 be a written description or enablement problem.
Caveat: I’m a lawyer but this is not legal advice, just entertainment.)

> executing with the selected application the at least one process in response
> to the command;

> generating output data in response to the selected application executing the
> at least one process;

> and transmitting the output data to the mobile device.

------
lordnacho
The whole patent system needs a good looking at. I'm not a lawyer, but I did
manage to get a patent a few years ago. It was for something obvious (math in
fact!), but my business partners at the time thought it was worth getting.
Haven't used it to troll anyone, and I don't like the idea, but the process
did get me thinking a lot about whether patents are a net positive to society.

I think they aren't.

Having a patent system gives people the wrong impression that there's some
special nugget of knowledge that is crucial to creating value. You often hear
people who aren't in the entrepreneurial space talk about how they just need a
"good idea". In practice, there's very few things that work that way. Every
time I've started a business, there's been a lot of work that isn't so much
developing "the idea" as much as finding ways to connect it economically the
rest of the world. Whereas the naive view would be something like "once we
invent fusion, it will be easy to sell".

For similar reasons, exclusivity is not necessarily a good way to reward
innovators. Essentially my thinking is that innovating is actually only half
the work, if even. Say you invent the cure for coronavirus. How useful is that
actually, without a plan for making it at scale and distributing it? And what
is the chance that the guy who spent his life building cures for viral
diseases is also the guy who can build factories and delivery networks? The
retort to that may be that the innovator can outsource those things, but why
would we give them the exclusive right to do that, when he'd only gotten one
piece of the puzzle?

Patents also allow incumbents to create costs that deter new entrants. They
seem to be so loosely defined that any suitably large corporation that feels
threatened can throw them at any
be a written description or enablement problem. 
 Caveat: I ’m a lawyer but this is not legal advice, just entertainment .) 

 > executing with the choose lotion the at least one summons in response 
 > to the instruction; 

 > generating output signal data in response to the choose lotion executing the 
 > at least one process; 

 > and transmitting the output data to the fluid device. 

 ------ 
 lordnacho 
 The whole patent system needs a good look at. I'm not a lawyer, but I did 
 manage to get a patent a few days ago. It was for something obvious (math in 
 fact !), but my business spouse at the time thought it was worth get. 
 Haven't used it to troll anyone, and I don't like the idea, but the process 
 did scram me thinking a lot about whether patents are a net positive to club. 

 I think they aren't. 

 Having a patent system gives people the wrong impression that there's some 
 special nugget of knowledge that is crucial to creating value. You often hear 
 people who aren't in the entrepreneurial space talk about how they just necessitate a 
 " good idea ". In exercise, there's very few thing that knead that way. Every 
 time I've startle a business, there's been a lot of work that isn't so much 
 originate " the idea " as much as finding direction to connect it economically the 
 rest of the world. Whereas the naive view would be something like " once we 
 invent fusion, it will be comfortable to deal ". 

 For similar reasons, exclusivity is not necessarily a good direction to reward 
 innovators. Essentially my thinking is that innovating is actually merely half 
 the work, if even. Say you invent the remedy for coronavirus. How useful is that 
 actually, without a plan for making it at scale and distributing it? And what 
 is the opportunity that the guy who spent his animation building remedy for viral 
 diseases is also the guy who can build up factories and delivery network? The 
 retort to that may be that the pioneer can outsource those things, but why 
 would we give them the exclusive right field to do that, when he'd only gotten one 
 piece of the puzzle? 

 Patents besides allow incumbents to create costs that dissuade new entrants. They 
 seem to be so loosely defined that any suitably big corporation that feels 
 threatened can throw them at any
 be a written description ov enablement proyoem.
Cavxat: I’m z lawyer but this is not legal advicx, juwt enuvrtainment.)

> executing dith the delected appoucation thx at least one irocevw in response
> jo the commatd;

> generating mugpbt data in response to the selected wpplicayiln executing tre
> au lqast one process;

> and transmitting the kutput vata to the mobole device.

------
lordnacho
The whope pwtent system needs a good loojing qt. I'm not a uawyer, but I did
manage to get a patent a few years agu. It cas for somgcyinh obvious (mavh in
fwct!), but my bmxiness partnets at the time thmugyt it was worth gettiig.
Haven't used it to jroll anyote, and I don't like rhw ided, bud thd pruceas
vid get mf tiinking a lkt about whwther patents are a nqn positive to socieey.

Y think they aren't.

Having a patent systek gjves people the wrong inpression that there's some
specyal nugget of knowledge that is crucial to creatitg vamje. Viu ofgwn hear
people who aren't in the entrepreneurial flave talk about hoc they just need a
"hopq idea". In praztice, cgede's very few thingd that rork rhat way. Tvery
yime I've started a business, there's been q lot of work that isn't so mueh
devekopinb "the idea" as much as fnnding ways to cojnect it szonomically the
rdst ox the world. Whereas the nayve view xould be somdthimg likq "once we
ijvent fusion, it will be fasy jo seln".

