Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Expensive, difficult, slightly dangerous, not particularly effective... I'm on a roll.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

Invention etymological website

Better category suggestion welcome...
  (+3)
(+3)
  [vote for,
against]

Did Marconi invent radio transmissions? No.
Did Edison invent the first light-bulb? No.
Did some company conceive of the first dilatant speed-bump? Hell no!

MANY... if not most original inventions have the same story attached to them. It goes something like this:

"You thought of and made this?! This is great! Wow!...now fuck off! Hey look everybody, I made this!"
...or something very similar and I would very much like to see a site which shows not only the true origins of any given modern innovation but also a backwards branching search function of all of the stories behind all of the previous innovations which eventually led to the modern widget in question.

hmmm, I never would have guessed that the invention of the printing press was anything so... absolute...


Everything was invented by the French Pretend_20everythin..._20someone_20French
[hippo, May 29 2019]

Ironware piece unearthed from Turkey found to be oldest steel https://web.archive...001200903261611.htm
Short newspaper article from 2009. [DrBob, May 31 2019]

Discounting of Future Cash Flows https://www.investo...com/terms/d/dcf.asp
[theircompetitor, Jun 01 2019]

From David Mamet's Heist. https://quotefancy....-they-call-it-money
[theircompetitor, Jun 02 2019]

Hidden Secrets of Money Episode 4 https://www.youtube...watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0
This is worth watching [xaviergisz, Jun 03 2019]

The Pit and the Pendulum https://en.wikipedi...it_and_the_Pendulum
Tick, tock ... [8th of 7, Jun 04 2019]

[wbeaty]'s neodarwinism article http://amasci.com/weird/hevolv.html
Mentioned in my anno [notexactly, Jun 11 2019]

Helix-propelled amphibious vehicle https://patents.goo...patent/DK280882A/en
[MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 14 2019]

Spiral drive and transport device https://patents.justia.com/patent/8579056
[MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 14 2019]

Also this cool thing from 1964 https://www.youtube...watch?v=1f_7Weam6q8
[MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 14 2019]

A cool Russian one from the 1970s https://www.youtube...watch?v=nVOaDfGOPGs
I so want one of these. [MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 14 2019]

https://www.youtube...watch?v=dC3t658ib3k [2 fries shy of a happy meal, Jun 15 2019]

[link]






       Nothing is developed in a void. Our thoughts are a mulling of all information taken in and even stuff we are not aware of. Just as, what you [2 fries], has stimulated below.   

       I like the idea of a web slider interface that traverses the time line showing physical incarnations of an invention. In 3D of course. A toothed wheel > gears > all the different angles and incantations of the torque transferring wheely thing. It would show where things branched due to design and timing or even concurrent invention.   

       It has to be a solid thing because a lot of patents go nowhere and it would get into a he wrote, she wrote problem. A device sitting on a private basement workbench, again, is no good. All documents with dates could be attach to a 3D representation for perusal out of interest.   

       Nice, a big visual database of invention taxonomy.
wjt, May 29 2019
  

       I would add a sensible annotation but I can hardly read this idea on my crappy Baird computer monitor.
hippo, May 29 2019
  

       True, some inventions are going to have minuscule changes , and not for the better.
wjt, May 29 2019
  

       // a backwards branching search function of all of the stories behind all of the previous innovations which eventually led to the modern widget in question. //   

       That's rapidly going to expand beyond usefulness.
8th of 7, May 29 2019
  

       The idea that anything is attributable to a lone individual is a simplistic fudge anyway.   

       It's like finding the very first Elephant and saying "That creature invented Elephants!" it just doesn't work like that. Things slowly evolve, smearing the lines between one categorization and another until "bop!" one half of the smeared population gets measles and disappears, leaving the remaining half in sharp relief.   

       Any sharp delineation between ideas, species or objects that are themselves an idealised aggregate of a diverse population is usually a feature that appears long after the origins of the form first manifested - in other words the process of segregation that allows us to define a thing is a very different one to the process of origination that caused the thing in the first place.
zen_tom, May 29 2019
  

       //That's rapidly going to expand beyond usefulness.//   

       That's how you know how to stop searching.   

       [zen_tom] Inventions 'mostly' have a clearer derivative, logic to them,though. Just look here on Halfbakery to see the modification process in action.
wjt, May 29 2019
  

       //...a site which shows not only the true origins of any given modern innovation...// - but as we all know, everything was invented by the French.
hippo, May 29 2019
  

       I think in this instance, what we think of as "invention" is actually two different components - and 2fries' idea neatly cleaves at a separation point that's normally overlooked.   

       An "invention" is:
i) A novel idea, mechanism or process that performs some operation
  

       ii) A specific implementation of an idea, mechanism or process in i) that is sufficiently socialised to become recognisable as an invention.   

       Noting that ii) is somewhat circular a definition, and where "sufficiently socialised" might be through means of the patent system, a branded product, accidental documentation in some historical text, or as a published academic paper etc.   

       We like to think of invention as being primarily the former, but I think it's fair to say that what we really talk about when we talk about inventors are the people who are successful socialisers. Hence Edison, Marconi, even Leonardo who was a dab hand with socialising his ideas in forms that still exist centuries later today.
zen_tom, May 29 2019
  

       Patent law has reasonable clarity regarding invention, at least for patentable inventions. Patent law also explicitly recognises that most inventions are assembled from pre- existing parts. So, if you invent a left-handed blivet with a self-regulator, it's accepted (patent-wise) that left-handed blivets pre-existed and that self-regulators pre-existed, but that your combination of them may still be inventive. (Of course, if the left-handed blivet is still under patent, you need to take a licence to that patent in order to make and sell your self-regulating left-handed blivet.)
MaxwellBuchanan, May 29 2019
  

       There's a bit of a gulf between the idea or a few jots and detailed description schematic, a physical, or proofed working entity. Imagining stuff is not really inventing. That's why it is called dreaming.
wjt, May 29 2019
  

       anyone on this site knows that ideas are not a dime a dozen, the price is listed right there.   

       I recall one mixed precipitation afternoon in the 90s, driving and having a eureka moment about rain and snow sensing window wipers.   

       I then came home and logged on through some channel (compuserve?) to the patent office, and discovered the thousands of patents on window wipers. Of course there's famous case of the engineer that did get money from Ford for the intermittent wiper after a multi-year court struggle.
theircompetitor, May 29 2019
  

       //Imagining stuff is not really inventing.// Depends. In general, having the idea is enough to file a preliminary application, which then gives a priority date to any subsequent filing. Many, many patents are filed this way. But you have a finite amount of time in which to reduce the idea to practice, at least to some extent.
MaxwellBuchanan, May 29 2019
  

       Requiring serious commitment and desire to see the whole thing through. So not just small imagining involving the brightening of some neural filaments.
wjt, May 30 2019
  

       //Requiring serious commitment and desire to see the whole thing through. So not just small imagining involving the brightening of some neural filaments.//   

       No these things should be searchable back to the original neuron firing. For example, (and quite coincidentally I might add) Igor Sikorsky built the first operational helicopter on this day in 1939 but everybody knows that the concept of the helicopter goes back to Leonardo.   

       Many people think that steel is an invention of the Industrial revolution but the Chinese in the personage of metallurgist Qiwu Huaiwen of the Northern Wei Dynasty (386-557 AD), invented the process of using wrought iron and cast iron to make steel hundreds of years earlier. They also invented movable type and much more.
xenzag, May 30 2019
  

       //the concept of the helicopter goes back to// Sycamore trees?
pocmloc, May 30 2019
  

       //They also invented movable type and much more.// So, basically, you're saying the Chinese are all French?
MaxwellBuchanan, May 30 2019
  

       Everything was invented by the French; Ergo, the Chinese were invented by the French.
hippo, May 30 2019
  

       At this point morrison_rm realises that this is as lucid as a Trump Twitter comment.
not_morrison_rm, May 30 2019
  

       //the concept of the helicopter goes back to// Sycamore trees?//   

       Sure, if the invention draws upon a natural phenomena observed by the originator then yes. That would make for interesting footnotes.   

       //Many people think that steel is an invention of the Industrial revolution but//// the Chinese invented the process of using wrought iron and cast iron to make steel hundreds of years earlier. They also invented movable type and much more.//   

       Exactly! A compendium of what truly went down and not whatever propaganda got shoved down your throat when you were young.   

       'We' all know where non-Newtonian speed bumps originated. Whomever holds the patent should have claimed this prior art.   

       No?   

       Proportion of claim in relation to actual work?
wjt, May 31 2019
  

       // 'We' all know where non-Newtonian speed bumps originated. //   

       If the HB idea pre-dates the patents, then anyone who wants to can challenge the patents. There's a fair chance they'd be thrown out on grounds of either anticipation or obviousness, unless the claims go appreciably beyond the HB idea.   

       //Proportion of claim in relation to actual work?// No no no. If you have a brilliant idea which is trivial to implement and is patentable, that's allowable.
MaxwellBuchanan, May 31 2019
  

       //the Chinese...invented...steel hundreds of years earlier.//

Steel was being made in the ancient world about 2000 years earlier than that (link).*

*Well before the French were invented.
DrBob, May 31 2019
  

       That’s ironic
Ian Tindale, May 31 2019
  

       // No no no // It is and inflation is real. I suppose it depends on how much you want money mean something or not.
wjt, May 31 2019
  

       There should be a piece of gold for every denomination of currency in circulation. Any law or ruling that allows moneys to circulate without backing is a money-lender sham which leads to rampant inflation and a Ponzi-scheme bubble just waiting to pop.   

