Information Patents in the US and Europe 182
Over_and_Done writes "First Monday has an article up discussing the differences in information process patents between the US and Europe. The author mentions that the United States reform is too focused on process reform, arguing that they should be instead focusing on what is and is not patentable (i.e. Business Method patents). He also states that Europe is choosing to instead follow a different track, and make the process a little more restrictive, resulting in a rift between the US and Europe. The article raises a lot of interesting facts that I was not aware of, including the incident where the US threatened to walk out of the WIPO
meeting because the proposed treaty did not 'mandate patents for all fields of activity.' The author, although critical of the policies on both sides of the pond states that the rift is in some ways healthy, as it encourages an open debate and requires people to look at the patent issue from many different angles."
Sorry, no more comments on this (Score:3, Funny)
Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
Algroithms and scientific ideas should not be patentable. Patent law in the U.S. was orginally designed to 'stimulate invention and creativity.' The law was designed as a social contract, we will give you the exclusive rights to such and such an invention in exchange for you publically announcing not only that you have invented this but detailing how it works. The idea behind this is that you benefit somewhat from legal monoply while the public beenfits from having a new idea out there, one which it was assumed by the creaters of the law would be built upon and surpassed by better inventions by the time the patent ran out. The monolply that coems with a patent was only tolerated so that new ideas would be open to the public and creativity would flourish(not just by you but by the public since they could now view the patent.) However, we increasingly see people patenting things, not to stimulate craetivity and new ideas, but rather to supress craetivity and to prohibit people from building on inventions.
Now we come to algorithms and scientific ideas. Imagine if Djkstra patented his algroithms? Imagine if all the sort algorithms had been patented? Imagine if the theory of relativity had been patented? Imagine if Rutherford had patented his ideas on the atom, or if the theory of elctromagnetism had been patented? The patenting of such things do not stimulate invention or creativity. Rather it creates a monopoly that stagnates a field of science. Such monoplies were not nor ever will be justifiable under patent law. In addition, patent law bars the patenting of processes that can be potentially thought through by a human. This is why mathemtaical algorithms (or proofs) cannot be patented. The algorithms that have been patented have been only patented since they exist on machines and even this is highly debated (in fact, depending on what district of the federal government your case is heard in decides if they take a computer algorithm to be patentable or not.) Algroithms can be thought out by the human mind hence they should not be patentable. In addition, scientific ideas are laws of nature which by patent law are not patnetable. What if Netwon patented gravity and then decided to take a royality from everyone making use of the idea? Every physicist on Earth and every physics textbook would have had to pay him.
In the end, patent law (and copyright law for taht matter) were designmed to stimulate invention and creativity, not only by you but the public as well. the government never garuntees you will make money for an idea, they simply have decided that in some cases it is in the publics best interests to grant you limited control of an idea. Once such a protection is no longer in the publics best interests (teh governemnt considers the publics bets interests far more important tahn any indivisuals, the idea of government is utilitarian at heart), any such control of an idea is a violation of teh spirit of copyright and patent law.
Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:5, Funny)
Newton would be rich, especially if it was a US patent. Since ~30% of Americans are obese, he could just walk around and make money off of fat people. "I believe you're using something that belongs to me. Pay the royalty please. Thank you. Here, have a candy. My treat."
Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly right. In fact the article quote Gates saying that if this type of patent were possible in the past, the industry would be at a standstill, but he doesn't continue this quote as Lessig does in this presentation [randomfoo.net] where he (Gates) indicates his plan to do exactly that with our future. If you don't think he plans to use this to attempt to destroy Linux at some point, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:1)
IBM, MS and Patents (Score:2)
They are clearly an interesting case as they were against software and business method patents originally, but they have
Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:2)
Once you read a scientific paper, or see the documentation of an algorithm, it's imprinted on you; it colours any representation of the world and possible approach to computing you think of. To patent something as basic as that puts both fields at a standstill. The same goes for bussiness models.
Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:1)
the theory of relativity, ruthford's model of the atom, and maxwells laws - while all expressed as slgorithms - are not discoveries of nature and not patentable subject matter. not then, not now.
google's search engine - also expressable as a mathematical algorithm - IS patentable because it is an invention, not a discovery in nature.
the fundamental question is whether or not people have a right to own their ideas - not whether or not algor
Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:1)
google's search method a discovery? really? it was always there waiting for someone to get hit on the head by an apple and notice it?
or was it the result of some smart people doing a lot of hard thinking, making some mistakes, enduring frustration, having flashes of brilliance, and developing a technique which provides a great deal of value to a lot of people?
a reasonable assumption would be that google's patent is a result of the latter.
in other words, this was an invention, not a discovery.
the me
Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:2)
Mathematical proofs fall under this description as does most of the methods for solving Linear Algebra problems. As I said, mathematical processes are not patentable and neither are processes which can be thought out by the human mind the prime example being mental math (and any
Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
Great - corporations patent every new/old/used algorithm and idea in sight and use it as a part of their portfolio to scare off competitors. How is this helping innovation? If anything it is preventing anyone to actually act on the idea to innovate.
Patent system is flawed - on top of what has already been said about it such as patents are too broad, many things should not be patentable, etc. - it is flawed in that USPTO receives money for every patent granted; it is to USPTO's advantage to grant more and more patents to get more funding. It is so ridiculous, I don't know that anything I do isn't patented already. The argument that patent database is open is not helpful - there's so many of them, you can't be expected to go through it next time you want to do something obvious.
Can I raise my hand to pull over a cab without violating a patent? I don't know - I certainly can't swing on a swing [uspto.gov].
Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:2)
Sorry, thats too ridiculous to be believeable - whats the catch?
Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:3, Interesting)
more information here [siliconvalley.com]
This was actually posted on
The father filed the patent to teach his son about how the US patent system works, figuring something so ridiculous and obvious would never get patented.
Two years later, he got back the news, patent approved.
Oddly enough, it does not appear to have been overturned, or would I have to look someplace else to find that out?
Wrong, None of this should be Pantentable (Score:4, Interesting)
Algorithms are essentially ideas, and ideas are neither patentable nor do they qualify for copyright. A particular expression of an idea can be copyrighted, and its use in a process can be patentable, but ideas are not, at least in principle. The idea that you can patent a naturally occuring pattern (i.e. a gene or genes) is ridiculous. It might be ok to give a patent on say a genetic test for a particular condition, but it seems to me that there isn't much invention beyond the basic science (idea) that links the gene and the condition.
The truth is (as explained in this very good paper) that the patent authorities in both the US and Europe have bent over backwards to extend the scope of patents. The paper lays out how patent professionals keep pushing this, sometimes in spite of any attempt of anyone outside their circle to attempt to set policy, even lawmakers. Check this [caliu.info] out for an indication of just how out of control the EPO is. They make money from handing out these patents whether it is good for the rest of us or not, and there is little effective control on any of it.
Not fully correct on the EPO (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, the EPO is not bound by the EU.
However, the EU can nevertheless issue directives (guidelines to amend national law) and regulations (binding law) relating to patents. This can be extended towards the EPO, by letting EU member states have it put in the EPC (European Patent Convention). For example, this happened with the biotech directive.
Besides that, it is still possible to invalidate patents in front of a national court and in the fut
Re:Not fully correct on the EPO (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not fully correct on the EPO (Score:2)
Sometimes I hate TLAs. SME is Small/Medium Enterprises? I think it was this paper that kept using IDC, or something like that and
Re:Not fully correct on the EPO (Score:2)
Partly, but often more important is the uncertainty about whether there are patents out there that you may infringe on. Even if you try to do a proper search, it might be a patent that is in the process and not yet public. This is part of why software patents are so bad. Because it isn't alway a cut and dried issue as to what situations the patent might apply, knowledge of existing patents can actually work against you when you attempt to argue that your use does
Re:Not fully correct on the EPO (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you think I'm a student. Actually, I'm a software engineer with a background in both development and system administration (20+ years). Right now, I'm thinking about trying to get a PhD, in part because I very dissatisfied with what is available in the corporate America. Without getting into all the details around this decision, the bottom line is that I claim that the curren
Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:1)
Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:1)
Gauss was generally known as a prick, keeping all his algorithm for himself. When someone came up to Gauss showing him a just developped algorithm, Gauss would just brag that he had developped the same over ten years ago. He just kept everything to himself.
This is just an example, similar cases are known for other famous mathematicians.
