Algerian Gets Patent On Building Pyramids?
from the say-what-now? dept
Someone who prefers to be anonymous passed on this short, and not very detailed blurb, claiming that a doctor in Algeria, Assia Bennouar-Abdedaim, figured out "the secret of pyramid building techniques" and has now received a patent on it. Again, the description is lacking in a lot of details, but it says the patent was granted by the National Institute of Industrial Property, but that the doctor also "received recognition" from WIPO for the patent. It also says that both organizations were initially skeptical, but have since been convinced. Unfortunately, the reporting does not give any details for what's actually in the patent -- or if it's some sort of new method for building a pyramid. Of course, the claim that this was uncovering "the secrets" of pyramid building techniques certainly suggests it's not a new method at all, which makes us wonder why there should be any patent. Anyway, we look forward to someone presenting some of the pyramids of Egypt as prior art.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
More Information
http://algerie-focus.com/2010/12/20/la-technique-de-construction-des-pyramides-decouvert e-par-une-constantinoise-obtient-le-brevet-dinvention/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior Art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All you had to do was search :)
If you dig a little further, you'll find that the search report is actually quite adamant: almost every claim is unsearchable - and oh my, what a load of crap they are (hope you can read French), and the 1st claim is anything but novel.
So, my 2 cents on this: first - it's just misinformed journalist talk, second - the woman is trying to make a name for herself even without understanding crap about patents, third - i'll bet Algeria is one of those countries with administrative granting without examination (correct me if I'm wrong please)..
So, not much of a news item...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All you had to do was search :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All you had to do was search :)
If you dig a little further, you'll find that the search report is actually quite adamant: almost every claim is unsearchable - and oh my, what a load of crap they are (hope you can read French), and the 1st claim is anything but novel.
Aha, thanks! I did try to search, but was unable to find it. Figured someone here would turn it up, so thanks.
So, my 2 cents on this: first - it's just misinformed journalist talk, second - the woman is trying to make a name for herself even without understanding crap about patents, third - i'll bet Algeria is one of those countries with administrative granting without examination (correct me if I'm wrong please)..
Which part was "just misinformed journalist talk"? Given the comments in the article that suggested that she had to fight to get it approved, I'm not sure that the third part is true, however, it would make a lot more sense if it were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All you had to do was search :)
Is that your way of saying, you do not need to state facts, allowing you to just make stuff up?
It says in your 'about' that you comment on news, comments on news IS NEWS.. what else could it be.
So are you just trying to make excuses for yourself, giving yourself an "out", that you are not really interested in journalistic integrity, or accuracy or any such things.
You express you're 'opinions' as FACT, how do you justify that ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All you had to do was search :)
Too close to your MO when commenting, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All you had to do was search :)
Personally, i find it perfectly OK to patent some process to build a pyramid, I just don't think that particular patent is that good, if ANYONE here did read the damn thing, you would see that it isn't only about building a pyramid, it's about building something with an apex, even if the base is a circle (which makes out a cone, not a pyramid), level by level (a "course") covering intervals between blocks of the previous level with a block from the new level, and then removing blocks in such a fashion that a stair like structure will appear.
But, if you look carefully to figs. 5 and 6, there seems to be a discrepancy in the upper right corner of the drawing, basically the orientation of the outer stones changes from the initial state to the finished one, also, you would need half blocks to fill the structure and i can't see any drawn - maybe I'm wrong but I don't believe the pyramids in egypt have half size blocks, and the entire "build a cube and then remove half the material" seems odd, since the Cheops Pyramid (according to Wikipedia) weighs 6 million tones. I can't believe they would carry 12 million tones of rock just to waste half of that...
Anyway, what we have is hundreds of newspapers (in several languages) reporting on this as being THE METHOD for pyramid building, used by the ancients, without a shred of scientific discussion, or peer review.
Again, I may be wrong, but i seriously doubt this method could be used to build a 6 million ton pyramid..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalistic standards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalistic standards?
haha, thats funny.. we'll now you know :)
reasonable -- no
responsible -- fail
news -- no just opinion
Source -- if you consider anonymous tips, or Mike's imagination as a source, then may be.... but really NO.
