patent lawyers have habit of turning written English into a gaspingly turgid explanation of a concept
As a patent attorney I can confirm this.
117 posts • joined 12 Jul 2012
I bought a DAB radio expecting the crystal clear commentary, which I duly got - but the 2+ second delay while the signal gets digitised/compressed, fed through some network or other and then decompressed on my radio made the listening very frustrating
You need my new, pat pending, digital delay glasses. put them on and the world gets delayed by 2 seconds.
I'm working on some that delay by 40 years, for Brexiteers.
For home use, and lots of business uses I'm sure it's fine. When I started my own business 4 years ago I tried to use it. I had to give that up because my business involves sending lots of documents to people where they need to be in a particular format. Things like page numbering and line numbering were a real pain to do, and I got calls saying things were going wrong at their end.
Sadly it was just easier to bite the bullet and buy Word.
If you've ever tried to get a US patent you will know they don't just grant any old thing They go through an examination process, and often reject applications based upon their flawed understanding of the prior art. Of course they occasionally let through things that shouldn't be granted, but this is not commonplace - it's just more noticeable when it happens.
There are several problems with this article. I'll point out one. There are no criminal sanctions for patent infringement. Bayliss wanted that, but didn't get it. It would be a disaster if it did come in too. He managed to get criminal sanctions for infringement of registered designs though, which is also a complete shambles.
What garbage. If you get rid of patents then there is no incentive for companies to innovate, as anything they come up with will immediately be copied. No more drugs. No electrical device improvements. We'd just keep using the same old stuff we have now, as innovation is expensive.
If Lego wants to sell more then they should do something about their obscene prices. Go to a branch of Wilco (in the UK) and you can get compatible bricks, and fancy designs at about a quarter of the cost of the Lego stuff. The instructions are good too. If more people bought this, then Lego might think twice about fleecing their fans.
I didn't use them much (and it seems nor did many others), but they have helped me out of tight spots before, selling components (yes, they still sell them, in the Worcester branch at least), and the odd other item.
It looks like it'll be mail order only now, which gets expensive when you just want one transistor.
I suppose in that example they probably wouldn't own the copyright either as the client would probably own it - and the client definitely didn't press the shutter button.
It's rare that the client would own it, but may do if the particular contract said so. In the case you suggested, the studio would own it, as the assistant would be an employee of the studio, and first ownership (in the UK at least) goes to the employer for work done by an employee. But even so, I suspect that the assistant wouldn't own it, but it would be owned by the person making all the creative decisions, i.e. the main photographer.
The previous section was rather unclear, and left many questions unanswered. It therefore acted to prevent attempts at settlement before going to court. The new text tries to address the problems, and so should be better for everyone, and result in fewer court cases.
to be extremely rude to the caller, when I receive these calls. I know they are only doing a job, but they are well aware that the job is to pester people who do not want their services. I thus hold them guilty by association. Hopefully they will then leave the company, and get a proper job instead.
If they've got that power, then the general meter reading guys don't seem to use it. I turned down entry to them many times in my old house, because they'd knock on the door, and ask to read it. I said I'd let them if they could tell me who I was. Every time they gave the name of the previous occupant, who left several years before. They always seemed happy enough though after being politely told to go away.
I believe the author is trying to spin something here that doesn't match reality. The Unified Patent Court is nothing to do with the European Patent Office. The EPO will continue to grant patents as it always has, but at the grant stage the applicant will have the option of choosing, effectively, an EU-wide patent, rather than the individual country patents that are currently available. Then, the EU-wide patent will come under the auspices of the Unified Patent Court. It is, at that point, nothing to do with the EPO anymore. This sentence: Although the regulation empowers local courts to handle patents, which in theory should require less central bureaucracy, the EPO has morphed into a bureaucracy of over 7,000 staff. therefore makes no sense.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019