Imagine what would have happened when Maxwell wouldn't have had Gauss' theorems at hi
Is there a theme here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is there a theme here? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is there a theme here? (Score:2)
(I don't think anyone expected him to get the treaty through, when he clearly didn't want to. But they also didn't expect him to be gratuitously offensive.)
the theme vs the end game (Score:2)
The problem with patents is that too many people assume that patents are just like other property rights. Normally, property rights protect freedom and free markets. Patents do not. Unlike other properties they are an artificial construct of government without any foundation in the real world, or without any foundation such as finite physical utility.
This pro
Re:the theme vs the end game (Score:2)
The only saving grace of patents under the US system is that they expire. That's it.
That statement is actually a bit overdone. There are reasonable arguments for patents in areas requiring a large amount of up front investment of capital. I'm not certain that they are valid, but in such cases they become much more plausible. In those cases the main argument against patents is the incredibly bad way in which they are implemented, and the fact
Re:Get it right (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what is called an "excuse." The real reason is that it would have forced the US to face the unsustainability of it's current environmental regime with regard to carbon emissions and the impact switching to a better model would have on the economy. Given that the US is in a shitload of trouble now that Bush has let the budget deficit skyrocket (while handing a fat tax break to the wealthiest of Americans), it looks like a smart move. But eventually, this is going to have to be faced, as well as, the incredibly unsustainable foreign trade imbalance will be too. The EU could embargo us and put the lights out, given the current levels of productivity there and our insatiable need to consume.
BTW, China is not the world's largest polluter. Not even in terms of per capita. The US is. [lbl.gov]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Get it right (Score:2)
I can think of a few reasons why this would be. First, Americans keep their houses hot. Not me personally - I like it at 60-65F - or even less- that's because i'm diabetic and always feeling hot anyway. I keep it above 60 for the benefit of others, else no one would stay in my house. But most people in the US keep it at 70 or 72. Europeans, on the other hand, seem to like it around 60. Big energy savings there, for sure.
Actually I like it around 17. The secret is very simple - stubborn Americans just ha
Re:Get it right (Score:1)
Re:Get it right (Score:1)
Re:Get it right (Score:1)
As it turned out, hardly anyone actually wanted to share his/her car. The car pool lanes remained almost empty and the traffic jams on the normal lanes were worse than ever. Another amount of money had to be spe
Re:Get it right (Score:2)
Appart from that, fuelefficiency and insulation should go a long way to bring consumption down, as would better use of solar and wind power. Too bad that all those plans formed during the first oilcrisis in the 70's were nixed
That might even have prevented the whole course of actions that led to 9/11.
Re:Get it right (Score:2)
Re:Get it right (Score:2)
Its pretty suprising the gas mileage that the CRV & RAV-4 get, too. If you get the 2wd versions, they get high-20s, IIRC.
I've always wanted to start a business designing active-management for passive-solar type housing. Lots of sensors optimizing fan usage in crawl spaces, automatical
Re:Get it right (Score:2)
You're using that as an example without giving all the information. It isn't necissarily the problem that people don't like having r
Re:Get it right (Score:2)
The latest budget, which you wouldn't know about because the propaganda box talks nothing about it because of the diversionary war, was whacked in half. Left in place though: all of the breaks for the richest 1-2 percent of Americans. And they cut 28 billion from veteran's programs to keep the dividend tax reduction. People impacted by the dividend tax reduction make over 150000 a year. People w
Re:Get it right (Score:2)
Or have pensions. Those who save money for their retirement do so by (indirectly) buying shares (and related assets, such as bonds) with that money. When they come to retire, those shares then provide their income in retirement.
Yours is a very common misconception, that somehow "shareholders" are a separate species. They aren't. Have a 401(k)? You're one of them. A non-government pension? Same. Even the money in a deposit account in a
Re:Is there a theme here? (Score:2)
The political signal that this is starting will be when countries start refusing to accept loans where the payment is figured in dollars. If they are sensible, it's already started. Other countries are having economic troubles too, though, so they might be distracted. (It takes a bit of doing to revamp an internat
Software patents... (Score:1, Insightful)
Spookey dookey (Score:1)
(sorry, couldn't help the shameless plug!)
