This is actually pretty cool; I knew about the spread spectrum/frequency hopping patent of Hed(le)y Lamarr, but these others are new to me. posted by TedW at 7:28 AM on April 7, 2007
[rolls eyes]
Thanks for explaining the reference, guys. posted by Tommy Gnosis at 7:31 AM on April 7, 2007
Looks like those diapers with the extra wet wipe stuck inside never took off. posted by Burhanistan at 10:00 AM on April 7, 2007
The Google Patent presentation is much nicer (and of course it uses Google's nice searching) but it doesn't include applications, just issued patents. For that reason, it's often better to use the USPTO's website. posted by rxrfrx at 3:02 PM on April 7, 2007
I'm for a woman's right to choose and all, but really, Jamie Lee — why even bother to clothe a disposable infant? For shame, sir! posted by rob511 at 3:32 PM on April 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
The Google Patent presentation is much nicer (and of course it uses Google's nice searching) but it doesn't include applications, just issued patents. For that reason, it's often better to use the USPTO's website.
And even better to use the European Patent Office's Espacenet website, which includes also applications and countries from all around the world, and not just the US.
Really, having been searching patents for over ten years now, I fail to understand the enthusiasm for Google Patent. It isn't really a very good tool, and I don't want to think of how Google is going to make money out of it. It does have really, really good marketing, though. posted by Skeptic at 5:53 PM on April 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Stupid question that I'll post properly on askmefi later:
Is is legal to fabricate widgets, that someone else has a patent on, and then go and loan or give away said widgets? (This would be while not charging any money for these widgets.) posted by sebastienbailard at 1:48 AM on April 8, 2007
IANAL, but the effect on the patent holder would be the same, or worse than selling said widgets for profit. You almost certainly would deprive them of sales they otherwise would have made. You also might damage their reputation if said widgets were inferior in some way. You likely would not offer service and/or repair. You also would be riding on their advertising/publicity/reputation. You also would set a precedent that could be used in court by someone who did want to replicate said widgets for profit. Do you really think you would be allowed to make and give away iPods or Starbucks mugs, for example? posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:00 AM on April 8, 2007
Thanks, weapons-grade pandemonium. I hadn't considred that aspect of things. You seem to be correct.
(1) CONTENTS.-Every patent shall contain a short title of the invention and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, of the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process, of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling throughout the United States, or importing into the United States, products made by that process, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof.
Note: iPods and Starbucks mugs involve trademark law, mostly. posted by sebastienbailard at 10:56 AM on April 8, 2007
the interactive music generation system made by Thomas Dolby of "She Blinded Me With Science" fame.
Subscribe
That's Hedley.
Good post.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 7:10 AM on April 7, 2007 [2 favorites]