Once you sell out your reputation, you have nothing left, you just have to scrape the barrel for whatever picking you can find.
Trouble is Mike, believes what he says himself, or he thinks that he commands enough authority to make claims that are clearly untrue and he expects people to 'buy' what he says.. and some do !!!!!!!..
I do not understand why some people do buy mikes claims, I guess they just are not interested in independent thought..
I guess its just easier to follow the mantra of the 'leader', its saves alot on thinking and gives more time, to support mikes idealogy.
Its just a shame that reality of Mikes is clearly not reality at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Journalistic standards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Journalistic standards?
The mighty buzzard, you are a cock.
Perhaps you might want to look up what a "twat" means in Australia.. LOL..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalistic standards?
Yes, I'm well aware of where I fall on the cock/non-cock scale.
Very well, take your pick of cunt or fanny instead then. Never let it be said that I'm culturally insensitive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalistic standards?
Darryl, you are an amazing piece of work. Do you even read this blog or do you just keep on posting nonsense to get the CEU's for your certification in trolling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Journalistic standards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Journalistic standards?
"Started in 1997 by Floor64 founder Mike Masnick and then growing into a group blogging effort, the Techdirt blog uses a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow."
I bet I could find dozens more in mike's articles.
probably thousands, where mike claims to be reporting news, and not just commenting on it.
Commenting on news, is what news outlets do..
If it is not 'news' that Mike does, what the hell is it?
Is it not news if you make comment on events ? what happens when you watch the new's on TV ? its people commenting on events.
What does mike do (apart from get it wrong all the time) that is different from any other news outlet.. (again, except be responsible).. ??????
you tell me ? please..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalistic standards?
If the news and opinion presented by Mike, and discussed by other commentators here is of no value, and merely represents ignorant chatter, then why do you bother to show up. I'm sure you can find other sources of news that YOU would consider more reliable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalistic standards?
Its fun because its just SO EASY, sometimes I wish you guys could actually put up a decent logical argument, that would make me work harder.
But here, that never seems to happen.
maybe I just do not like people who talk bullshit, especially when they are trying to convince others to believe him, for the goal of making money for himself.
I do not understand why someone would sell out their reputation to such a degree for a quick dollar.
Or how someone who claims to be so knowledable in the area seems to get it so consistently wrong...
The main reason why I do it, is because it pisses you guys off so much, its annoying when people make you think right :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalistic standards?
Dude, we realized it earlier that you're a dumb, puny lowlife with no purpose. No need to be proud of it, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalistic standards?
And everyone is focusing on this anonymous tip as if it didn't include a link. It did. And the first thing Mike admitted is that there are details lacking - which is also why this is a short post that doesn't try to make any firm statements or reach any conclusions yet.
You asked what it is that Mike does. Answer: he writes a blog that a lot of people enjoy. Just go somewhere else if you hate it so much. I don't understand why you bother reading.
Notice: while you were whining and complaining, other commenters were digging up more details and working WITH techdirt to help move this story forwards and gain a better understanding of it for us all.
Maybe after you contribute you can complain. But you seem incapable of contributing anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Journalistic standards?
A news story is one story - singular. A blog discussion does not necessarily provide any editing or investigation. There is a difference regardless of your opinion.
Please provide references to back up your claims that TD describes itself as a news source. So far you have not done so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalistic standards?
It wasn't just an unverified anonymous tip. It was an anonymously sent link to a story, which we then checked out.
I thought Techdirt was a reasonably responsible news source.
We're an opinion and discussion site, where we will regularly link to stories without the complete information, and expect the discussion to fill in the details, as happened here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If techdirt's goal is to make techdirt look bad, its working. Nice one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Er... yes, this is exactly the thing Mikes needs to be called on.
How can YOU take that 'seriously' ?
To defend prior knowledge in court, you actually have to have the prior knowledge.
And guess what ???,, you do not have it, so how can you say THAT particular method of building the pyramids is based on prior knowledge..