The nexus between business and government (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent hijinks in the US in recent years seems to highlight the strong nexus between government and business in America. Intellectual Property has been willingly converted from a protective 'shield' designed to foster innovation into a 'sword' to strike down competitors. The most obvious example is the various startup companies who have no actual products, just a patent, and who proceed to work their way up the food chain suing others for patent infringement or demanding royalties.
As a non-American, it seems logical to me that you should expect your government to make a conscious decision before a legal doctrine should undergo such a transformation. Instead, you have a situation where business has made the decision and then gradually weaselled it into law through undue influence of your executive (patent office) and parliamentary government.
Reforming your patent laws might help this particular problem, but if you want a long term solution to this kind of crap then some more fundamental separation of private and public interests is in order. Campaign finance, political donations, and restrictions on the activities of lobby groups might be a good start...
Re:The nexus between business and government (Score:2)
You sir, have just explained "the American Way" to us all!
At some point... (Score:1)
Jefferson and co. weren't perfect themselves, but I think they would be quite upset if they could see the current arrangement in action.
Re:The nexus between business and government (Score:2, Interesting)
Democracies don't make concious decisions. They're mobs that allow the shewd to get ahead at the expense of the simple, and can all too often lead to tyrannies of the majority.
The USA prides itself on being a demoracy. We may have been forced to put in safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, and there have been several times w
Re:The nexus between business and government (Score:2)
Pure democracy, in which every decision is made by every individual en masse would perhaps fit your description. The congress and senate, however, serve to reduce the process to a more manageable size through representation. Bush's tax cuts or the GOP's policies aren't the result of some amorphous, mob-driven process, they're the result of active, conscious thinking that leads to a particular decision.
I'm afraid most 'democracies' are effectively oligarchic in nature and fundamentally weak
Re:The nexus between business and government (Score:1)
Well, yeah. Democracy invaribly leads to corruption. The entire federalist system was designed so that the corruption of any one segment would
Re:The nexus between business and government (Score:2)
Re:The nexus between business and government (Score:1)
Republic:- A state in which supreme power is held by the people or its elected representatives or by elected or nominated president.
Demoncracy:-(A State having) government by all the people, direct or representative.
So USA is a republic and UK is a monarchy. Both are representative (not direct) democracies. Although you could argue a country
Re:The nexus between business and government (Score:2)
A republic does this (ie approaches that ideal) by limiting who can vote and by having certain positions be indirectly voted for.
Also please note that the historical democracy (that of the greeks) severely limited who could vote by denying women, mentally incompetents, slaves, people with too little money, invalids, criminals, and anyone the voting publi
Re:The nexus between business and government (Score:2)
But a) it doesn't apply to every household: there are many where one of the two makes most of the decisions and b) it doesn't scale up very well; the more people you have, the more dumb people you have who would make dumb decisions. If a population is large enoughy, a simple bell-curve will show that people with less insight will overrule the people who would make the right decision. This also happens when you do the same
Read it again, This isn't good for business (Score:2)
business and government is the nexus (Score:2)
Reforming your patent laws might help this particular problem, but if you want a long term solution to this kind of crap then some more fundamental separation of private and public interests is in order. Campaign finance, political donations, and restrictions on the activities of lobby groups might be a good start...
This will do nothing, because it treats the symptom and not the cause. If you want to keep business out of government - then first keep government out of peoples business. Then they will hav
Re:The nexus between business and government (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The nexus between business and government (Score:2)
But if you can't give and accept campaign donations, then only the very rich can run for office...
The FCC used to require stations to make time available equally to all candidates. Now they just have to be willing to sell time to all the candidates. (And I'm not sure just how well that requirement is enforced, but all they need to do is charge enough, and then make the campaign donations
Re:The nexus between business and government (Score:2)
Nexus?
It's a fsking orgy.
And us?...
We're the fsking lubricant, man... the fsking lubricant.
Re:The nexus between business and government (Score:2)
To whit: Instead of patent clerks being evaluated on how well they did their job, the terms were shifted to evaluating them on how many patents they granted. (No penalites for subsequent patent reversals by the courts.)
I think that this happened during Reagan's term in office, and th
Re:The nexus between business and government (Score:2)
I agree with your point
Sorry lost you (Score:5, Funny)
I was with them until this point.