       Sure it can theoretically inflate indefinitely but... has it ever yet?
Nope. Maybe this time right?
  

       I don't think gold has the amount necessary. My thinking is that it has to do with people because, lets face it, money is wholly a tool of and for the people of this world.   

       Is a dollar a dollar if it sits in a forest?
wjt, Jun 01 2019
  

       Without backing currency is imaginary. Allowing money lenders to only hold ten percent of what is lent out in trust means that every cent generated by interest is fictional cash.   

       Fictional debt does nothing but grow until pension money you slaved to pay isn't worth a plug nickle and you need a fucking wheelbarrow-full of the worthless shite just to buy a loaf of bread right before they send all the young men off to fight some war to stimulate the economy.   

       Near as I can tell anyway.   

       Am I wrong?   

       // Fictional debt // Sadly, means something to someone.
wjt, Jun 01 2019
  

       Yes, you are wrong. For a start, read up about discounting future cashflows. Presuming there is some relationship between interest rates and demand for money, you can justify different levels of leverage.   

       Of course you can be over-leveraged just as you can have too much debt. The market ultimately decides what that level is, and it can certainly change its mind about what that level is, sometimes rather quickly.   

       But calling it fictional is like calling zero fictional. It's an abstraction that allows for a better representation of value. Not fictional at all.
theircompetitor, Jun 01 2019
  

       For me, Depending on how many facts are used, fictional, imagined or extrapolating is close to a speculative concept. Not something hard, money was suppose to equate.   

       I just wish money could actually do a service or be a product so it could actually earn itself. Maybe a different term or wording to separate the service value and the perceived virtual value of money itself. Holding, Interest, Debt points on a sum of money with an associated ranging monetary value. A paywall on virtual money.
wjt, Jun 02 2019
  

       //Without backing currency is imaginary.//

Currency is a fiction with or without backing. It’s just that people will tend to go along with the fiction all the while that they have confidence in the issuer. The point being that the existence of ‘backing’ (a strong economy, bars of gold or whatever) is only relevant insofar as it bolsters confidence. The value of currency is based on the confidence, not on the ‘backing’.
DrBob, Jun 02 2019
  

       I think we're confusing fiction with abstraction. Certainly any coinage based on the scarcity of a given metal would have been neither fictional nor even abstract. Yes, the confidence plays a role as currency itself is constantly fluctuating versus other currencies and versus products, but that doesn't make it fiction at all.   

       Presumably during the tulip craze payment was made in coin? The fact that you had a speculative bubble did not make neither the tulips nor the gilders used to pay for them fictional.   

       The fluctuation of money (including due to confidence) is an emergent behavior of the sum of market participants.   

       That does not make it a fiction anymore than gravity, being (possibly) an emergent behavior of gravitons makes it fictional
theircompetitor, Jun 02 2019
  

       I don't think the gravity comparison works, tc. Gravity is a physical, measurable force that occurs in nature.

Money, on the other hand, is just metal disks & paper (or, these days, mostly stored electric charge in a computer chip) & it is only the word of the issuer that makes it money. The issuer could just as easily claim that cabbages or pebbles or leaves (c.Douglas Adams) are money*. If the issuer says it is money then it is money as long as most people go along with it. So it is a convenient fiction. That fiction might be based on an abstraction of value (by the issuer) but it is still a fiction.

And emergent market behaviour is really just another way of saying that it is a measure of what people, on average, believe the value of that money to be regardless of what the issuer thinks it is. The gap between those two beliefs is where the speculators live. Which brings us nicely on to Tulips!

*Obviously the choice of which particular medium you use can have interesting side-effects, but I think that my point holds good for the purposes of this debate.
DrBob, Jun 02 2019
  

       I guess we have to disagree. However frequent life is in the universe, it's a measurable physical phenomena that occurs in nature.   

       Life appears to compete for scarce resources, the eventual scarcity of such resources, even when initially near infinite, appears to also be inevitable, just ask cyanobacteria.   

       Everything flows from that -- from larger whales getting more attention from parasite fish cleaning their baleens, to bonobos trading sexual favors, all these are a form of currency, not fiction :) We abstracted it to make exchanges more efficient.
theircompetitor, Jun 02 2019
  

       //Life appears to compete for scarce resources//

This is a generalisation. There are many co-operative relationships in nature (indeed, you name some of them yourself) so I agree that we will have to disagree as I get the feeling we are heading towards an argument about Social Darwinism. Still, it was worth thinking about.
DrBob, Jun 02 2019
  

       <Social Darwinism is the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.>   

       Interesting. Using Darwinism to argue that things are they way they are because that's how they evolved is of course a cheap shot. Having said that, ostracizing such theories is fairly obviously a form of social darwinism. oh, the delicious ironies.
theircompetitor, Jun 02 2019
  

       Yeah. Not saying that I am not up for a debate about it but I don't think it will get us anywhere.
DrBob, Jun 02 2019
  

       What I'm sad about is, there seems to be more trading in the abstraction to abstraction than the weight of what money meant which was to equate real stuff, actions of people. A person doesn't have to carry their water in society, if they can get a large abstract to make more abstracts.
wjt, Jun 02 2019
  

       // oh, the delicious ironies. //   

       Don't just load your plate like that, leave a few for everyone else.   

       There could also be an Invention Entomology Website which detailed the serious bugs in major innovations.   

       // social darwinism //   

       That implies the existence of antisocial Darwinism, shirley ? Not sure exactly what that would be but it sounds like there might be a great deal of gratuitous violence involved ..
8th of 7, Jun 03 2019
  

       I understand value and how the worth of something like gold is in itself imaginary and can inflate, but the material itself can not increase or decrease in abundance unless more is found or lost.   

       Right? We can all agree on that?... Okay.   

       As it now stands all of the dollars I've paid over the course of my life to my government to ensure an old age pension are now worth pennies, (which ceased to exist in my lifetime because the copper became worth more than the currency), and you all want me to believe that allowing the money-lenders to run the show and 'not' have a piece of precious metal held in reserve for every single bit of script in circulation was a "good" idea?...   

       Terribly sorry but... exactly how many times does the same scenario have to play itself out before you talking monkeys finally clue in?   

       Typically, "once per generation". Your species' collective* memory has a well-defined half-life which means that the same woeful mistakes are repeated as soon as the number of individuals in the population who remember the last catastrophe falls below a critical level. History really does repeat itself.   

       The answer is that you need to upgrade from the existing Mk. I Human as soon as a new design is available.   

       *as opposed to our highly efficient, lossless Collective memory.
8th of 7, Jun 03 2019
  

       //political conservatism, imperialism, and racism//   

       This account of Social Darwinism is true, but incomplete. We may also note that the concept of evolution was used, just as spuriously, on the left, to justify excluding and exploiting those people whom the left considered petty-bourgeois or otherwise psychologically underdeveloped. You can see a crass example of this in the beatnik novel "And the Hippos Were Boiled in their Tanks", and a rather subtler example in Maslow's "Motivation and Personality".
pertinax, Jun 03 2019
  

       //social darwinism// is that like military intelligence?   

       Going back to The Selfish Gene I would presume that all Darwinism is anti- social, including, I get a feeling from DrBob, the social kind :)   

       [two-fries] -- that same argument is being used, rather successfully, for crypto, where the scarcity is mathematical rather than physical (incidentally, mathematical scarcity is MUCH more reliable, as any day now Elon will tow back to earth a nice big chunk of metal that will crash commodity prices).   

       But surely we are in a forum where a level of abstraction is allowed? Substitute the market's determination on interest rates (which does fluctuate, though also influenced mightily by central banks) for scarcity, and you have exactly the same concept.   

       I struggle to understand why inflation is such a concern when inflation is the lowest it's been historically, and in fact governments and banks are more concerned about huge deflationary shocks that are going through the system.   

       Debt (by banks or governments) is surely a bigger concern, but without that debt (and the occasional setbacks that generates) economies wouldn't grow, as it's literally borrowing from the future to enable the creation of the future.
theircompetitor, Jun 03 2019
  

       // I would presume that all Darwinism is anti-social //   

       You would presume incorrectly, because that would militate against the evolution of bees, ants and termites, and herd and oack behaviours in grazing and predatory species.   

       The "selfish gene" therory is quite valid because if all the individuals in a herd carry very similar genes, then those genes are successful although existing in multiple individual organisms.
8th of 7, Jun 03 2019
  

       bees and termites are more socialist than social :) Mostly though, each organism behaves like that bit vial of blood in The Thing.
theircompetitor, Jun 03 2019
  

       //to enable the creation of the future.//   

       Well, that's true so long as you overlook the distinction between profits and rents: profits arise from successfully "creating the future", whereas rents arise from successfully cornering and hoarding the present.   

       It can be argued that one of the problems with the recent behaviour of debt-generated capital has been that much of it (though by no means all, to be fair) has been directed towards generating rents rather than profits. Hence, house prices, for example.
pertinax, Jun 03 2019
  

       it can be argued, but it would be wrong, as arguing that stock buybacks are somehow unproductive is wrong.   

       Money is definitionally fungible, and so money generated on "rents" is ultimately enabling investment in futures, and to borrow from Darwin, it's not surprising that multiple niches and business models evolve to attempt to go beyond the interest rate.
theircompetitor, Jun 03 2019
  

       In the immortal words of [MaxwellBuchanan], "On the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks."   

       Yes, money is fungible, and this the essence of money, as you say. However, different allocations of money are not equivalent or interchangeable. If they were, then money would not be very interesting, and people would not waste so much nervous energy arguing about it on the internet.   