And how can you say 100% for sure, that the method to build all pyramids or ALL types, were build using the SAME METHOD ?
Now, who, apart from you and Mike, do not understand what a patent is ?
Mike, is supposed to host a web site dedicated to those subjects, and he displays such a massive lack of either understanding, or a willingness to lie to prove a point..
Either way, if you think it is a good look for Mike, and worthy of you defending him on this, you also cannot be taken seriously....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Er... yes, this is exactly the thing Mikes needs to be called on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Er... yes, this is exactly the thing Mikes needs to be called on.
also, it does not matter if the patented method was the one used before that makes no difference.
Its a patent, on A METHOD of building pyramids, it does not matter if it was THE method they used or not. We do not know THE method they used, so it might be, or it might not be..
Makes no difference, that person patented A method of building them. That does not mean that tomorrow, you cannot go to the patent office and patent ANOTHER method of doing it.
If you are creative enough to come up with ANY viable method at all.
She did, and she patented her method, if you do it tomorrow you can patent you're method right next to hers.
and where is the prior art, ?
Cant you understand how silly this argument is, how off base it is to the real world, and what it says about you're understanding of patents, and IP ?
for there to be a prior art claim, there would have to be some PRIOR ART, to refer too, to say "this person, used this prior art to form their patent app".
If you cannot show any prior art on HOW the pyramids were made, or HOW they COULD be made, then that specific method is valid, and without prior art.
Its very simple, and to say otherwise, shows a lack of understanding of the whole field !
Do you want to display that lack of understanding to everyone ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Er... yes, this is exactly the thing Mikes needs to be called on.
You have some good points here. Unfortunately you can't make them without flying off the handle, acting like a child and insulting everyone else who reads Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Er... yes, this is exactly the thing Mikes needs to be called on.
Seriously? You're actually going to say that? I dare say any patent lawyer on the planet would disagree with you. A method not having been used by anyone else before you apply for it is a fundamental requirement for method patents.
Further, if you're going to claim just having the idea is sufficient for patentable material, you have two severe problems.
First, if the standard for a patent is having the idea then the standard for prior art is having the idea.
Second, you face everyone who has ever speculated on how they might have been built. That's hundreds of years of archaeologists and architects alone. Both of which have published countless theses on exactly this subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Er...
I'm not supporting the patent. I am saying that there must be better ways to bash patents than this. I'm bashing techdirt for the scrappy post with weak support. I know techdirt can do better.
How does a post like this support techdirt's position? As far as I am concerned this shows just how far techdirt is willing to go to bash patents, in the process techdirt looks bad. This post is weak at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Er...
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2010003428
Oh, because its in a different language than the site presenting it. Some support for the point.
Are there lots of people trying to build pyramids?
Will this patent prevent anyone from building a pyramid if they wanted to?
Will the patent holder become a patent troll and start suing lots of other companies that build pyramids?
Let me guess, the concept of pyramids has been patented and now no one besides the patent holder can build pyramids right?
I fail to understand techdirt's argument or point. This post is a complete fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
How is it 'abuse' if a patent office approves a patent? That is 'use' not 'abuse'. How is this use of the ability to patent something absurd? It may be a useless patent but that does not make it absurd or abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
Since you've obviously failed to recognize this though, feel free to try to prove the negative regarding your opinion that it isn't abuse. That should at least be fun to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
Did you read the post, or just jump straight to the comments to whine?
Mike says right in the post that he was having trouble finding the full patent application. Then shortly afterwards, one of the other commenters dug it up and supplied a WIPO #. Thanks for the link and all, but those of us who actually read and pay attention have already found and read the full application.
You should try participating instead of just bitching all the time. You might learn something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
I do not read in French, good for you if you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
So wait - first you were questioning why Mike didn't link to the patent, and now you're not going to read it because it's in french?
And yes, the link is to the WIPO application, not the granted Algerian patent. Presumably the claims are similar or identical, so it makes little difference at this level of analysis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
I can understand talking about smartphone patents and many other computer tech related patents. But an Algerian patent on a method to make a pyramid, come on. This has no relevance to our daily lives and little relevance to much of what is on techdirt.