Re:Sorry lost you (Score:2)
It aint nuttin new (Score:1, Informative)
Obligatory Haikus (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory Haikus (Score:5, Funny)
Info patents in
The U.S. and Europe can
Not patent haikus
Re:Obligatory Haikus (Score:1)
Re:Obligatory Haikus (Score:2)
your thought for today: wake up! (Score:1)
what to hold, what to let go,
what to kill, what to let grow?
and wha
How about an angle of "no patents" (Score:4, Insightful)
People are putting too much faith in the patent system, and even worse is that they're assuming that patents are good for commerce, business, and free markets. IMHO, this is a bad road to go down, the problems of patents are well documented, and things will only get worse as society gets more advanced.
Re:How about an angle of "no patents" (Score:5, Insightful)
The original intent was to give an inventor time to get some return on their investment in an invention to help promote development. After some set period of time the patent would expire and others could benefit from the invention and manufacture it. Note: invention. They were implying some form of device. Not business model or one-click-shopping.
Now, the patent system still has some benefits. The biotech industry is a good example, where the development costs are staggering and the times to market are long and arduous. It can take years to get a new drug approved, and by then the patent may nearly have expired.
I'm glad the EU countries have a differnt take on it. Unfortunately, the US government is becoming notorious for not caring about what the rest of the world thinks. The "best method" is probably somewhere in the middle, but we'll never see it in the US as long as the business that bought the government still get their way.
Re:How about an angle of "no patents" (Score:3, Insightful)
The original intent was to give an inventor time to get some return on their investment in an invention to help promote development. After some set period of time the patent would expire and others could benefit from the invention and manufacture it. Note: invention. They were implying some form of device. Not business model or one-click-shopping.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The simple fact is, that if you give the little guy the power to lock out the big guys, then you also can not
Re:How about an angle of "no patents" (Score:2)
Ne
Re:How about an angle of "no patents" (Score:2)
Never said it was easy. The problem is there is no incentive for the companies to do the raw research to develop the anti-(insert disease here) drug if they'll never get a return on the investment...
And perhaps Ford has no incentive to invest billions of dollars in safety research unless the govt can grant them a monopoly on making cars. - NO, I don't buy it. Sorry, but the world is full of lunatics and governments who have no incentive to do big public goods unless they have the power to impose their
Re:How about an angle of "no patents" (Score:2)
Re:How about an angle of "no patents" (Score:2)
You're losing me here. There was actually very little research into vehicle safety until the government started mandating vehicles become safer. Ford's incentive to do researc...
Arrgh, Ford had nothing to do with it - just because someone claims a great incentive does not automatically give them the right to impose their will on every other part of society. This kind of attitude always leads to disaster.
Basic economics says it's not worth developing a product of ANY form if there's no payout in the en
Re:How about an angle of "no patents" (Score:2)
BUT the pharmaceutical industry would simply not exist without patents. There would be not incentive whatsoever to spend 500 million dollars on a new drug if the following day someone can copy it and sell it for a tenth of the price.
Even worse, is how the patent system has made it nearly impossible for research firms to cooperate and collaberate on finding a cure.
What does t
Side issue... (Score:1)
I'm glad the EU countries have a differnt take on it. Unfortunately, the US government is becoming notorious for not caring about what the rest of the world thinks. The "best method" is probably somewhere in the middle, but we'll never see it in the US as long as the business that bought the government still get their way.
Did it ever occur to you that this "best method" attitude is why the EU is becomming so irrelavent? Right or wrong, we should at least have the balls to consider things taken to their
Re:How about an angle of "no patents" (Score:2)
Re:How about an angle of "no patents" (Score:1)
Can you imagine the chaos that would occur without patents?
You might think it would help the small inventor or business but in the long run only the big corporations would benefit from no patents. Only they would have the resources to clone a new idea/product and twist it so only they can sell it. Pushing out the original inventor who spent all the time and money in the first place.
Such a system would only creat a hoarde of monopolies. OCP anyone?
Excuse me, but big
New patent administration method (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe this would be a good model for patents etc, because it would remove not only the uncertainty relating to lawsuits but also
Re:New patent administration method (Score:1)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that organization the RIAA? Who most
whoops (Score:2)
Pants! What is the fastest land-based animal?
Argh, maybe I should go back to coffee...