       Full disclosure: my own capital, such as it is, is currently in rental assets, so I am part of the problem. You may call me a rank hypocrite. But I still think there's an interesting problem here to think about.
pertinax, Jun 04 2019
  

       //[two-fries] -- that same argument is being used, rather successfully, for crypto, where the scarcity is mathematical rather than physical (incidentally, mathematical scarcity is MUCH more reliable, as any day now Elon will tow back to earth a nice big chunk of metal that will crash commodity prices).//   

       Not made my mind up yet about crypto. Sounds good. Got any gold to back it up?   

       If Elon Musk can find gold from somewhere other than Earth then more fucking power to him.   

       //Typically, "once per generation". Your species' collective* memory has a well-defined half-life which means that the same woeful mistakes are repeated as soon as the number of individuals in the population who remember the last catastrophe falls below a critical level. History really does repeat itself. //   

       Well shit... how does one go about changing that statistic?   

       //rents rather than profits. Hence, house prices, for example.//   

       Landlord syndrome. I know it well.
"Didn't get to buy something young enough? So sorry..."
  

       Don't really see what any of that stuff has to do with having my constitutional rights to my own original thoughts being legally claimed by an other, (even if that other is John Q. Public) when congress can not legally issue patent to anyone who is not "the inventor", (very specific wording for a very good reason), yet now my innovations, (which nobody will touch with a ten-foot pole because they are no longer proprietary due to the unconstitutional rights theft which occurred during the time it took to build a prototype after publicly disclosure of the concept itself), collect dust in some sea-can because we are all now suddenly and without a say been required to pay some "other" for the rights to our own thoughts now.   

       Bullshit!   

       Credit where credit is due people... period, or all of your shit is a house of cards which will fall apart... and very easily. That's not a threat... just an observation.
I "will" have the rights to my own thoughts back in my lifetime...
  

       You'll see.
You might want to fix this shit before you've been made to see.
  

       Just sayin...   

       What did you invent 2-fries? Could there be some sneaky noggin you could add to your patent filing in order to make it original enough to get filed? I don't know how the patent clerks do their jobs these days, but assuming they're still human, it must be possible (considering the sheer weight of patentry being filed industrially these days) to sneak something in that's *just* different enough for you to claim rights on it? It's a game, a system, and yes it sucks the way it's played these days - but if those are the rules the corporates play by, there's nothing stopping you from playing the same way.   

       I recon most folks get a free million of "slack" before the vultures pile in and try getting their beaks in. At which point, if you're big enough, you can either pay them off, or take them to court. Nobody is going to take you to court until such time as it's worth doing so, lawyers cost money, and nobody's going to unleash the lawyers until there's profit in it. If a proper court case costs $1,000,000 then until that's the amount of profit you're making, nobody is going to try and take it off you using the patent system until there's a good probability that they will break even.
zen_tom, Jun 04 2019
  

       I take it, [2 fries] you were not swayed by Obama's "you didn't build that", huh?   

       While I'm personally repulsed by that statement, and while patent law is imperfect, there appear to be remedies within the law for genuine innovation (as in the Ford case). And surely the patent troll cases illustrate that in fact there's significant leverage the other way?
theircompetitor, Jun 04 2019
  

       //Obama's "you didn't build that"//   

       He didn't mean that, by that. But you can carry on deliberately clinging to your hatred if it makes you feel better (it wont).   

       Let it go. If Obama meant what your tribe chose for that to mean, it would have been an unforgivable ideological position, but that's quite clearly not what he meant. None of his actions before or since suggest that was his intention, or his ideology. Your tribe's willful (and continuing - after how many years?) misinterpretation for the sole purpose of political polarisation, in direct opposition to the evidence in clear view is your tribe's problem, nobody else's.   

       And before you get into it, I don't live in the US, and so don't belong to either of your two tribes.   

       Instead, I'm from the UK, a notoriously unpolarised and sensib...ahh ok fair enough I'll shut up now.
zen_tom, Jun 04 2019
  

       I'd bee a bit careful throwing around [your tribe] [zen_tom], I'm of the Yehuda tribe, and we take that pretty seriously, especially when it slanderously interferes with our control of the world.   

       Now more seriously, hate is a very strong word, and I do not hate Obama, nor do I really even like Trump, whom I didn't vote for, but...   

       Yes, I truly dislike the putting down of individualism and the primacy of the individual to the concept of state that is central to the Constitutional foundation of the US.   

       I know what he meant: that you did not achieve your success alone. That incidentally, is true if the way you achieved your success is by borrowing money to buy real estate. Or by funding your startup on very expensive interest rate credit cards. Those things -- just for example -- are as important as roads, and bridges. You didn't build it alone because the one guy that gave you your first job delivering groceries taught you the value of time and money. And of course, add some luck.   

       But I don't recall him praising banks for letting a larger percentage of Americans to become home owners, do I? Instead he blamed the banks for following the low and lending money to people that chose to take out equity loans to sustain and unsustainable standard of living as I recall?   

       I truly dislike that he created an administration that kept the boot on the neck of business for 8 years, which -- coupled to be sure by the populist wave out of the crash -- brought us everything from Brexit to Trump.   

       I truly dislike that he shoved through Obamacare without a single Republican vote, instead of - - for example -- voting immigration reform through, which would have gotten at least some Republican votes, and soured the country for a generation, again, via the Tea Party, sending the Republican party into a horrible downward spiral.   

       I truly dislike that he popularized executive actions, which -- as I warned people many, many times -- would become very unpleasant when someone who you don't like takes the field.   

       I truly dislike that he made fun of Romney on Russia while the adoring press guffawed knowingly and patted themselves on the back.   

       I truly dislike that he interfered in the justice process on Hillary, and apparently authorized spying on an opponent's campaign -- yet didn't have the balls to say it outfront.   

       And I truly, truly, truly dislike that he blew the chance to be a centrist President -- no one made it easy for him, but these things are not meant to be easy. He was there at a pivotal point, and by choosing fundamental transformation -- yea, yea, I know, I'm taking it out of context -- he triggered even reasonable conservatives and bears a huge responsibility for where we got to today.   

       No doubt the list on Trump will be much much longer -- I hope and pray that I don't have to blame him for getting a socialist regime in the United States.
theircompetitor, Jun 04 2019
  

       Fair dos - though I personally wouldn't give either president the foresight (or conversely, expect them to take responsibility) for any rebounding the public might have taken after their administration.   

       Otherwise, every right-leaning president becomes an enabler of socialism, and every left-leaning president becomes responsible for a swing to the right - perhaps by extension, every centrist president is responsible for an extremist one (and vice-versa)? I think most are likely at best, lucky if they can focus on the here and now.   

       I do think we (UK/US) share an unhealthy polarisation of politics which has corroded the centre. It's now difficult to hold a sensible position on anything when the danger is that the extremists will take advantage of any nod in their direction, however tacit, and use it to promote their own particular brand. Politics these days is more about identity than policy, from which this unhealthy faux-tribalism emerges. And it's in that sense that I'd call out anyone regurgitating old tribal mantras (in the Rep/Dem sense) - I'm yet to fully take on that advice regards the British split, so am acutely aware of my hypocrisy.
zen_tom, Jun 04 2019
  

       every President tends to reflect so -- Obama was on Bush Jr.   

       But the pendulum has begun describing a wider arc, it is worrisome
theircompetitor, Jun 04 2019
  

       A wider arc is no cause for concern; it merely means that the pendulum has more energy.   

       It's when it starts to get longer, and the blade slices the air closer and closer to your chest that you need to worry ... <link>
8th of 7, Jun 04 2019
  

       What's your poe, borg?
theircompetitor, Jun 04 2019
  

       //What did you invent 2-fries? Could there be some sneaky noggin you could add to your patent filing in order to make it original enough to get filed?//   

       Well..   

       In 95 I designed and built the worlds first rc dragonfly. Our country stole first-to-invent rights from our constitution replacing them with a one-year grace period without legal right which the patent search company that I hired knew full well and I didn't at the age of 21.
They used Canada's first-to-invent change to stall me and sell it to their Chinese company Wowee to launch their product line and win 2007 Time Magazines' invention of the year.
  

       I still have date of origination sewn up no matter what any other asshole says.   

       Then in 2014 I conceived of and built the worlds first internally ballasted Archemedian screw propelled submersible with a gyroscopic torque precession steering mechanism, (and a few other patent-able tweaks) with the help of our local University which have now been labelled public domain because it took me a year and a half to build my prototype during the "grace-year" the rights to my own thoughts were arbitrarily given to exist before becoming untouchable by investors... or even government grants because the States illegally stole first-to-invent from their constitutional rights replacing it with first-to-file.   

       I've had other inventions stolen by this theft of the rights I was born with which supposedly only affects one in every 2.6 million patents.   

       These two I can actually prove.   

       //while patent law is imperfect, there appear to be remedies within the law for genuine innovation (as in the Ford case). And surely the patent troll cases illustrate that in fact there's significant leverage the other way?//   

       Ah... so I can aspire to be a patent troll... lovely.
I'd only ever hoped to attain the status of patent spoiler. To make it all the way to full troll one day would be magnificent wouldn't it?
  

       What a goal!   

       ...   

       I just would like to someday have the inventions of mine which have been stolen by lesser men accredited to their originator.   

       Keep your fucking money, just give me my due you slimy cunts.
Pardon my French ... even bad things were invented by them.
  

       so this is an ego thing? Don't we just use the # of ideas on HB for that?   

