Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ftth who wrote (20553)	3/30/2007 1:41:45 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

ftth, re: "Maybe when you get 5 layers down in the dependent claims you can no longer find an exact match in a public disclosure, but you also have to ask (as is supposed to be asked by the patent examiner in deciding whether to grant the patent), whether, at that time, those extensions several layers down in the dependent claims "were not obvious to one skilled in the art."" Again, I'm reminded of the Tim Berners-Lee video presentation in Msg #20535, where, in his discussing the semantic web at the 3 min 40 sec mark, he starts down a road that leads to the need to put new art "out there" so that it is available for others to introduce further innovations. He states, "we need to be able to get the re-use of the data we've funded," referring to, I inferred, pulicly funded research data. Now, I grant you that this doesn't apply equally to privately developed art, although there is at least a modicum of merit in considering how such art could equitably be made available on a commons level. Note, I stated "equitably," acknowledging the need to preserve the rights of new art's creators and inventors. I don't think we have such an equitable situation today, given my earlier observations that most, if not all, new art borrows from old, and this holds especially true when one considers squatting on IP as a defensive strategy to stall against additional innovation. Then again, I'm not one who has tortured over a concept for decades before reaching Eureka! I'm sure I'd feel differently if I were, and this is why, in part, we strive to find answers through consensus. One could argue through yin-ynag that, throughout the life-cycle of new art, consumers, from whence other innovators emerge, have as many rights as inventors, for, without them, the value of new art falls like a brick. FAC ------