GeoResonance is the company that a few days ago said they think they found a submerged air plane in the Bay of Bengal that might be MH 370.
There web page includes the following assertion:
“We combine all techniques in one proprietary patented methodology. Some of our patents are: 86496-UA, 35122-UA, 2007A000247-EU.”
I think UA means Ukraine. Does anyone have another opinion?
I also assume the EU refers to the European Union. But, I have never seen a patent or application number with an A in the middle like that and substituting a / has lead me nowhere.
Are any of you able to make sense of those alleged patent references?
Well Les, EU is a well-known acronym for “European Union” but, as there are no EU patents (yet), I find “EU”, in context, meaningless.
10.2.1
Thanks for the reply Max. Does the format of the alleged patent number 2007A000247 look at all familiar to you? Does it imply a jurisdiction or document type (patent or application)?
10.2.1.1
No and no.
9
Big Dave writes something like:
We had this issue before. Now we’ve got it again. Before, it was you who stood fast against the clamour to do something about it. Well done sir. Quite right.
which prompts me to think about market trading earthquakes, each one stronger than the one before. Also do nothing, just trust that the next one will be gentler?
More “cult of the dead people” from the maximalists. Ancestor worship is so 21st century BC Mr. Kappos.
7.1
I guess you neither care nor understand the bit about those that do not learn from history are bound to repeat it…
7.1.1
What does writing imaginary letters to dead presidents have to do with learning from history?
7.1.1.1
What does it not have to do with learning from history?
(hint: you write for the historical perspective)
7.1.1.2
Absolutely nothing of course.
7.1.1.2.1
Translation: nothing that 6 either cares about or understands…
7.1.2
You can learn from history quite well without sending dead people letters.
7.1.2.1
You miss the point, 6.
7.1.2.1.1
If your point is that we need to learn from history to not repeat it, I completely agree. Lincoln et al. did nothing against the trolls of his day, and now the people in charge haven’t learned from his mistake, thus we’re doomed to forever repeat the troll nonsense.
7.1.2.1.1.1
LOL – what exactly do you think is “Troll” nonsense? A little hint for you: go back to the historical thing that your old buddy Dudas shared – What you call “Troll” is integral with the US patent system.
What you want (and I still doubt that you understand this) is the same thing that Jane wanted.
7.1.2.1.1.2
Indeed, quite the contrary. Lincoln got a patent for something and then never manufactured it. Lincoln WAS a “troll”….
7.1.2.1.1.3
I don’t remember stories of lincoln going around “sharking” for liscenses lester. Mind pointing me to records of him sueing people? Maybe some records of him sueing people on a patent of special liklihood of being invalid? Oh lincoln didn’t behave as a troll at all you say?
7.1.2.1.1.4
Are you kidding me? He didn’t have to sue anyone. One letter from him and people stopped lifting ships or they paid up. Haven’t you seen Vampire Slayer? The guy knew how to handle an ax.
7.1.2.1.1.5
6 neither cares nor understands that law suits (and the threat of suit) are the structured civil mechanism for enforcing patent rights and of themselves are not “the worst thing ever” or even the second “worst thing ever.”
It is only when you drink the anti-patent kool-aid that such belief systems become so entrenched as to negate reason and objective understanding.
Scalia seems on board with the Federal Circuit, but I think the court wants to hear more on 271(a).
I think it will either vacate the Federal Circuit opinion and remand for an en banc review of the 271(a) question or grant the cross petition and schedule briefing for the fall on 271(a).
5
I think Lincoln is going to need more than a cheek implant to cure his headache.
Too soon?
5.1
lol
4
This is all very nice flag waving, except for the statement that: “Patent litigation rates have remained relatively uniform over the past two centuries.” Without any explanation that this can only be in comparison to some other, and very low, number, such as the number of patents issued, that is a very misleading statement.
—–
I had been looking for unbiased information on the number of patent suits being filed in recent years. IPO NEWS just provided this:
“According to the Judicial Business of the U.S. Courts there were 6,497 patent suits filed in U.S. district courts in 2013. This represents a 25% increase in the number of patent suits filed in district courts between 2012 and 2013 and a 62% increase from 2011. ” ..
“Changes in legislation and many other factors can affect the number of suits filed. For example, patent suits filed were affected from about 2009 to 2011 by a flurry of suits alleging false patent marking. Since September 2011, patent suit filings has been affected by 35 U.S.C. 299, which limits joinder of multiple accused infringers in a single suit.”*
*Yes, but that does not change the number of defendants, and quiry who was doing those multiple defendant suit filings, and how much of an effect was its change?
4.1
This is all very nice flag waving
Big Dave knows his audience well, doesn’t he?
I had been looking for unbiased information on the number of patent suits being filed in recent years.
“Patent litigation rates have remained relatively uniform over the past two centuries.” Without any explanation that this can only be in comparison to some other, and very low, number, such as the number of patents issued, that is a very misleading statement
Indeed. Particularly given that the yearly rate of patent filing and grant has only begun exploding relatively recently … thanks in part to Kappos and his fondness for junk patents.
