You could say that even though no explicit examination is done in issuing a copyright, an "examination" of sorts is implicit in the process, in the sense that a copyright would not be issued to a work that duplicated another work, and *somewhere* that judgement is being made. It is on this level that I'm applying the analogy.
Well, first of all, for the most part, copyright is mostly automatic. For instance, the bottom of every single page of this forum says "© 2001-2007, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved." Is every single one of the thousands of pages examined? Of course not. According to current law, your work is copyrighted as soon as you create it, regardless of whether you receive official recognition. Secondly, copyright does in fact apply to derivative works. For instance, suppose Michael Crichton writes a book. He owns the copyright to the book. Now suppose I read the book aloud, and record myself doing so. I own the copyright to the recording. However, it's a derivative work, which means that I cannot sell it without MC's permission. But that doesn't obviate my copyright; while MC could sue me if I sold the recording, *I* could sue
him if
he sold it without
my permission. He can't just say "oh, this is a copy of my own work, so I own the rights to it". Because the recording involves two copyrights, his for writing, and mine for reading it, selling it requires the permission of both of us.
The specification representing the invention, assuming it makes it through the examination process, becomes the patent document which is issued, and represents the patent for the invention.
No, it represents the invention.
Since the successful application, and the subsequent patent document, is isomorphic to the legally-defined invention, I use the terms interchangably in this particular context.
And once again you resort to simply repeating your premises. Yes, I
realize that you
think they are interchangeable (or, at least, I suspected it). That is
why I brought it up in the first place. When I point out that your argument is flawed due to an error, simply asserting that it is not an error does nothing to advance the discussion other than to confirm that you are indeed in error.
An invention, and a patent protecting that document, are two
entirely different entities, as piece of land, and a deed to that land are different entities. And it appears that "isomorphic" is another word that must be added to the list of words that you do not understand.
I explain this above, in responding to the infinitely more civil Horatius.
No, you addressed the approval of
copyrights, not the approval of
books. While you apparently believe that these are “isomorphic”, it should be eminently clear that I do
not, and thus your refusal to address this distinction shows an unwillingness to engage my argument.
We may still disagree, but he's polite about it. What I cannot understand is why you chose to come out the gate acting like a (rule 8).
You are the one being impolite, not me. My first response to you consisted of
That's a ridiculous analogy. A better analogy would be if I were to copyright the phrase "that's a ridiculous analogy", then sue everyone who says that my analogies are ridiculous.
…
There's a saying "I'd rather have a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail." Similarly, one bad patent can be worse than a hundred valid ones being rejected. Remember what a patent is. A patent means "Now the patent holder can sic the entire legal system on anyone who tries to compete with them." That an awesome amount of power, it should be taken seriously.
You call that “com[ing] out the gate acting like a (rule 8)”?
Your response to me was
Nope. 'Tain't. You've just missed the point. Context is everything.
Rather than actually presenting a counterargument, you arrogantly declared me wrong.
Despite that, I explained in more detail how you were wrong.
To that, you responded by declaring this a “waste [of] time”, suggesting that you wished to shoot me and that I had attacked your honor, repeating your argument rather than addressing mine, implying that I was an idiot for not agreeing with you, then implying that my continued dissent was due to mendacity, and finally declaring the matter closed in a supercilious manner. To your appalling deficiencies in both manners and argumentation, I have been rather restrained. Civility does not demand that one allow rudeness, ignorance, and nonproductive rhetoric to remain unremarked upon.
Straw man. Where did I say this?
Oh, please. First you criticize me for not “reading between the lines”, then you accuse me of dishonesty because I make a declaration entirely supported by your posts. “Patent” and “book” fulfilled analogous roles in your analogy. Therefore, you were presenting them as being analogous.
Nope. We don't create a patent. We grant a patent.
Yet more mere gainsaying.
The patent is assumed to exist already, as soon the inventor invents an invention.
No, the patent is a legal creation. It doesn’t exist until the authorities create it.
What the examination process does is verify, to the best of our ability, and through an imperfect system, that a true invention, and therefore a valid patent, has been created.
You are using the word “patent” in a manner completely incompatible with its actual meaning. Apparently, you heard the word, made a wild guess as to what it means, then convinced yourself that your wild guess was somehow the authoritative definition.
Thus, the inventor actually "creates" the patent. It is on this point that your criticism fails.
The mere fact that you insist that I am wrong does not mean that my criticism fails. Simply asserting your premise, then following with the word “thus” is just silly. It implies that you are proving your position from some basic principles, when in fact the only think you have to back up your position is.. your position. This fallacy is known as “begging the question”.
Now, if you intend to continue your misguided nitpicking, I would ask that you cool down your rhetoric.
The entire subject of this thread is the issue of patents. You don’t know what the word “patent” means. Pointing out that someone doesn’t know what the central term of the thread even means is the very opposite of a “nitpick”.
Yep, we might quibble a bit about language -- I would argue, for example, that the act of issuing a patent is just formally recognizing that a patent.
Yes, we are, at this point, all quite aware of your erroneous understanding of the term “patent”. A patent is a legal right conferred upon an inventor. It does not exist until it is conferred.
There's a big difference between "silly" and "inoperative."
Perhaps you’ll notice that he said “stupid, silly, essentially useless”, not “inoperative”. Making your response rather bizarre.
I suspect this is too detailed a distintion for most people outside the office. We have the same set up in Canada,
When used as a noun, it's "set-up", with a hyphen. Note to Buckaroo:
this is what an
actual nitpick looks like.
