3g dating agency blog
█ Permalink Leave Your Comment Send this to a friend Summary: By conflating inventors with patent holders, or perpetuating the myth that patents are all about innovation rather than protectionism, various sites maintain a status quo of monopoly or oligopoly THE other day we saw IAM distorting some new study for its own purposes (IAM promotes patent trolls and so-called ‘monetisation’). The underlying message (or take-home message) is that the patent system is a system for (and by) rich people. Many people frankly admit and accept that patents are a rich people’s game of protectionism and not about innovation at all. The same is true for Microsoft, which pursued patents on a dual-screen foldable tablet — something I saw many years ago [1, 2, 3, 4]. Are the examiners at the USPTO eager to please a “frequent customer”? “The blockchain,” explains the report from CNBC, “the digital ledger system that underlies the boom in cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, is an innovation born within the open-source software community, where software coders pride themselves on the sharing of information.Sometimes it does just ‘happen’ to encourage some innovation (depending on the domain/discipline), but that’s not why patents exist these days, putting aside the genesis of this whole system. It doesn’t take more than a couple of Web searches to find prior art. But the blockchain’s open-source formative years may not stay that way.There’s also the implosion of Black Berry, which has become little more than a patent troll.Earlier today the Wall Street media said that the company’s CEO “Chen is also working to strike new licensing deals for the stable of patents Black Berry has from its heyday as a smartphone pioneer.” It’s trying to become a software company now.We have better use for human activity/capacity; we need to create/develop/build things, not endlessly sue one another.For those whose livelihood depends on litigation this concept may be difficult to grasp (common sense says one thing, wallet says another).But at the same time a great share of its activity is dedicated to patent shakedown.
To quote: “Legal peace is Ernst telling Battistelli to leave Patrick Corcoran in peace when he is no longer a Board member. experience/credentials, is leaving the EPO in droves (we’ve heard stories; the numbers are shocking).Meski demikian, jenis plastik disarankan untuk tidak dipakai berulang. PVC atau Poly Vinyl Chloride merupakan Jenis Plastik yang sulit didaur ulang, seperti botol-botol Plastik dan Plastik Pembungkus.Jangan gunakan Plastik jenis ini untuk membungkus makanan karena jenis plastik ini memiliki kandungan PVC atau DEHA yang berbahaya untuk Ginjal dan Hati. LDPE atau Low Density Poly Ethylene merupakan Jenis Plastik yang bisa didaur Ulang, baik dipakai untuk tempat minuman maupun makanan. PP atau Poly Propylene juga baik digunakan untuk tempat minuman maupun makanan.Where actual judges are treated like a nuisance and defamed out the door?And some “so called judges” (Trump’s famous mockery of judges whom he disagrees with) like Battistelli are put in charge of UPC to make arbitrary decisions that are far from impartial? Kevin Drum from (pseudo-progressive site) has just done the same.
Search for 3g dating agency blog:
The EPO has just retweeted UPC accounts that are promoting the EPO’s ‘study’, which is actually UPC advocacy/lobbing disguised as ‘research’. BPTO (Brazil), according to a post from this afternoon, considers making the terrible mistakes that INPI made by generally approving virtually every patent application.