4.1.1
LOL – don’t forget Lex Machina’s own Screaming Headline (for which, Malcolm had his head buried in the sand).
4.2
Of course there was a boost in litigation filings in 2012 and 2013, to get on file before AIA took effect.
3
I like the speech, but is Kappos running for office or something?
3.1
No, he is just doing his usual very good job, which now is representing the interests of his law firm’s clients. [We should probably be grateful that his firm is apparently not dependent on patent litigation billings solely from defendants.]
2
Lincoln’s Claim:
Is that functional language I see? I’m shocked! At the point of novelty no less? OMG! and means for language?
What I claim as my invention and desire to secure by letters patent, is the combination of expansible buoyant chambers placed at the sides of a vessel, with the main shaft or shafts C, by means of the sliding spars or shafts D, which pass downlthrough the buoyant chambers and are made fast to their bottoms, and the series of ropes and pullies, or their equivalents, in such a manner that by turning the main shaft or shafts in one direction, the buoyant chambers will be forced downwards into the Water `and at the same time expanded and filled with air for buoying up the vessel by the displacement of water; and by turning the shaft in an opposite direction, the buoyant chambers will be contracted into a small space and secured against injury.
made fast to their bottoms
ropes and pullies, or their equivalents
in such a manner that (functional language, functional language)
and at the same time expanded and filled with air for buoying up the vessel by the displacement of water (is that a natural law?)
2.1
is that a “junk” patent? maybe all patents are “junk” patents?
2.1.1
Yeah, looks like junk to me. Especially the majic:
” in such a manner that by turning the main shaft or shafts in one direction, the buoyant chambers will be forced downwards into the Water `and at the same time expanded and filled with air ”
That doesn’t explain how the air is pumped into the chambers and effectively preempts all shaft turning downward forcing expanding with air, whether Abe had envisioned it or not.
Not only that, but its entirely old. Shafts had been turnning for centuries, chambers existed, why the very ships Abe seeks to lift were buoyant … so, this is basically tying two or three ships together…with a balloon added somewhere..all being used for what they had always been designed to do.
1
Dave Kappos Open Letter to President Lincoln:
Dear Pwezdent Lincoln,
I like patents. I think you like them, too. I would like to someday borrow your hat to keep the sun off my head.
Your friend,
Dave
P.S. I live in a big city. If you visit, maybe we can go see a play together.
1.1
P.P.S. (Abe, make sure you let Malcolm borrow your hat, and your chair at the play)
Off Topic but – Max or anyone:
GeoResonance is the company that a few days ago said they think they found a submerged air plane in the Bay of Bengal that might be MH 370.
There web page includes the following assertion:
“We combine all techniques in one proprietary patented methodology. Some of our patents are: 86496-UA, 35122-UA, 2007A000247-EU.”
I think UA means Ukraine. Does anyone have another opinion?
I also assume the EU refers to the European Union. But, I have never seen a patent or application number with an A in the middle like that and substituting a / has lead me nowhere.
Are any of you able to make sense of those alleged patent references?
link to georesonance.com
“I think UA means Ukraine. Does anyone have another opinion?”
Yes, Les, you are correct.
See: link to wipo.int
Well Les, EU is a well-known acronym for “European Union” but, as there are no EU patents (yet), I find “EU”, in context, meaningless.
Thanks for the reply Max. Does the format of the alleged patent number 2007A000247 look at all familiar to you? Does it imply a jurisdiction or document type (patent or application)?
No and no.
Big Dave writes something like:
We had this issue before. Now we’ve got it again. Before, it was you who stood fast against the clamour to do something about it. Well done sir. Quite right.
which prompts me to think about market trading earthquakes, each one stronger than the one before. Also do nothing, just trust that the next one will be gentler?
You ASSUME that you actually have an earthquake.
OT, but worth keeping an eye on:
link to nationallawjournal.com
More “cult of the dead people” from the maximalists. Ancestor worship is so 21st century BC Mr. Kappos.
I guess you neither care nor understand the bit about those that do not learn from history are bound to repeat it…
What does writing imaginary letters to dead presidents have to do with learning from history?
What does it not have to do with learning from history?
(hint: you write for the historical perspective)
Absolutely nothing of course.
Translation: nothing that 6 either cares about or understands…
You can learn from history quite well without sending dead people letters.
You miss the point, 6.
If your point is that we need to learn from history to not repeat it, I completely agree. Lincoln et al. did nothing against the trolls of his day, and now the people in charge haven’t learned from his mistake, thus we’re doomed to forever repeat the troll nonsense.
LOL – what exactly do you think is “Troll” nonsense? A little hint for you: go back to the historical thing that your old buddy Dudas shared – What you call “Troll” is integral with the US patent system.
What you want (and I still doubt that you understand this) is the same thing that Jane wanted.
Indeed, quite the contrary. Lincoln got a patent for something and then never manufactured it. Lincoln WAS a “troll”….