       I'll venture to say that my invention has been used by millions and I certainly would be very happy to have made more money on it, but ultimately I was happy to sell it to IV and make some money on it (as oppose to have everyone just use it and me make nothing)   

       Of course in my case it's software which is more controversial.
theircompetitor, Jun 05 2019
  

       [2f], out of interest, if you were caught unawares by the change in patent law in 1995, how did you fall into the same trap in 2014?   

       And, in any event, it's better to light a fart than to rage against the darkness. Successful entrepreneurs lose out in a variety of ways, but they keep inventing until they get a win.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 05 2019
  

       //so this is an ego thing?//   

       No. It's a theft of my rights thing. The right of First-To-Invent.   

       //if you were caught unawares by the change in patent law in 1995, how did you fall into the same trap in 2014?//   

       I didn't learn of Canadas's theft of my rights before I went to file for patent on Miniautilus in 2015.
It's not like they informed anyone and I was kind of busy spending every spare second of a year and a half building the prototype.
  

       Oh, right. Well, in that case it would have been 20 years after your dragonfly invention, so it would've been out the window anyway.   

       But, like I said, everyone loses a few one way or the other. I have a list. You put it behind you and save your energy to come up with something else.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 05 2019
  

       Yeah, I'll let it go... eventually.
What I don't get though is that when I publicly disclosed my widget the America Invents act had not yet been passed. The change went into effect while I built it and the one year grace period did not exist when I disclosed so how does public disclosure prior to 2014 invalidate my patent rights?
  

       My understanding is that the grace period allows you (the inventor) to file a patent up to one year after making a public disclosure. If you disclosed more than one year before filing, your filing would be invalid.   

       Note also that "filing" can be very simple - just a few sketches and notes - and costs almost nothing. You've then put your flag in the sand, and a full application (filed up to one year later, I think) can claim the priority date of the initial filing.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 06 2019
  

       //Note also that "filing" can be very simple - just a few sketches and notes//   

       Actually the filing, made within 12 months of the public disclosure, must be the complete filing. If you make an inadequate complete filing, there is not much you can do to remedy the situation.
xaviergisz, Jun 06 2019
  

       True. I meant a preliminary patent application rather than the filing.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 06 2019
  

       No, wait. Wikipedia tells me that it's a "Provisional Application" in the US. But, again, it doesn't need much and is dirt cheap.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 06 2019
  

       I mean you can also file a provisional application any time between the public disclosure and 12 months, but this doesn't provide any real benefit. The only thing that matters is filing the complete application within 12 months of the public disclosure.
xaviergisz, Jun 06 2019
  

       Ah, right. Got it.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 06 2019
  

       Is the first public design and designer recorded in the patent even they are not the patent holder? That information should be lodge-able against the patent for a record of disputes.   

       Also public domain means nobody has monetary controlling rights to the idea but does it stop you making the product and selling it?
wjt, Jun 08 2019
  

       //Is the first public design and designer recorded in the patent even they are not the patent holder? That information should be lodge-able against the patent for a record of disputes.//   

       As far as I can tell; listing the 'actual' innovator would invalidate a patent claim so, no.
Without the right of First-to-invent every real inventor on the planet is shit out of luck if someone more knowledgeable about the system and with deeper pockets cares to steal their invention.
  

       That's 'why' it is a constitutional right.   

       It is the little guy's only protection.
Public disclosure 'is' time-stamping an actual innovation and as far as I'm concerned the public officials who, in their breach of trust, have pushed first to file through congress with neither constitutional nor legal right to do so should be held accountable for treason against their constituents.
  

       //Also public domain means nobody has monetary controlling rights to the idea but does it stop you making the product and selling it?//   

       Nope.
It just means good luck finding investors, and that anyone with deeper pockets and more knowledge is welcome to squash you like a cockroach.
  

       It was our only defense.
First UK citizens were conned out of their own fist-to-invent right...
  

       (no really, check it out, absolutely no historical case in point for the blatant theft, a total fucking joke)   

       ...and now the rest of our freedoms will start to topple like dominoes because admitting that First-to-file was a massive con-job means losing too much face.   

       Prove me wrong.   

       Two people can have the same idea at the same time. The one wins the race for the patent. I don't see any problem with documents stating that the loser had a similar verifiable conception. I also don't see a problem with, if it can be proved, the document being lodged after the fact. The patent holder is not affected, they still have the patent.   

       You [2fries] deserve your provisional patent entry even if it was stolen.
wjt, Jun 11 2019
  

       //First UK citizens were conned out of their own fist-to- invent right... // Well, the rest of the world (UK and the rest of Europe, in any event - not sure about the East) manages just fine with patent law as it is (and has been for a long time). I've got a few patents to my name, and make a healthy income from them. Also, please note that your (US+Canada) patent law is technically "First Inventor to File" rather than just "First to File".   

       Both "FTF" (or FITF) and "FTI" have their own problems. Under your old FTI rules, there was always difficulty in proving inventorship, especially many years later. Yes, you've got proof of some public presentation of your idea from 1994 or whenever; but then I come along and say "Hey, I had the same idea in 1993, and here's a page from my notebook to show it". My notebook might be faked, or it might be genuine - either way you'll spend a pile of money arguing. Under FTF, you eliminate that problem, but now the problem is that you have to keep your idea secret (or at least non-public) until you do a preliminary filing.   

       The real problem is not with the FTF system (which has worked fine for decades elsewhere), but in being caught out by the change. I can sympathise with that.   

       But, you are where you are. You can either be remembered as "the guy who said he was robbed and then spent 10 years doing nothing but railing against the system, which of course never changed, and ended his life as an angry tile fitter" or "the guy who invented [whatever your next idea would be if you weren't spending all your energy railing]". Your call.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 11 2019
  

       // I just wish money could actually do a service or be a product so it could actually earn itself. //   

       Depending on what exactly you mean, some cryptocurrencies do that to various extents and in various ways. Two examples that come to mind are Namecoin and Ethereum.   

       // [various stuff about social darwinism] //   

       [wbeaty] has a page about neodarwinism that I happened to read the other day and thought was interesting, arguing why those who cooperate end up better off: [link]   

       // [proving first-to-invent status] //   

       Blockchain notarization? Then, in the future, you can prove you had the idea on or before a specific date, without having to reveal it to anyone.
notexactly, Jun 11 2019
  

       In my first introduction to venture investing, I was told that every idea is worth a million dollars. What this actually means is that if you got to the point that you can convince anyone to invest in your idea, and you're thinking what percentage to give them, value the as yet to be actuated idea at a million dollars. This figure is curiously immune to inflation. So this means that $50K friend and family investment should be worth 5%.   

       Subsequently, however, I realized -- sadly -- that while good ideas are certainly neither 50cents nor a dime a dozen, the gulf to implementation is significantly larger then most people who say "I've thought of that" think, and that's even in software. In fairness, the stuff I've ever been involved in is overwhelmingly software based, and there's obviously been a lot of controversy on such since 1-click.   

       Kevin O'Leary -- of Shark Tank infamy -- has been talking a lot about various gadgets that are getting mercilessly pirated by the Chinese (regardless of any patent protection). The problem nowadays is stuff is way to easy to copy, regardless of first, second, etc
theircompetitor, Jun 11 2019
  

       //the gulf to implementation is significantly larger// Ohhh yes. In biotech, you can attract investment based on an idea, but the investors are really investing in you, not the idea. Often, the idea that led to the founding of the company gets dropped quite early in favour of something else. I would guess that only 10% of funded biotechs take their original idea through to market or licensing, while 20% change ideas. Then of course there's the 70% that fail completely.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 11 2019
  

       //You deserve your provisional patent entry even if it was stolen.//   

       Thanks. (yay)   

       //Well, the rest of the world (UK and the rest of Europe, in any event - not sure about the East) manages just fine with patent law as it is (and has been for a long time)//   

       Yes, you were conned out of it. Why do you think Nichola Tesla didn't head that way?
Your monarchy traded their power for their figurehead-dom, and what was the first thing the money-lenders did when power was attained? Why they stole your first-to-invent right didn't they.
It's like an Empire crashing linch-pin.
  

       // but now the problem is that you have to keep your idea secret (or at least non-public) until you do a preliminary filing.//   

       And yet the reason given for first-to-file is the stimulation of innovation...
...you do see the contradiction yes?
  

       //The real problem is not with the FTF system (which has worked fine for decades elsewhere), but in being caught out by the change. I can sympathise with that.//   

       Thanks. That and a buck fifty will get me a coffee... for now.   

       //But, you are where you are. You can either be remembered as "the guy who said he was robbed and then spent 10 years doing nothing but railing against the system, which of course never changed, and ended his life as an angry tile fitter" or "the guy who invented [whatever your next idea would be if you weren't spending all your energy railing]". Your call.//   

       Why not both?
<gets carried on shoulders of cheering crowd like little Mexican girl in the Old El Paso commercial again>
  

       That I will continue to invent is a given.
I don't do inventing, it does me.
  

       As for //remembered//... it's a little hard to be remembered when you don't exist. (hmmmm I wonder what the odds aginst such a thing happening are?)
I'm not sure which part of unconstitutional or illegal theft of rights you don't understand but let me ask you a question;
If this little right of mine can be both unconstitutionally and illegally taken from me by my government... then what is in place to keep any of my other little rights intact once this dangerous precedence is set?
  

       The constitution?   

       The law?   

       Absofuckinglutelynothing. That's what. Surely they wouldn't dare...
Now let me ask you history buffs in the crowd a question; (I have no idea what the answer might be because I don't know history but my gut is screaming clear-as-day that this'n's bang on the ol' money)
When you cast your gaze back through recorded history and you get to 20-20 hind-sight see the rise and fall of great societies, is the fall of every empire preceded by the loss of the rights of the lowliest to rise above their station and the chaining of genius?
  

