LLW9

Innovations, ideas or patents for sustainable development. Decrease in energy consumption, reduction of pollution, improvement of yields or processes ... Myths or reality about inventions of the past or the future: the inventions of Tesla, Newman, Perendev, Galey, Bearden, cold fusion ...
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 01/10/15, 20:03

ARMAND wrote:
Obamot wrote:Wanting to protect the LLW9 is a bit like wanting to protect the "Tinguely Machine":

Image
source: http://www.notrehistoire.ch/photo/full_view/3986/

The 1st version of the "Berne Convention" is sufficient, as long as the "thing" is useless : Mrgreen:
... only to protect the drawing is relevant.
@ Obamo: I did not know this gizmo, it's serious right now : Lol: The mouth of the neighbors : Cheesy:

The drawing / plans etc ... of this object are actually covered by the Bern Convention ... Even if it is useless elsewhere! : Mrgreen:

There's kekchoz of LLW9, I mean seen from the angle of "trends"of the time ... I like the sort of parable at the top! : Mrgreen: : Cheesy: : Mrgreen:
It gave him a look "conspirOfScience"from hell!

It's stupid, was not far from the Stirling engine or thermodynamic solar! : Shock: : Shock: (but much more complicated!)

The guy would not have curved the courses, would have put his genius in biochemistry, or physics, he would perhaps have discovered photosynthesis-based photovoltaics or discovered the boson before Higgs, : Lol: Finally, the designers of LLW9, it is who other than "artists" like Jean Tinguely!
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 01/10/15, 20:38

If you get a patent from a sourfine, you can still talk to them about the Bern Convention ...

This is valid for any creation concerned by the Berne Convention.

"In the case of a scientific study, protection will also be limited to the drafting of the study, and will not extend to the information revealed by this study, whatever its value .... (source:. gouv.fr) "Me, for what I said eh

Of course, but we must read the entire "comment" of the government knowing that the resources of the INPI depend on it.
http://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/propriet ... it-dauteur
We thus see that far from being limited to the field of art and literature, the notion of work applies to the world of industry, and qualifies for example technical, scientific, financial studies, presentations, training materials, graphics, designs, advertising creations.
First point acquired!

This distinction is very important in matters of innovations that, with some exceptions, copyright only protects in an indirect and imperfect way.
It is the recognition of protection despite everything, even imperfectly. But where it is interesting, it is immediately after:

Despite its technical nature, The software constitutes a work of the mind within the meaning of the law. Copyright protects the program itself, generally understood as an orderly series of instructions intended to be executed by the machine, in source and object code, as well as the "preparatory design material": this notion encompasses the all studies and work relating to the design of software (specifications file, conceptual data model, technical studies, programming files, prototypes, etc.) [2].
All software is eligible for copyright protection, without exclusion of nature (interfaces, operating systems, application programs, software packages, specific software, IT tools, etc.).
Innovations in the form of IT development software thus enjoy very strong protection. Some software may also give rise to patents (see chapter 2 “Inventions”).


It is here the recognition that with a technical character (which in this text wants to reduce its meaning and scope to this one case) this constitutes a work of the mind IN THE SENSE OF THE LAW! and which can therefore be patented too!
Clearly, it is the civil or criminal courts which decide, in complete independence, the question. And, in this case, it is the criminal courts that are called upon for theft, plagiarism; whereas in the case of purely technical patents, it depends on the civil courts where property disputes can last for decades.

The drawing / plans etc ... of this object are actually covered by the Bern Convention ... Even if it is useless elsewhere!

This is why the courts demand, at a minimum, a start of execution of the work. What is not requested for a patent.
You have on this site some patenters who have gone through the test in question.
0 x
raymon
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 901
Registration: 03/12/07, 19:21
Location: vaucluse
x 9




by raymon » 01/10/15, 20:53

In Obamot, chatting with a bourass (untranslatable Occitan therm) like you is a pleasure that is constantly renewed. You should go for a walk yourself in October in Toulouse and report back to us in 3 copies.
0 x
ARMAND
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 92
Registration: 18/09/12, 21:14
x 2




by ARMAND » 01/10/15, 21:27

Your quote concerns software, which is a very specific point (just by the $ in games) and recent, straddling copyright and patents.OK no problem in this case,

Regarding the LLW9, it is different, if I publicly use a handwritten sheet, a photo, a plan etc (or a copy of course) ... written by LL the real inventor of the object, the thing used is covered by the Convention ...
If I file for a patent today, my version of LLW9, although the idea is not mine, with my drawings and diagram, I become holder of the Patent and Mr. LL will be able only to exploit "in a personal capacity" his LLW9 and incidentally to make curls with the Soleau envelope (to stay between gentlemen) ...


