Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

The law is for YOUR protection. Honest!

<< < (5/6) > >>

app103:
Now imagine you are an inventor who wants to avoid this scenario. What is your due diligence? An exhaustive patent search of any patent that might potentially cover the technology you're thinking of inventing? Better be a rich guy to start with. And once your search is done, you may find that any device you create (or part of any device you create) could conceivably be described by one or more existing patents. So you give up and switch to gardening, which stifles innovation - the exact opposite of the system's original intent.
-Jimdoria (June 27, 2011, 12:06 PM)
--- End quote ---

Gardening isn't exactly safe from patents, either. Don't plant more than one type of any plant too close to each other or you might cross-pollinate by accident and infringe on someone's patent with your new type of flower.

And if you are growing vegetables, you might end up with a letter from Monsanto's lawyers.

http://www.humanflowerproject.com/index.php/weblog/comments/plant_patents_potted_gold/

40hz:
^You don't even need an actual plant to run afoul of a patent when it comes to gardening.

There's a certain prolific inventor* who holds a patent on a method for plowing fields in order to reduce the need for water and irrigation.

Ready for this? It has nothing to do with how you plow the furrows or what tools you use to do it.

The patent is based on the compass direction relative to the geoposition of the field its furrows are plowed in.

So depending on where you're located, if you plow your fields in a certain direction, you're infringing on his patent. At least according to him and the morons at the USPTO who granted it.

He's claimed to have successfully enforced his patent against farmers and other 'agro' businesses. (Supposedly he's employed satellite imagery and hired planes to fly over and photograph fields in major farming areas looking for instances of infringement.)

Insane. :-\


-----------------------
* Can't remember this guy's name off the top of my head. But it should come to me eventually. I'll post it when I do.

Carol Haynes:
Patent laws should have a sanity clause that allows anyone to challenge a patent on the grounds that it is patently bonkers.

There should also be a 'public good' clause that says no patent can be granted where it will infringe on public welfare - and that should include all bio-patents which to me are the very worst of all the patent stupidity foisted on the world by a barmy US system!

katykaty:
Hell in the UK children have to be taught about 'citizenship' in schools - it is now a compulsory subject - but NO ONE in the UK is a CITIZEN - we are all SUBJECTS of the crown (if you are from the UK and don't believe me look in your Passport). Citizenship classes in schools should consist of a one line statement on day one of school "there is no such thing as a UK citizen"! There done, now lets get on with speaking the Queen's English.-Carol Haynes (June 26, 2011, 08:38 AM)
--- End quote ---
This is an urban myth Carol. I don't know what's in your passport, but mine says I'm a British Citizen.

Carol Haynes:
True - but if you read the notes section it also says that British Subjects have no right to live in the UK.

Actually the wording was changed with the introduction of the EU passport - the old black ones said British Subject (I still have one).

I suspect the wording was changed because of the EU rather than because of a change of status.

Did a bit of looking here is the Home Office Opinion:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/britishsubjects/

It doesn't alter the fact that as we have no Constitution or Bill of Rights UK Citizenship is pretty meaningless because we are all at the whim of the courts, politicians and ultimately the monarchy.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page