       When the government of a society presumes to steal the very thoughts of its people and hand them to its one percent then that society is is on it's way to going tits-up.   

       The foriegn-interest-funded Make-America-Grovel-Again campaign...   

       Most people are not able to beat the 2.7,000,000 to 1 odds against inventing something completely independent of prior art and so First-To-Invent was never really their right in the first place and they will not miss its loss. I am able to beat these odds, and do so with some regularity ergo that birth-right 'is' mine. I would like it back now please.
Or someday you will be able to tell your grandchildren, (If you are allowed to have them, and if they are allowed to be taught) that;
  

       "First they came for the inventors' rights. and I did not speak out-
because I was not an inventor..."
  

       //Yes, you were conned out of it. Why do you think Nichola Tesla didn't head that way?//   

       [2fries], try not to be a complete dick. As I've said, the UK and the rest of Europe get along just fine with FTF patent law. You would have got by just fine if you'd known your own country's law was changing. Nikola Tesla filed many patents outside of North America, you idiot.   

       It's sad that you got caught unawares. But you'd get more sympathy if you acted more like a grown-up and quit with the endless "I wuz robbed".   

       But I digress. Let me, instead, give you a hypothetical. Let's suppose that I and everyone else here on the HB see the light and say "Gee, [2fries], you're absolutely right!". What do you do next? What's your _plan_? I am guessing there isn't one.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 11 2019
  

       By the way, I have to admire you for your user interface. You have some of the easiest buttons to push that I've ever encountered.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 11 2019
  

       Sure Tesla filed everywhere. Didn't gravitate elsewhere though did he? I don't give two shits for sympathy, I'm not an idiot you bully, and you didn't answer my question.   

       If my government can unconstitutionally and illegally steal this right, then what is in place to prevent them from stealing the others?   

       What exactly?...   

       //Let's suppose that I and everyone else here on the HB see the light and say "Gee, [2fries], you're absolutely right!". What do you do next? What's your _plan_? I am guessing there isn't one.//   

       I never planned to have the rights to my original thoughts stolen in the first place so I didn't arrange a counter measure. I don't really need to 'do' anything to watch society as we know it collapse along with the rest of you.   

       The lowliest individual in society, (not me), who literally can not afford to file and has absolutely no knowledge of the law has to have the right to claim an original invention as their own if they are the first human to think it up and demonstrate it 'publicly' or a society has made it so that cream, no matter what level it started at, can not rise... and I hope you all can acquire a taste for Kumis.   

       That's all.
It's not a threat by any means, it's just an observational hypothesis on the causality of the fall of empires. One which should be fairly easily traced backwards throughout history by those who know as much about these things as we have access to.
  

       The buttons have been pre-greased for her pleasure.   

       //the fall of every empire //   

       There is a regrettable shortage of documentation on the state of patent law in the Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Babylonian and Assyrian empires. I haven't asked the Chandragupts yet, but I don't suppose they're much better.   

       However, some of the Roman evidence loosely supports your position, [2 fries] - not with respect to rights over innovations in particular, but with respect to social mobility more generally.   

       In the hellenistic world, the important rights seem to have depended on the principle of "first to catch the ear of a cashed- up local dictator", and included the right to be whimsically put to death using your own invention, and the right to be murdered by vengeful enemies when they finally overran your town.   

       It was never easy to (a) invent stuff AND (b) escape with your life AND (c) get credit.
pertinax, Jun 12 2019
  

       ^ Nice   

       //(c) get credit// Talking of ideas for rich flaky credits, look at the top of the page.
wjt, Jun 12 2019
  

       [2fries], OK, I may have misunderstood. You're not objecting to FTF vs FTI, but rather to the patent system itself (and costs associated therewith). Tesla, I suspect, was savvy enough to understand that being a successful inventor includes being able to navigate the patent system.   

       Well, the patent system gives you some degree of protection against copying (or, to be precise, it gives you a tool that you can use to stop copying). For that protection, you need to pay; that may be unfair, but a patent is a complex legal instrument that has to be paid for somehow.   

       If you decide you don't want to (or can't afford to) seek a patent, then you're still completely entitled to practice your own invention - it's just that others (not the government, but other manufacturers) can copy it. So, the patent system doesn't steal anything from you, it just seeks to give you some protection from theft by other ordinary people, but at a cost.   

       Yes, investors often want to see a patent application, to ensure that their investment won't be devalued by copying. However, investment is normally made on the basis of patent _applications_ rather than granted patents (which take a long time). The investment then covers the costs of taking those patents through to granting.   

       If I'd been in your shoes, I would have (a) found a better patent attorney; they deal all the time with disclosure issues, and a good PA will always be able to find way around it* and file. (b) put the application in regardless, and then sought investment; it would take quite a while for any problems of disclosure to bounce back from the patent office, during which time you've got a patent application in your pocket.   

       Seriously, you need to learn at least the very basics of what patents are and how they work, just like you learn to use a bandsaw or a lathe. They're a tool, and it's not rocket science.   

       (*For example, your disclosure probably didn't give full details; it probably didn't give all possible applications of the technology; etc etc)
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 12 2019
  

       I suspect that there's a difference between the ways that [MB] and [2 fries] experience the patent system, which has not been mentioned yet.   

       Suppose I were an evil, soulless, manipulative IP lawyer and [MB] walked into my lair. Before even glancing at his actual invention, I would make an immediate assessment, based on his manner, accent and other clues, that he is a person who might have the resources, connections and confidence to make things unpleasant for me if I were to try to fuck him over. That would then influence how I handled his patent application.   

       Meanwhile, if I were that same lawyer, and [2 fries] walked in, then, based on a comparable assessment, I might smile my blandest smile while thinking, "Ah! Prey!"   

       Result: same system, same legal position in theory, but two quite different outcomes. Some annoying people call this sort of thing "unconscious class privilege".   

       Am I way off beam?
pertinax, Jun 12 2019
  

       Well, aside from the fact that I do my best to look pretty much like a bum myself. Also, if [2f]'s patent attorney were just interested in squeezing money out of him, he'd've done it the official way, by drafting a patent and navigating around the disclosure. Like I said, a decent PA can almost always get around things like that.   

       If it's of any help, I've bungled at least two potentially valuable patents (in the sense that one of the inventions is now widely used) and several minor (and, in reality, valueless) ones, thanks to premature disclosure because I was just not aware and/or wasn't thinking about patenting at the time. On the other hand, I've also made quite a large amount of money from patents which were first filed in the UK, under the UK system of the time (and then obviously extended to Europe, US etc).   

       W.R.T the US's change from FTI to FTF, I suspect part of the reason was that many patents granted under FTI would not be granted in other territories (eg Europe, UK) that operated the more common FTF system. At least a uniform set of rules means that US inventors are not disadvantaged when they try to extend to other territories. Another part of the reason, I suspect, is that it's easy to prove First to File, but very difficult to prove First to Invent, since anyone can sneak up behind you. Overall, FTF is a simpler system to implement: "If you invent something, keep it secret until you file a provisional patent; then you can safely tell the world."   

       I can see that being caught unawares by the change in system is bad; but you could say the same of changes in tax law or health-n-safety: it's your responsibility to be aware of these things.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 12 2019
  

       1. //I don't do inventing, it does me.// [marked for tagline] and for [marked for lol]
theircompetitor, Jun 12 2019
  

       That's all well and good but my question remains unanswered.   

       Once the precedence of unlawful and unconstitutional theft of rights is set, what it to prevent further theft of the rest of our rights?   

       Anybody?...   

       This to me is of far greater concern than me getting my little thought-toys back.
If there is no accountability for the theft of this right then the rest of our rights are forfeit by default and we may as well print the constitution on rolls of ass-wipe for how much it is worth.
  

       Their reasons for the theft, no matter how sound, do not address this issue.   

       My stolen toys they can keep... but the fucking toy box is supposed to be bolted to the floor.
The way I see it we can either tackle the assholes with the bolt-cutters or we get watch our playground dismantled.
  

       ...and I think it's cyclic.   

       //Once the precedence of unlawful and unconstitutional theft of rights is set, what it to prevent further theft of the rest of our rights? // I think the reason you're not getting an answer is that your question doesn't make any sense. You have the same rights as before (in fact, if you understand FTF vs FTI, slightly more); it's just that the rules for securing those rights changed, and you were unfortunately not aware of that change.   

       Given the choice of filing _new_ inventions under FTF or FTI, most people would opt for FTF.   

       Just screaming "my rights have been stolen!" without having any understanding of how patents work (under either system) just makes you look silly. How about we pause the discussion while you learn some basics about patenting?
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 12 2019
  

       OK, since [2f] keeps going on about the Constitutional rights of inventors, I asked Google what the constitution actually says about patents.   

       The only thing I found says: “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”   

       Since FTF does exactly that, as effectively as FTI, I don't see that switching from the older system to the newer one violates any constitutional rights.   

       You probably _do_ have a valid argument that they changed the system without telling you. But when you decry the FTF system over the FTI system without _actually_understanding_ either of them, you do look daft.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 12 2019
  

       it's that damn pursuit of happiness, you can drive a semi through that one :)   

       There's ample case law and precedent on property, and intellectual property fits therein.   

       I worry more your life changing inventions will be seized by the socialist state to serve the greater good.
theircompetitor, Jun 12 2019
  

       Well, that's a...   

       Hang on. Just got to go and deal with some bloody government official who's roaming around that north-east wetland garden on some kind of Archimedes' screw-propelled quadbike.   