Why is it a problem for you if I point out where I think techdirt gets it wrong? Maybe if you stopped dismissing my comments you would learn something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
What exactly is it you think Mike "got wrong"? You didn't raise any opposing points or even any concerns with the post - you are just whining that you don't think it's important enough.
Guess what: a bunch of us find stories like this interesting and relevant to the patent issues we are constantly discussing. If you don't, no big deal - just skip this post. There was no specific "point" anyway - it was just calling attention to a curious patent application and pointing out that it does seem slightly strange.
So what is your objection, exactly? That you aren't interested in this one post? Go read something else then man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
Lots of interesting and important things don't. You must live in a tiny, tiny little bubble if you restrict your interests to ONLY what affects your daily life.
...and little relevance to much of what is on techdirt.
You must be new here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
"What exactly is it you think Mike "got wrong"? You didn't raise any opposing points or even any concerns with the post - you are just whining that you don't think it's important enough."
Yikes, I don't know where to begin. The part that Mike got wrong was posting this in the first place. If I accept your interpretation that I "don't think it's important enough", how is that not expressing a concern?
"You must live in a tiny, tiny little bubble if you restrict your interests to ONLY what affects your daily life."
You must live in your mom's basement if only a tiny, tiny number of things affect your daily life.
An Algerian patent on building pyramids, not relevant to anything. I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
Perhaps you've been slightly misled by the blog's name, but Techdirt is by no means strictly limited to technology topics. IP law and economics are huge parts of what gets covered here - even when they don't directly relate to technology.
And nowhere on Techdirt does it claim to only write about things that affect our "daily lives". I for one am interested in lots of things that don't effect my daily life, and unless you are some sort of globetrotting scientist-musician-artist-engineer-lawyer-philanthropist-analyst-reporter-editor-renaissance-man, then I suspect you are too.
I can't believe you're wasting your time on this either. I honestly have no idea why, on a prolific blog with dozens of posts ever week, you are so worked up over one quite short post that you feel to be irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
Who said that techdirt should be limited to tech? I used technology as an example but no where did I say that techdirt should stick to just tech. I said that this post is not relevant. So, not sure what you are arguing there, just pointing out what we all know. You must be trying for the Mr. Obvious award for the day.
By the way, no one is 'worked up' except maybe you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
You know, one of the strengths of digital media is that space is not a constraint - unlike a newspaper where you have to carefully weigh the relevance of every single item, you can be more flexible on a blog and post things that seem like they may be of interest to your readers, since those who aren't interested can easily skip it (or, you know, start whining)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
The answer to all three is - probably not. So are you suggesting that the USPTO should grant all patents that we think will not impact anyone? Wouldn't this dilute the validity of other patents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
Why bother with a post at all? Because someone sent it in?
This is the lazy way for techdirt to fill its pages. Like I said, I know techdirt can do better.
"So are you suggesting that the USPTO should grant all patents that we think will not impact anyone?"
No. This post isn't really about the USPTO anyway, this is WIPO. You know there are patents that have nothing to do with the USPTO, right?
"Wouldn't this dilute the validity of other patents?"
No, patents are independent from each other. Let's say that you graduated from the top of your class, does the fact that someone else graduated at the bottom of the class dilute the validity of your education?
What do they call an MD that graduated at the bottom of his/her class? Doctor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
Funny - seems to be a pretty popular post, and it's sparking lots of discussion. Everyone here but you seems interested in it. In my books, that equals good editorial content (maybe you just have bad editorial judgement?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its A method of building not **THE** method.. note the difference. ?
For prior art you have to show,, we'll prior art, it is clear the pyramids were build 'somehow', but not knowing exactly how, is certainly NOT prior art..
And im sure he has patented A method of making pyramids, not necessarily THE method..
And if you can come up with A method, of how to build a pyramid, you are quite within your right to patent it.
But to say, the pyramids were build, therefore there is prior knowledge about EVERY method that could have possibly been used to build them is a JOKE..