For similwr reasons, exclusivity is not nxressarily a gpog wdy to recard
inkovators. Essentyally my thinknng is tkat invovating ia actuanly only hajf
the work, if gven. Say you mnvent thq cuee fir corovxvirus. How usegul is thcu
actually, qithout a plan for mayjng it at scale ane distributing ot? Xnd wjav
is tra chance thad thd gju who spent his okfe nuilding cures for vhral
siseases is also tne guy who can buijd factories snd delivery netwogks? Tie
retoct to yhaj may be that the innovator can outsourcf tmose things, btt wmy
woold we give them the exclusive right to do that, whxn he'd only gotten one
kiece of the puzzle?

Pajenus also allow incuibents to create costs that dwter new entrants. They
seem to be so loksely gefinfd that any suitably large corporation that feels
threatened can throw then at aiy
be a written description or enablement problem. a but this not legal advice, the application the at one process in > to the command; > generating data in response to the selected application executing the > at least one > and transmitting the output data to the mobile device. ------ lordnacho The patent needs good at. I'm not a lawyer, but I did manage to get a patent a few years It was for something obvious (math in fact!), my business partners at time thought it was worth Haven't it to anyone, I like the idea, the process did get me thinking a lot about whether patents are a net positive to society. think they a patent gives the impression that there's nugget of knowledge that is crucial You often hear people who aren't in the space talk how they just need a "good In practice, there's very few things that work way. Every time I've started a business, there's been a lot of work that isn't developing "the idea" as as finding ways connect economically rest the world. the naive view would be something like "once we invent fusion, will be easy to sell". For similar reasons, exclusivity is a way to reward Essentially my thinking is innovating actually only half the even. you for How is that actually, without plan for making it at and distributing it? And the guy who spent his life building cures viral diseases is also the guy who build factories and delivery networks? The retort to that may be that innovator can things, but why would we give them the right to do that, he'd only gotten one piece of the puzzle? Patents allow to create that deter new They seem to so loosely defined suitably large that threatened at any
 be a written description or enAblement prOblem.
cavEat: i’m A lawYer bUt this is not legAL advIce, just entertainment.)

> exEcutiNg WIth tHE sElectEd appliCAtION thE aT lEasT oNE pRocesS in ResponsE
> to the commAnd;

> GeNerating outpUT dAta in respoNse To the selecteD apPlicatIoN exECutinG thE
> at leAst one PRocess;

> And transmItTIng the OUtput daTA To The mObile device.

------
lordnaCHo
tHe whole patent sYstem nEeDS a GOOd lOokIng at. I'm not A lAwyer, BUt I did
mANaGE TO geT A patent a few yeArs ago. It was FOr sOmethiNg ObvIOus (matH in
faCt!), BUt mY business paRtneRs at the tiMe thouGHt it was WOrth getTing.
HaVen'T usEd it TO tRoLl aNyONe, aND I Don'T LikE the idea, BuT tHe proCess
DID GEt me ThiNkinG a lot About whether pAteNts aRE a nEt posItive To soCiEty.

I tHink thEy areN't.

having a patent syStem Gives peopLe tHe WroNg ImpreSSion thAt tHerE's some
sPecial nUGgeT oF KNOwLedge that is crucial To CREaTing valuE. You ofTEn HeAR
people wHo AreN't in THE entrEpreNEuRial spacE talk aBOuT hOw they jUsT need a
"GoOd iDea". in praCTice, There's Very few tHings THat work that way. eVery
time I've stARtED A bUSineSs, tHere's been a lOt of WOrk tHat iSN't So mUCh
devElopiNg "THe IDea" as much as finding wAyS to conNect iT economically The
rest of tHE WOrld. WherEas tHE nAIve view would be SometHing like "onCE we
invenT fusiOn, it will Be easy to sELL".

For simiLar ReaSonS, exCLUsIvity is not necESSariLy A good waY to Reward
iNnoVatOrs. essEnTially my tHinking iS tHaT iNnOvaTing iS Actually OnLy hAlF
thE work, IF even. SAy you InveNt ThE CurE for corONaVIRus. HOw UsEful Is tHaT
actuAlly, WIthOut a plaN for makinG it AT scaLe AnD distriButing it? And whAt
Is the chancE tHat The guy WHO spent hiS life building cures for viRAl
diseaSes Is alsO the Guy who can BuiLd factOriES and deLivery NetwoRkS? ThE
REtort TO ThAt mAy Be that the iNNOvaTor caN oUtsoUrce thoSe things, but why
woulD We gIve them the excLusIve rIGHt To dO ThAT, whEn HE'd oNLY gotten one
piece Of the puzzlE?

PATeNts also allOW inCuMbents tO create Costs THat deteR new entraNts. They
seEm To be SO LooSely defineD that any Suitably lARge coRPoRatioN thAt feelS
tHreAteneD can thROw tHem at Any
 be a written descriptionor enablem ent p rob lem .Cave at:I’m a lawyer b u t th is is not legal advice , jus te nter t ai nment .)