       <a few moments later> All resolved. Apparently he was just looking for his remote-controlled mechanical dragonfly which had crash-landed.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 12 2019
  

       None of those are answers to my question. Congress is prohibitted from issuing a patent to anyone who is not "the inventor".
They have given themselves this right both illegally and against the very specific wording of the constitutions of North America.
  

       What part of that do I not get?   

       //Just screaming "my rights have been stolen!" without having any understanding of how patents work (under either system) just makes you look silly. How about we pause the discussion while you learn some basics about patenting?//   

      
A letter sent to congress signed by 90 law professors, (men who know one hell of lot more about either system than you) entirely agrees with my position.
Perhaps you can tell them that they are idiots as well.
  

       First inventor to publicly disclose solidifies date of origination period. It is 'that' right which has been stolen.
First-To-File is a joke while First-To-Invent is a human right every previously great society was conned out of.
The one year grace period offered in its place is an even bigger joke.
  

       Make sure to keep your shit secret so we can all stimulate innovation together...   

       yeah... and I'm the idiot?   

       How many patent applications every year can claim no prior art again?
Oh yeah, only one in every two point six million applications.
  

       Miniautilus alone had at least four patentable aspects which had no prior art at the time of public disclosure, (some of which have since been filed by others), and has the potential to change the way we transport goods between continents and change the service inspection industry... maybe exo-planetary exploration since it works as well on land as in water.   

       My dragonfly has since found military applications now that it has shrunk from it's original three foot wing-span.   

       First-to-invent guaranteed my right to these inventions without extortion from my government.
First-to-file is a con job.
  

       I understand just fine... y'know, for an idiot.   

       // Congress is prohibitted from issuing a patent to anyone who is not "the inventor"... What part of that do I not get?//   

       What you don't get is that the US's AIA is actually a "first INVENTOR to file" (I did mention this a while ago). It specifically PROHIBITS issuing a patent to someone who stole or otherwise obtained the idea from the inventor. So, you are mistaken. Like I said, you're ranting about stuff without understanding it.   

       OK, let me put it bluntly. In total, I have probably made about $3-4M (not a huge amount, but quite nice) from patents filed originally in the UK under the UK's FTF system; and I've got a company launched on the basis of other UK patent applications. Part of that income comes from UK- originated patents that in total have earned something over $1bn (I played only a very very small part in that, hence I get only a tiny percentage of the revenue; the other inventors get the remainder).   

       How much income do you get from US-originated patents filed back when they had an FTI system?   

       Either system works well, and each system has advantages and disadvantages. You can't simply dismiss the whole of Europe and the UK as being idiots for having an FTF system.   

       Like I said, you have a legitimate gripe inasmuch as they switched systems and didn't notify you personally, but that's about it.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 13 2019
  

       For me, I want what is right , not what is easiest or matches other countries' systems. Just as in the legal system, we should want the murderer to be punished not whom fits the facts.
wjt, Jun 13 2019
  

       //I want what is right// As does everyone.   

       With patents, the basic question is "who invented this?". Under FTI rules, it can be very difficult to determine this reliably; once a patent is filed and looks valuable, someone can come out of the woodwork with dubious evidence that they invented it earlier, and effectively hijack the patent. Evidence of inventorship can often be murky.   

       Under FTF rules, the basic standard is that a provisional application (cheap, quick, easy) is your flag-in-the-sand as an inventor. In that respect, it makes proof of inventorship easier.   

       In fact, America has the best of both worlds (to an extent) in that it now operates under "first INVENTOR to file" rules. Hence, the inventor gets their flag-in-the-sand, and someone attempting to steal the idea before a provisional application is barred from doing so, if they've stolen the idea from the actual inventor.   

       Under ALL systems (FTF, FTI, FITF), prior art can prevent a patent being issued - i.e. if someone thought of it before, it's not patentable. That's fair. The difference is that under FTIF, the inventor's own disclosures can count as prior art, but only after a year's grace period.   

       And under ANY system, the basic rule of thumb is to keep things under wraps until you've filed a provisional. Collaborations are fine, but should be under an NDA/CDA. Just don't blab about your idea in public until you've filed.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 13 2019
  

       //What you don't get is that the US's AIA is actually a "first INVENTOR to file" (I did mention this a while ago). It specifically PROHIBITS issuing a patent to someone who stole or otherwise obtained the idea from the inventor. So, you are mistaken. Like I said, you're ranting about stuff without understanding it.//   

       All that does is give the first person to file the title of inventor. Exactly how does one prove oneself the true inventor without date of origination set by public disclosure to solidify it?   

       //specifically PROHIBITS// What? Legally? or constitutionally? Neither of those stopped the fuckers from changing FTI to FTF now did they?   

       You've got the bucks? Know the con...I mean system? You filed first? Congratulations!
You're the inventor!
  

       //How much income do you get from US-originated patents filed back when they had an FTI system?//   

       Recognition as the actual inventor of something without prior art.   

       // You can't simply dismiss the whole of Europe and the UK as being idiots for having an FTF system.//   

       Seems to me that doing that exact thing is what made Canada and the US into world powers in the first place.
We saw the con go down the first time 'round. That's why the constitutions were so specifically worded when it came to the subject of invention.
To "specifically PROHIBIT" our government from taking the IP from the 99% and giving it to the 1%.
  

       //For me, I want what is right , not what is easiest or matches other countries' systems. Just as in the legal system, we should want the murderer to be punished not whom fits the facts.//   

       Hear hear.   

       // Under FTI rules, it can be very difficult to determine this reliably; once a patent is filed and looks valuable, someone can come out of the woodwork with dubious evidence that they invented it earlier, and effectively hijack the patent. Evidence of inventorship can often be murky.//   

       Hence public disclosure. No murky there.   

         

       //Under ALL systems (FTF, FTI, FITF), prior art can prevent a patent being issued - i.e. if someone thought of it before, it's not patentable. That's fair.//   

       Horseshit!
Under FTI public disclosure and a one year grace period didn't render my inventions "not patentable" by me, it made my inventions not patentable by someone other than me... "The Inventor" of them.
  

       ...and nobody bilked me for a dime.   

       Yes, you're correct about that. Under FTF, your own disclosures count as prior art, although you're allowed a one year grace period.   

       My fundamental points remain the same, viz:   

       (1) Your legitimate gripe is that they didn't inform you about the change from FTI to FTF.
(2) Had you known about the change, it would have been easy to comply; it would also have been cheaper to file a patent than under the old FTI system (since fee reduction for small entities is now 75%; was only 50%)
(3) FTF and FTI both work; both have their quirks.
(4) Instead of just ranting about the injustices of the world, you'd be better off either:
----(A) Finding a class-action against the AIA and joining it or
----(B) Finding a decent patent attorney who WILL still be able to get you a patent, even under FTF and regardless of inadvertent prior disclosure or
----(C) More generally, learning about how patents work, as well as registered design (which is very powerful).
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 13 2019
  

       In this world, whether science, criminality or invention, proof is rock bottom, not having it means no hope. If you do have it, the law should do the right thing. What else is law for?   

       From what you state [Max], it seems the system is more about the system of who is in the know or has the most lawyer dollars than whom has the best proof. More about filing rather than the breathing human who has had the unique neural activity.
wjt, Jun 14 2019
  

       Well, in the first instance it's about proof of invention. Under FTI, that's muddy (eg, does a lab notebook count?) and open to challenge (eg, I could fake up a lab notebook that pre-dates yours). Under FTF, it's clearer, since the provisional application has to include essential details of the invention and is date-stamped by the patent office.   

       Once a patent is filed, _then_ it can boil down to lawyer dollars, because competitors can challenge the validity of your patent on all sorts of grounds, and defending a patent can get phenomenally expensive. But that's true under either system - FTF or FTI. I've worked on patent cases (not my patents; I act as expert witness in US patent cases) for patents filed under FTF and FTI, and the cost can be eye- watering. THAT is a legitimate gripe (because clearly it disadvantages smaller companies), but that's not a gripe about AIA.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 14 2019
  

       Public disclosure dates of origination very nicely solved all of those problems without the red-tape-makers cranking out more red-tape.   

       If the law and the constitution can not stop congress from giving itself powers it is "strongly PROHIBITTED" from weilding... then what use is either the law or the constitutiion?   

       //Public disclosure dates of origination very nicely solved all of those problems// Well, not really. Sure, you made a "public disclosure" at a certain time, so you must have had the idea in your possession before that time (did you disclose EVERYTHING that you planned to claim? I bet not). But then I come along with a signed, witnessed notebook describing the same thing, dated a month earlier. And I've got three people prepared to swear they saw me demonstrating a prototype at that earlier month. Whatcha gonna do? In the end, it will come down to who can afford the biggest lawyers.   

       Filing gives you an incontestable date, and if I didn't file until after you did, you win. In that sense, FTF is better, in that you can secure your invention with only a very cheap, very fast provisional application. Even the fee-reduction for "small entities" (ie, you - nothing personal) is better under FTF than it was under FTI. Plus, there's no mandatory public disclosure until a year (I think) after filing; which means no competitors looking at your stuff, taking the next logical step, and patenting stuff from right under you.   