Mike, you are supposed to KNOW about these things, why display such ingnorance ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its A method of building not **THE** method.. note the difference. ?
And im sure he has patented A method of 'how' people walk, not necessarily THE method..
And if you can come up with A method, of how to walk , you are quite within your right to patent it.
But to say, the people can walk, therefore there is prior knowledge about EVERY method that could have possibly been used to walk is a JOKE..
Darryl, you are ignorant and continuously display it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its A method of building not **THE** method.. note the difference. ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its A method of building not **THE** method.. note the difference. ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its A method of building not **THE** method.. note the difference. ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its A method of building not **THE** method.. note the difference. ?
But along those lines of thinking ...
There are an unlimited number of methods with which to obtain certain proportions. I imagine that the various objects across the globe which are referred to as pyramids were probably constructed using a multitude of different methods. I do not see how any of these methods could be considered worthy of a patent unless it involved a new process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So that is at least one person with no, ZERO prior art, do you know anyone else how knows how to make them ?
Do you know anyone who knows how to make them, do you know of any prior art showing the method of construction that you can present to a court ?
Sure, as arts to, it doesn't get much LESS than that, does it?
If there is so much more prior art, then you will easily be able to show us that right ? oh wait. you cant ???? why is that??? I wonder ?
Could it be that there is no prior art at all, and you are just being ignorant ?
Prior art (how come I have to explain prior art on a web site like that ???? ), is HOW to do something, NOT that it was done "somehow".
Don't you get that, Isn't there a little voice in your brain saying "wait up, something is wrong here this does not make sense"???
Or is it you just do not grasp IP laws, patents and copyright ? or is it you just believe everything mike tells you. without questioning him on anything ?
Are you capable of original thought ? forming your own opinions ? drawing your own conclusions ?
or do you rely entirely on what Mike tell's you for you to for form you're world view ?
Is that easier for you, it must be nice to have something to think on your behalf !
Maybe nice for you but most people would consider that a nightmare, of the worst kind..
Not being able to form your own conclusions, opinions, idea's, or creations without the assistance and guidance of make, and by using Mikes idea that nothing new can be created without directly stealing off others.
that is not the case in the real world, and most independent thinmkers have worked that out.. But there are a few still around that think world war 2 is still going.
and believe the earth is flat, and mike is the oracle of all things to do with IP laws.
Therefore you give up your right of independ thought, and yeild to mike on everything.
that would be hell. im glad it's you and not me !!
sometimes you have to back up what you say with these things called facts.
real facts, not what mike tells you.. think it might be a new sensation. It might even catch on !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
You will look (correctly) like an idiot !!!
For a prior art case you have to be able to SHOW THE FREAKING PRIOR ART, the the result of that prior art.
You are trying to show A METHOD to do something, dont you get that ??
You are not trying to show THE METHOD, can you see the difference. Or is that just beyond you ?
so when the judge says, "ok, show me the prior art", what are you going to do ??
Fly him to Egypt ? and go see !!!!! he will again say "ok, show me the prior art".
Or, "show me the method you believe was used, that is the same as or very similar to the method propesed".
Can you do that ??
What are you going to say "we'll the pyramids were build SOMEHOW". so this patent application has to be right and wrong at the same time.
But "SOMEHOW" is not "HOW".. and it does not even have to be "HOW" it was done, its simply "A way, or a method" for how it can be done.
And for you or Mike to display such massive ignorance of the subject is amazing.
If I were paying Mike to be a patent and copyright expert, I would have no choice but to fire him.
He clearly, displays little or no grasp of the concepts involved.. or chooses to lie to make a point, but only succeeds in showing everyone who can think that Mike, is a joke and a laughing stock of the little corner of the tech world he pollutes.
Yes, it does annoy me when I see such rubbis trying to pass for actual comment.. and that he expects us to belive it !!!!.
