|
|
I would take all of this as, "Big words". If you read the content to the end, you will find, "humans will live to be 500-years-old". If you can do it... Do it! If can't, don't market your products in a way that tomorrow you can't fulfill your promise.
Anyways, if that cancer thing works... I'm going to fear less things in my life. 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
That would be really nice on a google watch ...
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
All this kind of patent achieves is to prevent the people who could actually achieve their aims from doing anything:
"I know I can cure cancer with a gadget that you strap to your wrist, but I can't build it, because google has a blanket patent for something that they can't make and have no idea how to make".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting point: do you know this to be the case? That would be criminal, really.
|
|
|
|
|
It's how patent trolls work. They patent a rough idea on how something might possibly work, then sue the cr@p out of anyone who does something that even slightly resembles that rough idea.
Just look at the verbiage: "can automatically modify or destroy one or more targets in the blood that have an adverse health effect".
It's a monstrous patent for technology that does not, and cannot yet, exist, which can only be used to steal funds from people who could actually make something like that work.
I've always been largely in favour of the "If you can't provide empirical proof that it works, you can't have a patent for it" concept, but, given what has been going on over the last few years, I've begun to see it as a necessity.
[edited for a tpyo]
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
modified 17-Mar-15 16:21pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: If you can't provide empirical proof that it works, you can't have a patent for it
Agreed. We need to go back to the days that the patent process required 2 things: 1 - the application, 2 - a fully working demo.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, thank you, that all makes good sense.
|
|
|
|
|
No empirical proof that robotniks work => no patent.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
In my naiveté I thought that's how it was supposed to work - I hadn't realized that dreams could now be patented.
|
|
|
|
|
Dreams of getting rich off other people's work are very strong in some.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It used to be that to file a patent, you had to have at least a working prototype. Seems like I could patent warp drive technology now, if I wanted to.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some of the suggestions offered, to help the inflicted, seem like they wouldn't work because it would still require some level of effort from the inflicted person.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, bite me. 
|
|
|
|
|
I'll ignore that simply because you're a key stakeholder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These puns are getting a bit wooden
|
|
|
|
|
Can you please help me understand what this thread is all about? 
|
|
|
|
|
It's the diagnosis of the CodeProject Q&A Forum.. 
[People asking questions without having switched on their brain before = Help Vampires]
Recursion: see Recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
I got that - Did you get that I was being facetious? 
|
|
|
|
|
No, you caught me off guard - outside the Q&A forum some filters are suspended in order to recover 
Recursion: see Recursion.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