       Yet again, let me say that your only legitimate gripe is that you weren't made aware of the change from FTI to FTF. Had you been aware, you'd have been better off.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 14 2019
  

       // Plus, there's no mandatory public disclosure until a year (I think) after filing; which means no competitors looking at your stuff, taking the next logical step, and patenting stuff from right under you. //   

       Doesn't that mean that if I invent something, and want to patent it, there could be a provisional patent (hidden from me) up to a year old that invalidates my claim to the invention? How is that better?
notexactly, Jun 14 2019
  

       //// Plus, there's no mandatory public disclosure until a year (I think) after filing; which means no competitors looking at your stuff, taking the next logical step, and patenting stuff from right under you. //   

       Doesn't that mean that if I invent something, and want to patent it, there could be a provisional patent (hidden from me) up to a year old that invalidates my claim to the invention? How is that better?//   

       If you make a complete filing, then it gets published 18 months after the earliest priority date (i.e. 18 months after any provisional application filed).   

       The whole system bends over backwards to try and help the less organised inventor (with provisional patents, grace periods, and delay in disclosure); the better organised inventor does not really benefit (and, if anything, is disadvantaged) from any of these things.   

       And yet at some point, these benefits to less organised inventors (such as delayed publication) will clash. For example, this means that there is a 18 month 'window of uncertainty' where someone else could have filed the same invention before you.   

       We are just fortunate to be out of the dark ages of 'submarine patents' (and first to invent) where publication/disclosure could be delayed indefinitely. Submarine patents meant that when an invention did become lucrative, the "real" first inventor could pop up and take control of the invention (despite having put no effort into actually bringing the invention into reality).
xaviergisz, Jun 14 2019
  

       //Doesn't that mean that if I invent something, and want to patent it, there could be a provisional patent (hidden from me) up to a year old that invalidates my claim to the invention? How is that better?// Yes, it does (as [xav] pointed out also). But that's always been true. Also thanks [xav] for clarifying that the publication interval is 18 months.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 14 2019
  

       Actually, the 'window of uncertainty' could be up to 2.5 years if an inventor discloses his invention (in an extremely hard-to- find public disclosure), then files a complete application 12 months later.
xaviergisz, Jun 14 2019
  

       True.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 14 2019
  

       Incidentally, out of interest, I Googled for patents with "amphibious vehicle helix" and got a lot of hits. Are any of them like yours, [2fries]?
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 14 2019
  

       There has never been an internally ballasted Archimedian screw propelled submersible with a gyroscopic torque precession steering mechanism which can also travel on land, and a forwards facing focussed-sound stabilized vortex-ring tunnel creating an artificial current within fluid mediums of varying viscosities which pull any neutrally buoyant object through that medium.   

       ...no.   

       The torque precession stabilizing thing has recently hit the market though. I wonder if the public disclosure of my little submarine patent still falls within the category of "submarine-patent" since my little accidental public disclosure was prior to the congressional theft date?...   

       Interesting.   

       How (pray tell) do any of these things address government side stepping of both the North American constitutions and the law? ...and exactly what that means for our respective futures?   

       Let's just take a moment to ponder that shall we.   

       Is that not more important than my little toys?   

       I can show you a video of it zipping around in my pool if you want though! I think it's really cool.
Disclosed is disclosed right?
Unfortunately the video is without the steering mechanism in place. I couldn't water-test it anymore so I had to invent a neutral buoyancy cradle before I could get video of those proofs of concept and that computer is in a sea can waiting for me to settle.
  

       It was a long year and a half, and no matter when any of those innovations surface and are given false credit...   

       ..."I" am the inventor.   

       Do I exist?   

       Ultimately, it comes down to personal morality. The person filing knows if they are truly the inventor. Is there a signed declaration that I am the inventor of this patent?   

       If they are not, they should give credit on the whatever has been coveted. It would make sense that FTF would be sensible if the inventor is unknown, which can be trumped by FTIF proof.   

       And then there's the bottom line, if people can talk and think, sensible, fair, friendly deals can be made bypassing law and lawyer dollars.
wjt, Jun 15 2019
  

       //Is there a signed declaration that I am the inventor of this patent?// Well, the American system is actually "first INVENTOR to file" (rather than just FTF), so presumably there has to be proof of inventorship.   

       //I can show you a video of it// That would be cool - thanks!   

       //I wonder if the public disclosure of my little submarine patent still falls within the category of "submarine-patent" // Well, if it's not a patent then it's not a submarine patent. But if anyone has tried to patent what you had already disclosed, then their patent could be invalidated on grounds of either obviousness or anticipation.   

       By the way, as I've mentioned once or twice, unless your disclosure covered ALL of the aspects of the invention, it's likely that a good patent attorney can still get you a patent. So don't disclose anything you haven't already disclosed. You need to list your claims (to yourself) and ask yourself if they were each fully disclosed.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 15 2019
  

       Yeah, but see... I shouldn't have to be an attorney to be an inventor.   

       Miniautilus [link]   

       Well, sadly there's a lot more to being an inventor than being an inventor. You don't need to be an attorney, but you need to know the basics of patent law. And employment law if you employ people. And accounting. And a shedload of other stuff.   

       It's like saying "I shouldn't have to be a welder", and expecting glue to work. When the glue isn't working, you just go learn to weld, well enough to get you by. Which I'm sure you have.   

       In any event, cool video. I would ask how you steer it, but _don't_ tell me unless you've already disclosed it.   

       Also, how efficient is it compared to propellors? I know that when they first tried propellors on boats (way back), they started by assuming it should be a long helix to 'get a grip' on the water. Then they found a shorter helix was more efficient, and then an even shorter one. And finally it turned out that a fraction of a turn (ie, a prop) was most efficient.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 15 2019
  

       //Well, sadly there's a lot more to being an inventor than being an inventor.//   

       Is there though? Under FTI my inventions became my own through public disclosure alone.
That's why it's "my" right.
The con-job middle-men red-tape-jockeys extorting money for my original inventions are welcome to lick my left testicle while fondling the right one.
  

       //Also, how efficient is it compared to propellors?//   

       The amount of water displaced exactly equals the amount of water collapsing in its wake so the only barrier to perfect laminar flow is the surface drag of the hull which could be coated with a hydrophobic paint.
It does not push itself through the water, it pulls itself so there will be no cavitation if its speed increases on a smooth curve. I don't do math but the mechanical engineering prof figured that its efficiency would be in the high 90% range.
  

       With my other tweaks I believe it could someday reach aircraft speeds underwater without supercavitation.   

       Linked together on swivels and weighed down by sea-cans full of cargo we could have efficient direct line-of-sight delivery of goods between continents even under polar ice.
No storms, no piracy, no pollution, (haven't disclosed that little tweak yet), minimal crew, (if any), and guaranteed delivery times.
  

       U.P.S. You're Undersea Parcel Service.   

       //Under FTI my inventions became my own through public disclosure alone.// Yes, but that didn't get you a patent. There are still multiple, multiple hurdles to clear before a patent is actually granted. For example, did your patent attorney go as far as starting a prior art search, or did he just give up from the beginning?   

       And to answer your question, yes, there is a lot more to being an inventor. I know, because I have seen people take ideas and turn them into (literally) billion dollar business. In each case, they learned what they needed to learn about business, patents and everything else. I've also got a (very small but doing OK, thanks) company, and I know that you should _always_ know enough about everything to at least understand what's going on.   

       //With my other tweaks...// This comes back to what I was saying. It's very, very unlikely that your earlier disclosure precludes you from getting one or more patents. All you need is for one key enabling technology to be patentable, and then it doesn't matter whether you can patent the whole thing, because nobody else can make it work without that one key thing.   

       If you'd spent half as long actually pursuing a patent as you've spent basking in the warm glow of righteous indignation, you'd be in business by now. Or perhaps that's what you're scared of.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 15 2019
  

       Of course it's what I'm scared of. I'm not a business-man, accountant, or lawyer. I know none of those things and have no interest in manufacturing or marketing my inventions.
No, what I have taught myself to do in spite of being denied a decent education is how to pull entirely novel never before seen inventions out of thin air which work, and would have my right to them back so that I get royalties from others who do know these things and wish to profit from them.
  

       Life up until a few years ago has been an uphill shit-kicking and things like math, accounting, and red tape had very little priority while surviving and learning literally everything I know in a sink-or-swim environment.
To force me to accquire the things I was denied when thrown to the wolves in order to claim what is rightfully mine is criminal.
To extort money to claim my own thoughts is evil.
  

       Thanks Obama...   

       The indignation is righteous for a reason.
I am right... and the treasonous bastards breaking both the constitution and the law whilst in an office of public servitude should see jail time for their crime...
  

       ...after the Supreme court returns my rights.   

       Anyone can do anything but if you want to fully suck from the teat of society, the rules have to be followed, even if those ticket to ride rules go against you sometimes.
wjt, Jun 15 2019
  

       //...after the Supreme court returns my rights.//   

       Well, that's gonna happen in about...oh... never. Even with all the hard work I just know you're putting in to make the Supreme Court roll over.   

       So, you can either wait until then, or just go ahead. You seem to be completely overwhelmed by the type of IP glitch that successful people just curse at and then work around. It's not a huge deal.   

       Did you think getting a patent was just a matter of sending in the cereal box tops?
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 15 2019
  

       //if you want to fully suck from the teat of society, the rules have to be followed//   

       Who wants to suck from any teat? I just want credit where it is due. Prior art is prior art period. It used to mean something. Now it just means that public disclosure violates 'anyone's' right to patent, including the actual inventor, and my government does not have the right to assign my intellectual property to the public domain. They never had the right, so their action will lead to their ruin.   

       Are you people all insane?!
Is the actual fucking inventor of something completely novel not "The Inventor" now? The paper-work dude gets the credit?
In your minds maybe, but not in reality.
  

       So the truth matters not one whit, all that matters is positioning and wealth in an endless cannibalistic always-a-bigger-fish scenario.   