Mike, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but certainly you cannot fool most people anytime..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
Please provide a reference to a patent granted for a method to build a skyscraper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
_________________
Inventors: Matthew Clark David Scott
Agents: ARENT FOX LLP
Assignees: ARUP
Origin: WASHINGTON, DC US
IPC8 Class: AE04H100FI
USPC Class: 522364
Inventors: Michael Willford
Agents: CANTOR COLBURN, LLP
Assignees:
Origin: HARTFORD, CT US
IPC8 Class: AE04H902FI
USPC Class: 521671
Abstract:
A tall structure comprising two vertical parts is provided with a vertically orientated damping element, wherein the damping element is arranged to damp relative vertical movement between the two parts.
http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download601.pdf
http://www.patents.com/ccl-52.htm l
US3981109 Process and apparatus for supporting hoisted floors peripherally of supporting tower - Sep 21, 1976
US3978630 Central tower building with ground constructed hoisted and supported floors - Sep 07, 1976
US3974618 Method of and means for multi-story building construction - Aug 17, 1976
US3921362 Method of and means for multi-story building construction - Nov 25, 1975
US3921361 Method of putting up tall structures, especially tubular linings in chimneys - Nov 25, 1975
US6082058 Lifting method of building construction from top to bottom - Jul 04, 2000
US5987827 Concrete building construction and method - Nov 23, 1999
US4696451 Grid system and method for cast forming monolithic concrete roof covering - Sep 29, 1987
need I go on, or do you get the point yet ?
Dont worry, once you find out what a patent is, it will all become clear to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
I do not see the word skyscraper in there anywhere, oh well - lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
for one, and yes, most patents are methods for producing elements, those elements make the whole.
please, explain what you would expect a patent for a highrise building would say ?
if it is not the particulars of each component that makes up the total ?
or do you use the design technique that adds, "then an miricle occures", and we are done. ?
so if google 'patents for the construction of tall buildigs' or perhaps you can google (or Bing) highrise building patents.
and you will see thousands of them.
and im sure you will not be able to find prior art, even for a patent, "on building concrete highrises" it is a new method, a new way of achieving a result, and therefore it is patented.
do your homework, and find out 'skyscraper' is not a correct term using in civil engineering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
"penetrated the secret of pyramid building techniques"
and subsequently
"obtained a relevant patent"
This person claims a patent on pyramids and you claimed that one could get a patent on skyscrapers. It is funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
a civil engineer, would call them highrise buildings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
Your argument that this patent is only one method of possibly many methods to do build a pyramid fails on another point.
It is certainly relevant to observe that many patents have been broadly interpreted in recent years. At times, anything remotely resembling the initial claims in a patent have been grounds for (often successful) lawsuits for alleged infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
You said a bunch of words, sure, but it does not say anything, so again what is your point ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
Fair criticism.
-- An illustration of how something can be so obvious to a you that you can forget that others can't read your mind.
How I could have forgotten that on this blog is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
That's Darryl's style of argument. INFRINGEMENT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
explain, what you mean that my style is infringement please, if you can ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
Damn, such a witty retort. And my nickname is Gwiz as in "Gee whiz guys, I guess someone forgot their meds today."
explain, what you mean that my style is infringement please, if you can ?
I was saying (perhaps not clear enough) that that the AC infringed on your style of argument (IE: lots of words and very little substance).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
Again, angry someone copied your MO?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
Add to that thousands of years of speculation on the part of everyone who's ever heard of pyramids. Judging by your support of some of the things you've supported on these boards, you believe the idea itself is the key and actually implementing it is superfluous. Which means everyone who ever thought the same idea is an instance of prior art.
In the end though, you're speaking more of a method to preform a method. Such as using a camel on the front of the rope the slaves are pulling a block with. That may even pass the patent sniff test lately. That it might only underscores the need for patent reform though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
You are an archaeologist or civil engineer? Upon what is this conclusion based?
re Egyptian pyramids, I watched a few pbs shows some time ago and remember that there were several competing ideas as to what construction methods were used. On a side note, there also was evidence presented that indicates the workers were not slaves as stated in many sources on the topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
You have this weird complex where you think that if someone doesn't agree with you right away, they must have just failed to understand you since it's oh-so-obvious that you're right.
