"Bwing me some moowusks!"
"Thertainly! Theveral tathty molluthkth thall be brought thortly, Ponthus!"
Posted on 09/12/2003 9:17:38 AM PDT by presidio9
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
We Wiwl Weweese WaJaaaaah!
"Bwing me some moowusks!"
"Thertainly! Theveral tathty molluthkth thall be brought thortly, Ponthus!"
Wow, with a few more jam jars and some pots and pans from the kitchen, this guy could come up with the "missing link".
Oysters or snails?
You know how many cheap synthetic dyes we have nowadays? The market for natural dyes produced by molluscs is basically zero...
>>>>This guy should have filed a patent for the process. He is out Multi-Million$ thanks to yapping about it.
He is admitting that the Romans knew about it, so it was previously known. You can't patent something that was previously known.
Now, if he advances from here and finds a new way to use this old technology, he may be able to patent that, and that would be the valuable part anyway.
patent
Tesco's the best! I always buy sandwiches there when the lines get too long at Pret a Manger. Hoorah for Tesco's!
Vinegar is just diluted acetic acid. (He took them out of pickling juice (vinegar).
You're fawther was a Woman?
Neither he, nor I, nor you, KNOW what the Roman's process WAS. It is lost to the ages.
Thsi guy developed HIS invented process to make the same dye. It involved a presumed different mollusk, and whatever other processes he invented without foreknowledge of a prior process. The original process is nowhere to be found.
He would therefore get the patent and would own the process that he created, developed, and outlined.
I know a little about patents, I have some, and many more in pre-grant publication at this moment.
So why is your name "patent"?
So why is your name "patent"?I’m a patent attorney.
Thsi guy developed HIS invented process to make the same dye.So what? That he did it isn’t enough. He has to have done something that is patentably distinct from anything done before this. HE claims that he did not do so:
He explained to the British Association science festival in Salford, Greater Manchester, how he rediscovered the secret of imperial purple after studying the fermentation process of indigo pigments from the woad plant.See that word, “rediscovered?” That is legally distinct from “invented.” If he tries to patent this now he will have to sign a document under oath stating he was the first to ever do this. How can he sign that document when he is publicly claiming that he is NOT the first to do it? I’d love to be on the other side of that case.
It involved a presumed different mollusk,Not material. At best, this would give him a very narrow claim to the use of that mollusk only, given that he cannot claim the generic, and only the species. That would be a worthless patent. However, given his statements that all he has done is “rediscover” an old process, I’d be terribly surprised to see him even try to patent this.
If he did, he’s already explained the motivation to try what he tried, so obviousness is going to be easy.
and whatever other processes he invented without foreknowledge of a prior process.Absolutely and positively irrelevant. Foreknowledge is relevant to copyrights, not patentability.
The original process is nowhere to be found.????
Read the patent statute and tell me why this matters when he’s admitted this isn’t “new.”
He would therefore get the patent and would own the process that he created, developed, and outlined.You are wrong. See above.
I know a little about patents, I have some, and many more in pre-grant publication at this moment.You know a little. That hardly makes you qualified to opine on whether or not he would get the patent here. I mean no disrespect, but you are not familiar enough with the patent process to know if he could get one or not.
patent
Of course not, treatment of Cancer is a multi billion dollar business and growing. Imagine the job and GNP loss if a cure is discovered.
Sort of like the Asthma remedy, of which I have first hand knowledge, that was cheap and worked almost immediately that was used 40 years ago. The Pharmaceutical company's had a low profit margin so they invented all the new high profit margin treatments.
"So, still no cure for cancer?"
There are cures, but conventional medicine does not want any - too much money involved in treatment. You gotta keep coming back for treatment unless you are cured.
"Sort of like the Asthma remedy, of which I have first hand knowledge, that was cheap and worked almost immediately..."
I agree with your comment about Cancer 'treatment'. What was/is this referenced Asthma remedy?
The writer's story said he "rediscovered" the secret, which is not necessarily the process. How does anyone know what the old process was? The secret was the source, which is still a secret since nobody knows for sure. If anyone already knew the old process, nobody would need to "rediscover" it, would they?
Wow, a reply to a 2003 post? A blast from the past!
>>>>So how many patents do you have, in which you are an inventor? I'm at ten so far, so I know enough about them.
Do you think you are an expert because you have 10 patents?
Most experts see more than that every week, as do I. How many patents you and I have in our names is irrelevant to whether or not we know patent law. I've worked with inventors who had hundreds of patents in their names, but had only a rudimentary understanding about the legalities of getting a patent. None of the inventors I've worked with were legal experts, and nearly all were smart enough to recognize that. You can chose to listen to me and discuss the points I raised above, or you can continue to pound the table about your expertise. It matters very little to me.
>>>How does anyone know what the old process was?
Well, the gentleman in the story seems to think he knows what it was. I don't think you get this. To apply for a patent he has to sign papers under oath saying its new. Since you have so much experience in patent applications you should know this. Don't you recall what the documents you signed said? This guy has specifically stated its not new. So, were he to apply for a patent he would either have to make a very, very, narrow and useless application, or he would be a proven liar, either on his application or in this interview. I doubt he will do that.
>>>>If anyone already knew the old process, nobody would need to "rediscover" it, would they?
Again, you don't get this either. Whether someone remembers the old process or not is immaterial. Having people remember the old process usually makes it easier to prove its old. However, an ADMISSION BY THE "INVENTOR" that the process is old is good enough to prove he has not found something "new and useful." Read the patent laws.
patent
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.