• {OT} Re: 30 Years Of Netscape

    From bad sector@21:1/5 to Rich on Tue Nov 5 22:07:57 2024
    XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox

    On 11/5/24 17:39, Rich wrote:
    In comp.misc Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 14:32:21 -0500, bad sector wrote:

    On 11/4/24 14:35, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    One important thing Netscape did before going completely defunct
    was to open-source the browser.

    THAT was a class act! I did something vaguely similar when I took
    out a provisional patent and then let it lapse for the express
    purpose of thus hard-wiring the idea into public domain to prevent
    anyone from ever being able to take out a patent on the same idea.

    Patents in the public interest ... now THAT I can applaud!

    Officially, that is (at least in the US) the official, Constitution
    derived, reason for the patent system in the first place. In exchange
    for a limited length monopoly, the public gets disclosure of the
    invention and the ability to use it once the limited length monopoly
    runs out.

    Of course, a 20 year monopoly lets bad actors be bad for 20 years....

    But then, simply publishing the idea would, in theory, count as
    “prior art”, wouldn’t it? Though in practice it is very hard to get >> patents invalidated anyway, at least in the US system (also *cough*
    East Texas *cough*).

    Yes, it does not matter the manner of publication, just the fact that
    it was published.

    But, bad sector's method has the added benefit of the fact that the one "database" that is most easily accessible to the examiner's working in
    the patent office is the actual database of prior patents. So
    inserting his idea into the existing patent database itself meant the document had the best chance that it would be found, and possibly used,
    to block someone else.

    Exactly, which is is why I done it. There are many ideas in the public
    domain by the mere fact of once having been published but if they don't
    turn up in an early search you may later have to prosecute your case and
    end up in a never-ending brawl costing attorney fees and such other
    luxuries that most mortals will NEVER be able to afford. I'm no expert
    but the provisional patent system was an ideal alternative for $100
    which I was pleased to invest into screwing wanna-be chislers in
    waiting. The provisional system was later terminated.

    And what led up to it all was an earlier patent I had actually had
    prosecuted by an american pattent attorney, that one cost me a LOT more
    and I had my hopes up but the potential market (military) just wasn't
    smart enough for my invention. I still think it to be an excellent idea
    and had developed it as an expert instructor and sometimes stunt
    sky-diver, even discussed it for a very short while with the Royal
    Military College, alas to no avail. Continued renewals would have eaten
    my house so I had it lapse into public domain ...as my first lesson :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bad sector@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Tue Nov 5 22:34:44 2024
    XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox

    On 11/5/24 16:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 14:32:21 -0500, bad sector wrote:

    On 11/4/24 14:35, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    One important thing Netscape did before going completely defunct was to
    open-source the browser.

    THAT was a class act! I did something vaguely similar when I took out a
    provisional patent and then let it lapse for the express purpose of thus
    hard-wiring the idea into public domain to prevent anyone from ever
    being able to take out a patent on the same idea.

    Patents in the public interest ... now THAT I can applaud!

    yeah, I was rather proud of it, seems like in another life now

    But then, simply publishing the idea would, in theory, count as “prior art”, wouldn’t it? Though in practice it is very hard to get patents invalidated anyway, at least in the US system (also *cough* East Texas *cough*).

    Ideally 'prior art' would block another applicant, but yes, once granted overturning would be a task and a half, especially with thin records.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to bad sector on Wed Nov 6 06:15:16 2024
    XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox

    On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 22:07:57 -0500, bad sector wrote:

    And what led up to it all was an earlier patent I had actually had
    prosecuted by an american pattent attorney, that one cost me a LOT more
    and I had my hopes up but the potential market (military) just wasn't
    smart enough for my invention.

    Making money from patents is as likely as winning the lottery.

    Patents are about “invention”, but success in business comes, not from “invention”, but from “innovation”.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to ldo@nz.invalid on Thu Nov 7 02:27:01 2024
    XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 22:07:57 -0500, bad sector wrote:

    And what led up to it all was an earlier patent I had actually had
    prosecuted by an american pattent attorney, that one cost me a LOT more
    and I had my hopes up but the potential market (military) just wasn't
    smart enough for my invention.

    Making money from patents is as likely as winning the lottery.

    Making money from LICENSING patents is as likely as winning the lottery.
    But there are plenty of other ways patents can be profitable, beginning
    with looking very good on your resume when you're looking for employment.
    And ending with useful publicity too.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)