/.ers oppose software patents! (Score:1, Insightful)
It seems that the majority of the /. crowd (including myself) opposes most modern US patent activity in general and software patents in particular. For me, this is strong evidence that the system is horribly broken.
We, the /.ers, are the ones the patent system is supposed to protect. Innovators, with wildly creative ideas and the will to implement them. Small players, who cannot afford the tactics of large corporations for profiting from their innovations. Contributors to the greater technical and soc
USian intl arrogance could work _for_ us here... (Score:1, Offtopic)
IE: by telling US big bidness and the USPTO to go bite the big one!
Re:USian intl arrogance could work _for_ us here.. (Score:1)
First of all we have seen, that many countries - not only in the Arab world - are economically dependent of the U.S. and others are not. In fact that's probably what made the echoes to the USUK-Alliance so inconsistent.
Telling the U.S. to stick their patents where the sun don't shine w
The Stacker Case (Score:2, Interesting)
They first state it as a victory for patents, but didnt Stacker go bancrupt during the case, because of the violation by Microsoft?
And Microsoft didnt break the negotiations and develop their own product infringing on a patent. They broke the negotiations and released code stolen from Stacker as their own.
With this "poster" case punctured, can anyone come up with a case where a patent has pr
Re:Case punctured (Score:2)
Stacker originally refused to sell out to MS, but MS ruined the company. They had to pay restitution, but the company was dead, and the restitution didn't allow them to be revived.
Millions sounds like a lot. And it is for a person. It's twice the cost of a decent house in Silicon Valley (last year). But it isn't a lot for a company. 20 years ago a million was half the cost of a decent building. IF you already owned the land.
Anti-Patent action (Score:1)
Patent misconceptions (Score:1)
Link to actual discussion (Score:2)
cheese with that whine? (Score:2)
That is the bottom line for current american diplomatic efforts... not getting your way? drop out like a baby.
this is ABSOLUTELY on-topic and relevant... how can the world "negotiate" with a nation that acts like this????
Patents not the problem (Score:2)
Those in power should realize how much of a problem this is, and do something to reform the poor patent system. If the US can't do it, then maybe another country can to set a good example. It's not the idea that's broken: it's the system, and perhaps those using it.
Like anything of good intent, sometimes people need a stern punishment for abusing the process (people in this case being large cor
Re:I don't know (Score:1)
Somehow things went ok during the industrial revolution without the ridiculous patent laws you have today.
Re:You must be French (Score:2)
Both Winter AND Summer games.
Summer: Paris, 1900. Paris, 1924.
Winter: Chamonix, 1924. Grenoble, 1968. Albertville 1992
Re:France has more what? (Score:1)
Electricity.
Nope, I'm afraid your wrong again, Frenchie. The USA produces 754.9 Billion KWhs. France only makes 395.0 Billion KWhs.
But the previous poster was talking specifically about California, not the USA as a whole. In 2000, California consumed 264,000GWh, while only generating 226,000GWh, forcing them to become a net importer. And as you say, France produces 395,000GWh. In fact, France is an electricity exporter. If the French wanted to, the
Re:I hate America (Score:4, Funny)
Thank you for your feedback. While America tries to accomodate most people, we occasionally find a person who is not a right match for America. We regret that things did not work out, and wish you luck in your future endeavors. If you are not satisfied with America, you are encouraged to stop using our products, services, technologies, or visiting our locally hosted websites.
Thanks again,
America
Re:I hate America (Score:1)
Re:I hate America (Score:2)
Re:I hate America (Score:2, Funny)
Thank you for your memo. While the civilised world tries to accommodate most people, we occasionally find a country that is not up to our high standards. The USA is such a country. We regret that things did not work out, and wish your people luck in finding alternative accommodation. If you, at some point in the future, wish to rejoin the civilised world, you are encouraged to: stop polluting the environment; declaring war on other non civilised world countries for fictional reasons
Re:I hate America (Score:2)
Re:What Happens To Patents? (Score:2)
Simple... In the same place as the list of current patents. You just have to look back a few years, 17 or 20 to be specific.
Remember patents have a limited lifetime. (in contrast to copyright which effectivly now lasts forever [sic])
The one exception where just looking back 20 years won't get you all of the expired patents is that a patent can expire early if the maintainence fees aren't paid. (I don't recall exactly how often but it is something like every 5 or 7 yea