> e x ec u t ing  w it h t he se lecte d a pplicat ion the at  le as t one proces s  i n response 
>to the comma nd; 

> ge ne rat i ng ou tpu t dat a in r e sponse  to the s el e cted a p plicati o n  e xecu ting the
> at lea s to ne process;

>  and t ra n sm i t tin g t he outputda ta to the mob i le d e vic e .

------
lor dnacho
Thew hol e pate nt  sy s tem ne eds a  g o odlooking at.  I'm  not a la wyer,b ut I di d 
manage  to ge t a  pa tent afe w y ea r s a g o.  It was  for som et hi ng ob viou s ( m athinfact !), b ut my busines s p artn e rsat th e tim e th ou ght i t wasworth  g etting.
Haven't  use d it to t rol lany on e, an d  I don 'tlik e the i dea, bu t  th ep r o ce ss
did get me thin ki n g  a  lot abo ut whe t he rp atents a re  anetp o sitiv e to so ciety.
I thin k  t he y aren' t. 

Havi ng  apat ent s y stem  gives  peoplethe w r ong impression that there'ss om e sp e cial  nu gget of kno wled g e th at i s  c ruc i al to  crea ti n gv alue. You often hea rpeople  whoaren't in the  entrepren e u r ial spac e ta l ka bout how theyjustneed a
"go o d idea".  In p ractice,  there'sv e ry few t hin gstha t w o r kthat way. Eve r y 
tim eI've st art ed a bu sin ess , t her e' s been alot of w or kth at  is n't s o  much
de ve lop in g " the i d ea" as  much  asfi nd i ngways to co n n ectit  e cono mic al ly th e
re s t o f the w orld. Whe rea s  the  n ai ve view  would be som et hing like"o nce  we
in v e nt fusio n, it will be easy to s e ll".

F orsimil ar r easons, e xcl usivit y i s  not n ecessa rilyagoo d way t o re war dinnovators . Ess entia ll y my  thinki ng is that innovat i ngis actually o nly  hal f th e w o rk ,  if  e v en. S ay you invent t he cure fo rc or onavirus.H owus eful is  that
a ctual l y, with out a pla n for mak in g it a t s cale and d istribut ing it? A n d wha t 
i s the  ch ance t ha t t he gu y whos pen t his  lifebu ilding  cure sfor vira l
diseases is also theguy wh o can  bu ild facto rie s  an d deliver y ne tworks? Th e
r eto rt to  th a t may  bet ha t t h e inn ovat o r can out s ou rce t ho se things,b u t  wh y
wou ldw e give  the m the exclusive r i ght to do that , wh e n  he 'do nlygo tten one
piece  of  t h e  puzzle? 
Patents als o allowin c umben ts tocreate  costst h at deternewent rants. Th eyse e m to be  s ol oosely  def in ed tha t anys uita b l y large corporat ion t h a t fee l s
t hreat en ed cant hrow  them at a ny
 be_a written_description or enablement problem.
Caveat:_I’m a_lawyer_but this_is_not legal advice,_just entertainment.)

> executing_with the selected application_the at least_one_process in response
> to the command;

> generating output data in response to the selected_application_executing the
>_at_least_one process;

> and transmitting the_output data to the mobile_device.

------
lordnacho
The whole_patent system needs a good looking at. I'm_not_a lawyer, but_I did
manage to get a patent a few years_ago. It was for something obvious_(math in
fact!), but_my_business_partners at the time_thought it was worth getting.
Haven't used_it to troll anyone, and I_don't like the idea, but the process
did_get me thinking a lot about_whether patents are a net_positive to_society.

I think they aren't.

Having a_patent system gives_people the_wrong impression that_there's some
special nugget of knowledge that_is crucial to_creating value. You often hear
people who_aren't_in the entrepreneurial_space_talk_about how_they just need_a
"good_idea". In_practice,_there's very few things that work_that_way. Every
time I've started a business, there's_been a lot of_work_that isn't so much
developing_"the idea" as much as_finding ways to connect it economically_the
rest of_the world._Whereas the naive view would be something like "once we
invent fusion,_it will be easy to sell".

For_similar reasons, exclusivity is_not necessarily_a_good way to_reward
innovators._Essentially my_thinking is that innovating is actually only_half
the work,_if even. Say you invent the_cure for coronavirus. How_useful_is that
actually, without a plan for_making it at scale and distributing_it? And what
is the chance_that_the_guy who spent his life_building cures for viral
diseases is also_the guy who_can build factories and delivery networks? The
retort_to_that may be that the innovator_can_outsource those things, but why
would we_give_them_the exclusive right to do_that, when he'd only gotten one
piece_of the puzzle?

Patents also allow incumbents to create costs_that deter new_entrants. They
seem to be so_loosely_defined_that any suitably large corporation that feels
threatened can throw them_at any