I don’t remember stories of lincoln going around “sharking” for liscenses lester. Mind pointing me to records of him sueing people? Maybe some records of him sueing people on a patent of special liklihood of being invalid? Oh lincoln didn’t behave as a troll at all you say?
Are you kidding me? He didn’t have to sue anyone. One letter from him and people stopped lifting ships or they paid up. Haven’t you seen Vampire Slayer? The guy knew how to handle an ax.
6 neither cares nor understands that law suits (and the threat of suit) are the structured civil mechanism for enforcing patent rights and of themselves are not “the worst thing ever” or even the second “worst thing ever.”
It is only when you drink the anti-patent kool-aid that such belief systems become so entrenched as to negate reason and objective understanding.
Limelight v.Akamai oral argument: link to supremecourt.gov
Scalia seems on board with the Federal Circuit, but I think the court wants to hear more on 271(a).
I think it will either vacate the Federal Circuit opinion and remand for an en banc review of the 271(a) question or grant the cross petition and schedule briefing for the fall on 271(a).
I think Lincoln is going to need more than a cheek implant to cure his headache.
Too soon?
lol
This is all very nice flag waving, except for the statement that: “Patent litigation rates have remained relatively uniform over the past two centuries.” Without any explanation that this can only be in comparison to some other, and very low, number, such as the number of patents issued, that is a very misleading statement.
—–
I had been looking for unbiased information on the number of patent suits being filed in recent years. IPO NEWS just provided this:
“According to the Judicial Business of the U.S. Courts there were 6,497 patent suits filed in U.S. district courts in 2013. This represents a 25% increase in the number of patent suits filed in district courts between 2012 and 2013 and a 62% increase from 2011. ” ..
“Changes in legislation and many other factors can affect the number of suits filed. For example, patent suits filed were affected from about 2009 to 2011 by a flurry of suits alleging false patent marking. Since September 2011, patent suit filings has been affected by 35 U.S.C. 299, which limits joinder of multiple accused infringers in a single suit.”*
*Yes, but that does not change the number of defendants, and quiry who was doing those multiple defendant suit filings, and how much of an effect was its change?
This is all very nice flag waving
Big Dave knows his audience well, doesn’t he?
I had been looking for unbiased information on the number of patent suits being filed in recent years.
Try this:
link to lexmachina.com
“Patent litigation rates have remained relatively uniform over the past two centuries.” Without any explanation that this can only be in comparison to some other, and very low, number, such as the number of patents issued, that is a very misleading statement
Indeed. Particularly given that the yearly rate of patent filing and grant has only begun exploding relatively recently … thanks in part to Kappos and his fondness for junk patents.
LOL – don’t forget Lex Machina’s own Screaming Headline (for which, Malcolm had his head buried in the sand).
Of course there was a boost in litigation filings in 2012 and 2013, to get on file before AIA took effect.
I like the speech, but is Kappos running for office or something?
No, he is just doing his usual very good job, which now is representing the interests of his law firm’s clients. [We should probably be grateful that his firm is apparently not dependent on patent litigation billings solely from defendants.]
Lincoln’s Claim:
Is that functional language I see? I’m shocked! At the point of novelty no less? OMG! and means for language?
What I claim as my invention and desire to secure by letters patent, is the combination of expansible buoyant chambers placed at the sides of a vessel, with the main shaft or shafts C, by means of the sliding spars or shafts D, which pass downlthrough the buoyant chambers and are made fast to their bottoms, and the series of ropes and pullies, or their equivalents, in such a manner that by turning the main shaft or shafts in one direction, the buoyant chambers will be forced downwards into the Water `and at the same time expanded and filled with air for buoying up the vessel by the displacement of water; and by turning the shaft in an opposite direction, the buoyant chambers will be contracted into a small space and secured against injury.
made fast to their bottoms
ropes and pullies, or their equivalents
in such a manner that (functional language, functional language)
and at the same time expanded and filled with air for buoying up the vessel by the displacement of water (is that a natural law?)
is that a “junk” patent? maybe all patents are “junk” patents?
Yeah, looks like junk to me. Especially the majic:
” in such a manner that by turning the main shaft or shafts in one direction, the buoyant chambers will be forced downwards into the Water `and at the same time expanded and filled with air ”
That doesn’t explain how the air is pumped into the chambers and effectively preempts all shaft turning downward forcing expanding with air, whether Abe had envisioned it or not.
Not only that, but its entirely old. Shafts had been turnning for centuries, chambers existed, why the very ships Abe seeks to lift were buoyant … so, this is basically tying two or three ships together…with a balloon added somewhere..all being used for what they had always been designed to do.
Dave Kappos Open Letter to President Lincoln:
Dear Pwezdent Lincoln,
I like patents. I think you like them, too. I would like to someday borrow your hat to keep the sun off my head.
Your friend,
Dave
P.S. I live in a big city. If you visit, maybe we can go see a play together.
P.P.S. (Abe, make sure you let Malcolm borrow your hat, and your chair at the play)
Comments are closed.