaining 0.5 counts when the case is disposed of (which can be from an abandonment, from writing an answer to an appeal brief, from
Big deal (Score:2)
You know, if the patent office doesn't like it, why don't they just grant the next patent they see for "using words".
Fool speaks the truth (Score:2)
From the lawyer's letter:
Since when did the USPTO become a post World War II jobs program? What's the point of hiring 2,000 additional examiners when 2,000 rubber stamps would suffice just fine?
He has a point - during 2012, 89% of all US patent applications were granted, according to a University of Richmond School of Law study.
“It is a fool's prerogative to utter truths that no one else will speak.” - Neil Gaiman
LMAO (Score:2)
Chances are the patent application was so full of ambiguous legal gobbledygook that it would take someone on crack, or some strong mind-altering drug, to even begin to try and make sense of it.
But I think the problem is that the patent office has been slammed with just accepting everyone's bullshit that now they are probably rejecting everything out of spite.
Hammering the table (Score:4, Funny)
There's an old legal saying that if the facts are against you, you should hammer the law; if the law is against you, you should hammer the facts; and if both are against you, you should hammer on the table. Since this guy doesn't cite any particular laws or facts to defend his position, he's apparently resorting to hammering on the table.
Re: Carreon (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Jobs DID NOT invent the smartphone or tablet or touchscreen at all. that is all 1980's tech. All he did was pair a new high capacity battery with a bog standard low power microprocessor and a stylish case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're not a particularly obnoxious example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, but you wish you were?
Re: (Score:2)