Technically they are correct. They do not live under bridges and eat children or turn to stone when exposed to sunlight. Please refrain from making false accusations and stick to only verifiable labels such as “patent scumbags”. Thanks.
I was thinking along the lines of, “why do bad things happen to good people?”
I was thinking, “Isn’t it great that I’m a good person who gets to watch two bad people slug it out!” Patent trolls or a soul-sucking ad-slinger who knows nearly everything about my online (and, by proxy, my offiline) habits. As the joke goes, if the three of us were facing off in a pit and I only had one bullet, maybe I’d beat them with the gun and save the bullet for myself? Screw it, I’ll just make blue meth in my yellow suit and get my cronies to take care of the light work.
There is an interesting article at http://www.genetic-programming.org/gp4chapter1.pdf that discussed Genetic Programming.
Novelty and creativity are prerequisites for patentability. A new idea that can be
logically deduced from facts that are known in a field, using transformations that are
known in a field, is not considered to be patentable by the Patent Office. A new idea
is patentable only if there is an “illogical step” (that is, a logically unjustified step) that
distinguishes the proposed invention from that which is readily deducible from what
is already known.
From the paper (it’s actually a book excerpt) it says that Genetic Programming can lead to automated solutions to problems that are in themselves patentable. The US Patent Office will grant a patent to an invention that is machine generated. Look to the future where unless you approach AI problems via a Genetic Programming approach your company will be left in the patent troll dust.
IANAL but using standard AI methods (category matching which it looks like the patent under question is doing) doesn’t seem like it should qualify as a patent. I’m thinking that this patent is not so novel if so many other companies have reproduced it independently.
Shouldn’t statements like that be grounds for being dis- barred? After all any lawyers who makes such a claim clearly has insufficient knowledge of the law to practise it. Calling someone engaged in troll- like behaviour is no more a hate crime than calling someone fixing your pipes a plumber. Now, kicking someone in the head because they’re a patent troll could be argued to be a hate crime, if being a patent troll were a genetic predisposition or a religion.
I was objecting to the idea that this stuff is in any way actually capitalism. OK I will change the metaphor… saying capitalism is a cancer because of this is like saying the door is closed because it’s made of wood.
If you immediately know the candle light is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago.
Hate speech is protected speech, as it should be.
I do believe that the patent office has been infiltrated by Discordians.
This is s a moderator I can get behind. ; )
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.