bdub77: What? Patent system, broken?Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the USPTO is just an extortion racket now where each patent application comes standard with an envelope of cash.
Arthen: In a just world practicing patent law would be s capital crime.
bingethinker: Is this where Samsung's paid shills and brainwashed douchebags come to whine?
Teiritzamna: we should have no patent protection at all
Representative of the unwashed masses: Ok, but what about rectangles with rounded corners?
bdub77: Teiritzamna: we should have no patent protection at allNailed it.
Teiritzamna: What particularly in this re-examination procedure to you find problematic?
poot_rootbeer: Teiritzamna: What particularly in this re-examination procedure to you find problematic?The outcome, naturally.Any time a patent case is decided contrary to how I imagine it works, then it must be proof that the system is broken.
Teiritzamna: You are asking them to admit that they made an error.
Bacontastesgood: If you are fluent in gibberish and have about $10k, you can patent anything through the joke that is the USPTO. Example.
Bacontastesgood: One of the dipshiats that usually comes here...
HotWingAgenda: 4500 degrees Fahrenheit for 3 seconds? WTF.
Bacontastesgood: HotWingAgenda: 4500 degrees Fahrenheit for 3 seconds? WTF.Yeah, you're not fluent in gibberish I see. The abstract is factually incorrect because a tard was involved at some stage. That is one extreme temperature of the heating elements, not the bread. Anyway it's a farking toaster oven. The patent would be laughed off and rejected by a grad student if it were submitted to any half-ass journal* for publication for not only being unoriginal but for being poorly written and having conflicting and nonsensical information like what you found. But it's pretty much par for the course for patents. I would just laugh it off, but this shiat is ruining innovation because these things can be the basis of litigation for fark's sake.I mean, this patent was not only written and submitted but paid for, reviewed and awarded. There are many like it, in every field of innovation, some more subtle because most of us don't understand communication networks or drugs or fuel injectors like we understand a toaster oven. Think about the implications. The shape of a tablet is the least of our problems.*yeah, there are full-ass journals out there who will publish any crap, sorry to say. At least people can just ignore those. You can't ignore patents if you're trying to invent and sell stuff.
bacongood: Cite the prior art or STFU.
bacongood: Bacontastesgood: [comments][comments]
Bacontastesgood: bacongood: Cite the prior art or STFU.I hope you're joking. #1 non-obviousness to someone skilled in the area of invention is a requirement, you don't have to have prior art. This one is obvious to anyone.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Mar 25 2017 06:42:46
Runtime: 0.179 sec (179 ms)