(About five years ago I was working in the patent and innovation field, I would be surprised if things have changed so much since then. : Cheesy: )
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 02/10/15, 00:56

Raymon should patent the 3D troll springing from your screens as soon as he gets frustrated by your thoughts [...]

OMG! : Cheesy:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 02/10/15, 08:12

armand hello
Your quote concerns software, which is a very specific point (just by the $ in games) and recent, straddling copyright and patents.OK no problem in this case,
This is the case for any "invention" there is always business involved. As a reminder, the government site only comments on the Berne Convention, a comment that can also be found on the INPI site, whose income depends on this type of interpretation. You cannot be judge and party at the same time!
For the particular point, it is only given as an example of ... not as a rule with authorization or prohibited, it is a loophole (intended or not) which allows this protection beyond an industrial patent (this does not does not mean that it in turn prohibits patenting, but only that the 20-year period is therefore extended to 70 years and over that this convention allows ... and for free!
This is why the INPI makes sleeve effects to dissuade future inventors from dispensing with them, but do not risk going to criminal justice which would dismiss them and convict them with registration in the criminal record and not as in civil law. that escapes it.
Moreover the few cases where they rubbed it, they lost and scalded cat fears cold water.
(About five years ago I was working in the patent and innovation field, I would be surprised if things have changed so much since then.
No wonder since you were then on the side of the most famous and widespread form! To take an example, (which must have bored other readers for the time) it is like allopathy, with ITS criteria on what should be care, and is the most common form currently in many Western countries, and homeopathy which is on the other side of the barrier and whose therapeutic possibilities were (and often still are) denied outright despite its indisputable results.
So there is no real change among most patenters unaware of another possibility, the change begins to be perceived among those who take the plunge (therefore the INPI is no longer concerned) and observe a also high efficiency / inefficiency. Indeed, a patent or an agreement is only the first step in a long process and few go to the end, except for the lucky few.
0 x
ARMAND
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 92
Registration: 18/09/12, 21:14
x 2




by ARMAND » 02/10/15, 10:35

In this case, in this case, if I file a patent for a range extender operating according to the LLW9 principle, with my own diagrams, I would be fully entitled to industrialize this device, while LL can only use its product for personal use ... It remains theoretical of course

This being the case, I am perfectly aware of the imperfections of the INPI system, I myself have stopped paying my royalties for the few patents that I held ... I was also copied illico presto a few months after a deposit by Canadian companies who have taken over one of my patents by adding something totally useless and not innovative ... but accepted by the system : Mrgreen:
As I don't have the financial capacity to sue in court .... :frown:

Coming back to the LLW9, this product made the buzz to attract investors, that it is useful is something else but it works, anyway being cop <1 and it is not a magnetic motor, nor of 'elsewhere a "human and industrial revolution" : Mrgreen:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 02/10/15, 11:37

This being the case, I am perfectly aware of the imperfections of the INPI system, I myself have stopped paying my royalties for the few patents that I held ... I was also copied illico presto a few months after a deposit by Canadian companies who took over one of my patents by adding something totally useless and not innovative ... but accepted by the Mr. Green system
As I don't have the financial capacity to sue in court ....
absolutely! which shows that the patent filings are only money pumps especially if we want protection beyond the country of the patent filing. Your adventure is unfortunately frequent among small inventors who have no financial backing. However, with intellectual protection, it is the responsibility of the criminal court which is not excessively expensive (when the game is worth the candle!)
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 02/10/15, 18:57

raymon wrote:In Obamot, chatting with a bourass (untranslatable Occitan therm) like you is a pleasure that is constantly renewed. You should go for a walk yourself in October in Toulouse and report back to us in 3 copies.


an Occitan therm must be a kind of place of water with hot vapors.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 03/10/15, 09:42

yes, a place to do "cures": apparently ineffective for the brain. : Lol:

ARMAND wrote:Coming back to LLW9, this product made the buzz to attract investors, whether it is useful is something else : Mrgreen:

The name worries a little, we seem to be dealing with a series:
LLW9 ... LLW10 ... LLW11 ... LLW12 ... LLW13... : Cheesy:
0 x

Go back to "Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 130 guests