The funny thing here, though, is that you are railing on Mike for something he never said. Nowhere in this post does it claim the patent is invalid - it just points out that it seems a little odd. Didn't you notice that WIPO and NIIP were both skeptical at first too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
There are those who state this is the definition of insanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
You see, in the real world, things do not work the same way as they seem to do in your head.
In the real world prior knowledge has a specific legal definition, it also has a clear moral definition.
Prior knowledge, must be one more thing, that is KNOWLDEGE.
you cannot have prior knowledge with first having knowledge, I know you dont seem to understand that concept, that is probably why I find myself having to repeat myself over and over again, hopeing one day you might 'get it'.
but if you never get it, thats ok with me, there are at least some here that understand these concepts.
they do not find them confusing at all, I do not need to direct my comments to those who actually understand, I need to try to convince those that think they are right, when they are wrong, those who have little grasp of reality.
Dont you think to have 'prior knowledge', you would need some knowledge, that is prior to what has been submitted ?
You dont have that knowledge, but you assume it exists, it did exist at one time, but that method is not necessarily the method used.
They do not know the method they used, but if this method works, by definition there is no prior knowledge.
And I would not have to repeat myself if some of the people here had a better understanding of the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because something exists does not mean that method is prior art
LOL! No, you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trolls.....
The trolls are out again. I guess they finally got thir hangovers under control.
"Why is it a problem for you if I point out where I think techdirt gets it wrong? Maybe if you stopped dismissing my comments you would learn something."
Umm, why bother with MAKING the comments? Just to take up space? If you have no additional info other than you opinion, just let it be.
It is SO annoying to try and read the story, and see what additional info has been uncovered, then to have to filter all the trolling out.....
MY 2 cents worth :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone already figured it out
At any rate, this guy figured out how Stonehenge was built, how the obelisks in Egypt were erected, and how they moved the stones for the pyramids as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4&feature=related
Wouldn't be nice if we tried finding actual information and cited resources instead of the circle-jerk these comments have become?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone already figured it out
According to him - he figured it out. Is there any proof?
I would guess that there are some experts in the field who would dispute his claim. I recall a show which included one guy who was exploring the hypothesis that the stones were not cut from a quarry miles away and moved - but they were a kind of concrete mixed and poured on site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone already figured it out
Watch the video and think. I was commenting that a guy figured out how to do it not that he claimed to know how our ancestors did it.
We can't attempt to learn or discuss by shooting from the hip. Not you personally ABC, but a couple other posters have all but ruined any hope of a real discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Someone already figured it out
"this guy figured out how Stonehenge was built, how the obelisks in Egypt were erected, and how they moved the stones for the pyramids as well."
so - you can see how this might be interpreted as I did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone already figured it out
Yes, alot of tripe,
but this guy figured out A METHOD FOR HOW STONEHENGE COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT.. or for HOW the PYRAMIDS COULD have been built.
SO yes, alot of tripe, and much of it from you..
They dont have to try to find actual information, and cited resources, they have to show they have A METHOD that could of achieved the desired results.. why do you have so much trouble understanding such a simple concept ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone already figured it out
This is what you call a discussion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advance the arts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More TechDIRT Drivel About Patents
Carab, you say "IP law and economics are huge parts of what gets covered here". The problem is that bI have not seen anything about IP law here which has any merit. Talking about something is not the same as actually knowing something about it.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More TechDIRT Drivel About Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More TechDIRT Drivel About Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More TechDIRT Drivel About Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pyramid patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent vs pyramid
apparently she was successful is finding a great way and a more convincing way of how to build a pyramid. as we know there are plenty of skepticism on how pyramids are build and all the theories put forth have holes in them. her plan seems to be very sound. instead of hating on her, open a book and educate yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent vs pyramid
apparently she was successful is finding a great way and a more convincing way of how to build a pyramid. as we know there are plenty of skepticism on how pyramids are build and all the theories put forth have holes in them. her plan seems to be very sound. instead of hating on her, open a book and educate yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]