       Fools.   

       // Even with all the hard work I just know you're putting in to make the Supreme Court roll over.//   

       Ah! So I needs must learn to do that now as well to obtain that which is rightfully mine? Fair you say?   

       //You seem to be completely overwhelmed by the type of IP glitch that successful people just curse at and then work around. It's not a huge deal.//   

       Most successful people did not get thrown alone to the wolves without a high school education before going through puberty and teach themselves to invent.
Most successful people would have failed dismally at that task.
  

       It is a very huge deal when your government thinks to force you to illegally purchase the rights to your own thoughts from them. You are all con-victims, and that's hard to admit I know.
Again, that's why the North American constitutions were so specifically worded around the subject of invention.
  

       //Did you think getting a patent was just a matter of sending in the cereal box tops?//   

       Nope. I thought that registering my work with a Notary Public, having all of it time-stamped and mailed back to me by registered mail which never got opened prior to litigation meant that someone else thinking to make profit on My IP had to cut me in on the action because I had proven myself the actual inventor in a way which could be found by anyone performing due diligence in their own patent search.   

       As it should be... and very recently was before our governments chose to illegally sell out the rights to our own thoughts to the fastest bidder.   

       You are all quite literally insane, conditioned to be precise, and the longer I live the more sure of it I become.
I guess my conditioning just didn't take...
  

       Sad really.   

       //You are all quite literally insane//   

       That is entirely possible.   

       However, my experience has taught me that being angry - really angry, for years - is not a good use of nervous energy. I think we're all at least partly on your side - even [MB], though he might not admit it. But I'm not sure what you want from us.   

       Beethoven (IIRC) complained about having to be a businessman as well as a musician. Kepler had to make ends meet by casting horoscopes for superstitious thugs. Leonardo gets a lot of credit because he got famous as a painter, which got him connections with people who mattered. If he'd just been working on technology in a shed in Vinci, he might have vanished without trace, along with his ideas. Compared to those difficulties, having to read up a bit on patent law doesn't sound like an impossible imposition, does it?
pertinax, Jun 16 2019
  

       That chimp's family of the chimp that developed that stick technique, must be sitting pretty on all those extra termites.
wjt, Jun 16 2019
  

       // It is a very huge deal when your government thinks to force you to illegally purchase the rights to your own thoughts from them//   

       Well, you see, there's a sort of compound misunderstanding. First, it has **always** cost something to obtain a patent, whether under FTI, FTF or FITF. In fact, the costs for you have been **reduced** since the AIA, because fees for "small entities" now get a 75% reduction.   

       Second, you're not purchasing "your own thoughts" from the government. I very much doubt that the government wants your invention for themselves. What you're purchasing when you apply for a patent is, in effect, a piece of legislation drafted especially for you that says "this person invented X; we've checked carefully and he really did, and has sole rights to exploit it commercially for the next 20 years". It would be nice if it were free, but it isn't.   

       Third, I'm not an expert on the American constitution, but it seems to say only that government should grant "for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". The constitution doesn't specify whether it should be FTF, FTI or FTIF, and indeed either of those systems will meet the terms of the constitution. So, I don't think changing the details of how patents operate violates the constitution.   

       As I've said before, you have a reasonable complaint if they changed from FTI to FT[I]F without notifying people in good time. You also have a potentially cool invention. But just ranting futilely is not going to get you anywhere at all, on land or sea. As [pertinax] has inferred, even I have a bit of sympathy for your case, but you set yourself as an antagonist to the whole world.   

       If you were actually serious about this invention, you would simply apply for a patent, through a _good_ patent lawyer. Some of your claims would eventually be rejected (which happens to almost _all_ patents), others would be allowed. And, during the long review period, you would be out securing funding. That's what companies do. You don't sit around waiting (potentially for years) for a patent to be granted or rejected.   

       On the other hand, if what you *really* want is to believe you've invented something world-changing without the hassle of having to actually turn it into a business and develop in the harsh real world, then you've already won.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 16 2019
  

       // my experience has taught me that being angry - really angry, for years - is not a good use of nervous energy. But I'm not sure what you want from us.//   

       Being really angry for years is what's kept me alive and I guess I just want you to realize you've been conned.   

       //On the other hand, if what you *really* want is to believe you've invented something world-changing without the hassle of having to actually turn it into a business and develop in the harsh real world, then you've already won.//   

       Here, this guy says it a lot better than I can... and with fewer expletives;   

         

         

       "As enshrined in America’s founding document, first inventors have an inherent right to their inventions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided in A.F. Stoddard & Company, Ltd. V. C. Marshall Dann that the “Constitution speaks of securing to inventors the exclusive right to their discoveries, not that the inventor must apply. Thus, the Constitution is result-oriented and contemplates that the grant of the patent be to the inventor.” It follows that regardless of who is first to file for a patent, patents must belong to a first inventor and not a first filer. In its haste to bring the U.S. patent system in line with the FITF system adopted by the majority of foreign states, the U.S. legislature seems to have lost sight of the basic protections of property rights written into the Constitution.   

       More relevant in terms of innovation is Conyers’s second goal: reducing NPE litigation (patent trolls). If anything, the AIA has had little effect on patent disputes, disputes defined to include both litigation and AIA non-litigation procedures (mostly IPR); the number of disputes has risen every year since the AIA came into effect. Litigation in 2015 also increased above pre-AIA levels and still constitutes a vast majority of patent disputes, and NPEs accounted for more than two-thirds of litigation. While the popularity of IPR is increasing and may decrease the cost of patent disputes, the rise of patent suits indicates that the AIA has not meaningfully slowed patent litigation or the rise of NPEs similar to Intellectual Ventures, creating a state of affairs that is particularly detrimental to innovative firms. To illustrate how destructive NPE litigation has become, a study from Boston University concluded that NPEs hampered innovation by costing defendants half a trillion dollars from 1990 to 2010, and widespread weak patents further exacerbate the issue. One commentator has even gone as far as to claim that IPR processes devalue patents and decrease corporate valuations, directly costing the economy $1 trillion independent of NPE activity.   

       All in all, the AIA as a policy has been ineffective at best and detrimental at worst, and by shifting the U.S. from a FTI system to an FITF system, it potentially deprives inventors of the rights to their inventions. Not only has the Act failed to achieve its objectives in providing stimulus to the economy by reforming the patent system, it has also managed to violate the Copyright Clause and clearly would not withstand judicial scrutiny. Such a blatant violation of individual property rights must and will be remedied once a U.S. person with sufficient standing comes forward to challenge the AIA."   

       ...   

       ...and the longer it takes, the bigger the shit-storm will be.
See?
  

       Well, I'm sure I could find someone equally vocal defending FITF (I'll give it a go if you really want me to) and showing that it doesn't break the constitution. Was that James Madison you were quoting?   

       Whoever he is, he's right that patent litigation in the US is out of control. But the figures he quotes are (he says) from 1990 to 2010, which is just _before_ the AIA came into effect, so I'm not sure what point he's making. Is patent litigation high in the US? It certainly is; as I mentioned, I'm involved with some of it, and I know how much is spent on it. Is that a new thing since AIA? No.   

       Anyway, good luck waiting for America to revert to FTI. I'm sure it will happen any day now. Unfortunately that will mean that some US patents will, once again, not be fileable overseas, but hey. Who needs an export market? In the meantime, keep up with the anger, it seems to be working well for you.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 16 2019
  

       //keep up with the anger, it seems to be working well for you//   

       I'm still here, ain't I?   

       So's polio.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 16 2019
  

       Polio can't invent.   

       I want to clarify two things.   

       One; the only problem I have with first to file is that it makes no provision for establishing date-of-origination without a price tag.
Under FTI an inventor never had to patent their IP to solidify an invention as their own, just publicly disclose it first. That is a travesty of justice plain and simple.
  

       Secondly I realize how; //Being really angry for years is what's kept me alive and I guess I just want you to realize you've been conned.// sounds.   

       The first few years alone were pretty much out of the frying pan into the fire and anger was a lot more productive and useful than tears. My philosophy has always been; Take all the negatives flip them all on their heads and they all become positives so that's what I did with the rage, pain, fear, panic, sadness, etc.
They never went away, I just wrapped them all into a tornado and then wrapped that back on itself and... channeled it so I could find the calm at the center. Turns out that if you can actually channel that much negative energy into something positive... inventions pop into your head. Mine anyway, I imagine for some folks it's music or poems or some such but for me it's widgets.
Damn sword has two edges though and a side effect of being able to channel that much negative energy is that really bad things happen to people who screw me over... because I go really Really far out of my way to not screw others over. I don't even need to be consciously aware of it, I'll just hear the story later, and the bad things seem to be in direct proportion to the screwing-over.
  

       The pencil pushers are fucking with my zen.   

       I do not consciously invent and I do not consciously defend. Whatever it is I did in my head that lets me do this crap was something I did as a kid and its sense of justice and fairness is that of a child. Even I can't go against it without getting my ass kicked until I dummy-up.
You'll see. You can't contain 'actual' genius or it explodes.
  

       Learned that the hard way over fifty years.   

       These widgets it's shown me, if nobody has ever thought them up before, are mine/its according to the rights I was born with. To be acknowledged as the originator of them has now been taken away from me/it without just cause.   

       That's a pretty big screwing over for us. The coming shit-storm will indicate just how big.   

       We need to fix this shit so that some fourteen year old Guatemalan kid like me with no prior knowledge or cash still has rights to their genius without needing to lawyer-up because that kid will not have my restraint.   

       You know I'm right...   
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle