|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Get a patent agent. They don't need to file a patent for you if you're just trying to make sure nobody else can patent it, but a proper disclosure has specific requirements. This is not really accurate. The easiest way to prevent anyone else from patenting it is to publish as much as you possibly can about it, as widely as possible. If you're not worried about other people using it, then just publish everything possible about what it would do along with how it would work. The more widely you publish it, the better. Note that this does not prevent someone else from taking your idea and using it, just from patenting it. If you want to prevent use by others, you'd need to patent it yourself. For that, you do want a patent agent or attorney.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
Konstantin posted:I'd go to whoever handles your benefits immediately and discuss this with them, as there is one of two things going on here. It could be a major administrative oversight, in which case they will be extremely apologetic and get it sorted out as fast as humanly possible. However, the other possibility is that it is intentional, your company is in dire financial straits, and they simply do not have the money to pay your health insurance premium. If that is happening, then you need to get out as fast as possible. You should be looking for another job right away, and either quitting right now or giving your two weeks notice, because it is highly likely that the company is going to miss payroll and you'll end up working for free. Many employees in that situation resort to theft, even though it is illegal, because it is the only way to get the wages they are owed. I called them, and they said that they were aware of the lapse, and that it was an administrative oversight. However I'm not sure if I really believe them, as we have lots of creditors calling all the time. Now I'm wondering how many of these lapses we've had that nobody noticed over the past two years. I think either way it sounds like it may be time for a new job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:A statement, made outside the courtroom, offered in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Witness: Larry killed Daryl. Attorney: And how do you know Larry killed Daryl? Witness: Because he told him "I'm going to kill you!" is hearsay. Witness: Larry killed Daryl. Attorney: And what makes you think that? Witness: Because Larry was very angry with Daryl right before he was murdered. Attorney: And how do you know that? Witness: Because he told him "I'm going to kill you!" is not hearsay, because it's offered to illustrate the state of mind of the defendant. The one I've never understood is last words falling under "excited utterance." I mean, if I knew I was gonna die, and could gently caress over some people I didn't like, I'd say all sorts of poo poo about them just to get it entered into the court record.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I am having a hard time figuring out how the plaintiffs statements were hearsay. During the ex parte hearing and on the form ch-100 the plaintiff presented several vague and unattributed statements (refusing to give any names) such as that I had done the same thing to past employers and claimed that multiple co-workers had heard me say, "That bitch will get hers". It was also claimed that "my co-workers are afraid and scared for me". The plaintiffs testimony in the full hearing was incredibly brief. It amounted to "Well the police didn't find any finger prints on the car and well so I guess everything is just hearsay". That's drat near a direct quote. The plaintiff's testimony of their own experience wasn't dismissed as hearsay, but the plaintiff didn't offer any testimony of actually being personally harassed and not a single one of her "worried and afraid" co-workers were worried or afraid enough to write her a statement or show up to court on her behalf. I don't consider myself 'lucky' as has been suggested. The fact that I was able to get numerous former and current co-workers (including over 5 members of management staff) to write statements substantiating my good character and professionalism in the work place ought to suggest that maybe this was actually a totally unjustified move by the plaintiff done only out of petty spite. Angry Hippo fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:During the ex parte hearing and on the form ch-100 the plaintiff presented several vague and unattributed statements (refusing to give any names) such as that I had done the same thing to past employers and claimed that multiple co-workers had heard me say, "That bitch will get hers". It was also claimed that "my co-workers are afraid and scared for me". The plaintiffs testimony in the full hearing was incredibly brief. It amounted to "Well the police didn't find any finger prints on the car and well so I guess everything is just hearsay". That's drat near a direct quote. The plaintiff's testimony of their own experience wasn't dismissed as hearsay, but the plaintiff didn't offer any testimony of actually being personally harassed and not a single one of her "worried and afraid" co-workers were worried or afraid enough to write her a statement or show up to court on her behalf. The more you talk, the more it sounds like she was in the right and you are focused on how she couldn't legally prove it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 12:30
|
|
|
Never you mind posted:It ought to. But I guess they don't know how insistent you are about spitting in the pizzas of bad tippers or threatening to key cars and throw bricks through windows. Thanks, post history! Don't forget the meth use http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=1581831&pagenumber=1&perpage=40#post300051318 (props to nm for bringing this gem last time) Dogen fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
Kalman posted:This is not really accurate. The easiest way to prevent anyone else from patenting it is to publish as much as you possibly can about it, as widely as possible. If you're not worried about other people using it, then just publish everything possible about what it would do along with how it would work. The more widely you publish it, the better. This isn't necessarily enough to stop someone else from patenting it. The disclosure has some requirements that might not be met if you're not thinking about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:During the ex parte hearing and on the form ch-100 the plaintiff presented several vague and unattributed statements (refusing to give any names) such as that I had done the same thing to past employers and claimed that multiple co-workers had heard me say, "That bitch will get hers". It was also claimed that "my co-workers are afraid and scared for me". The plaintiffs testimony in the full hearing was incredibly brief. It amounted to "Well the police didn't find any finger prints on the car and well so I guess everything is just hearsay". That's drat near a direct quote. The plaintiff's testimony of their own experience wasn't dismissed as hearsay, but the plaintiff didn't offer any testimony of actually being personally harassed and not a single one of her "worried and afraid" co-workers were worried or afraid enough to write her a statement or show up to court on her behalf. Dude, those written statements are hearsay too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
Appachai posted:I called them, and they said that they were aware of the lapse, and that it was an administrative oversight. However I'm not sure if I really believe them, as we have lots of creditors calling all the time. Now I'm wondering how many of these lapses we've had that nobody noticed over the past two years. I think either way it sounds like it may be time for a new job. Did they make a company wide announcement warning everyone? If not, I'd get out fast. They're "administrative oversight" is likely "we forgot to make enough money to pay our bills".
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:This isn't necessarily enough to stop someone else from patenting it. The disclosure has some requirements that might not be met if you're not thinking about it. What exactly are you thinking of? Enablement? I mean, they could argue it lacks enablement, I suppose, but that's typically a pretty hard argument to make. Invalidation based on non-patent publication prior art just isn't so hard that you really need to go to the expense of a patent agent to make sure it can be done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
In Kansas: I recently left my job, gave 2 weeks on May 20th. They came and got me at the end of the day and told me I was relieved immediately. Now I've been through this before as have other colleagues and I/we have always been paid our 2 weeks, working or not. The last company is going against this and some quick googling is telling me that they are going about their business quite legally but my/my colleagues past experience is confusing us. I've never known a company to be nice enough to pay out 2 weeks of 'free vacation' so it was our guesswork that it was a legal requirement. Theres some white noise about it being illegal to be fired after handing in your 2 weeks but I'm guessing it certainly is quite legal at this point in my research. I believe I was at the benefit of some nice partners in the past, but I'd rather not leave a 2 week paycheck on the table if I would be legally entitled to it. I'm just guessing these guys aren't as nice as the last.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
SomeGuyinIL posted:In Kansas: Welcome to living in an at-will employment state, protecting your freedoms from the threat of pernicious European socialist ideas like not setting people up with financial incentives to gently caress each other over! If you have a contract it might say something about this. If not, enjoy your two week holiday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Kalman posted:What exactly are you thinking of? Enablement? I mean, they could argue it lacks enablement, I suppose, but that's typically a pretty hard argument to make. Invalidation based on non-patent publication prior art just isn't so hard that you really need to go to the expense of a patent agent to make sure it can be done. It's really not hard at all to get a patent by dancing around a non-exhaustive description. The disclosure might invalidate the patent during litigation, but you really want to make sure that the Examiner has whatever he needs to stop it during prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
SomeGuyinIL posted:In Kansas: I wonder how this affects your ability to collect unemployment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Gounads posted:Did they make a company wide announcement warning everyone? If not, I'd get out fast. They're "administrative oversight" is likely "we forgot to make enough money to pay our bills". In fact they have not made an announcement at all. HR person says they wired a payment on the 12th that was due on the 1st, and that our plan will retroactively cover the first two weeks of the month.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Anathema Device posted:If I were able to develop the idea, I would want to make as much of it open-source and easily customize able as possible. Anathema Device posted:More questions: What constitutes a "full, enabling description"? If I need to get a tech person involved, how do I prevent them for taking my idea entirely? Would some sort of contract do that, splitting the credit or whatever? I'm seeing a confused purpose here. I'll assume that the open source part is just an attempt to appear all socially conscious and stuff while your real purpose is $profit$. A fully enabling description is one that "enables" your invention to be built by someone who knows how to build stuff in that field. However, you have stated that you don't have those skills. That means you write as much as you can and hope it's enough. As far as getting a patent lawyer, plan to spend at least $10k. That means you should spend a lot of time googling around to find out what is already out there. You'll be amazed. I've dealt with a lot of people who come up with an idea but who aren't skilled at building things or bringing similar items to market. I usually tell them I need a few thousands in retainer to begin work. I literally don't want to know any details about their idea until that retainer check appears. When they balk I tell them this is how I make sure they've spent the time to do their homework and think things through. Have you done enough research to bet a few thousand that your idea is patentable? Have you done enough work fleshing out your idea that the patent would read on what you, or someone else, would build? Does your invention have a large enough market to justify the expense of patenting? I really give the benefit of the doubt to a person who walks into my office and shows that they've really done their homework. That's how I know I'm dealing with an inventor I want to work with versus a dilettante. I offer them better terms because I like working with real inventors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Dude, those written statements are hearsay too. Really? Statements made under penalty of perjury detailing real interactions between myself, this woman and other co-workers are all hearsay? How can you say so without even examining the content of them? Stop trolling. I wish I had archives to view the post about methamphetamine, but I won't deny that when I was younger, prior to joining the Army, I was a real crazy kid who was messing around with all the wrong people and things. I don't feel guilty or ashamed in the slightest, but I've also grew out of that sort of thing a long time ago. It certainly isn't relevant almost a decade later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Angry Hippo, just stop. You have no idea what hearsay is. "Statements made under penalty of perjury" absolutely are hearsay. Particularly where your posts imply the contents of those statements are that the declarants (the people who made the statements) are saying you did/did not have certain interactions with this other woman. Hearsay's "pretty simple." (Not really, but for this explanation it is) It's any statement, made by someone not in the courtroom, that you're offering because what the statement says is true. It's generally excluded because the legal system would prefer to have the person who says something in the courtroom actually saying it. That way you can cross-examine them, get more context, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Really? Statements made under penalty of perjury detailing real interactions between myself, this woman and other co-workers are all hearsay? How can you say so without even examining the content of them? Did you, someone without any legal training, just incorrect a licensed attorney on a matter of law and accuse him of trolling? You should seriously consider a new career with Cirque-du-Soleil because it must take incredible flexibility to keep your head that far up your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Really? Statements made under penalty of perjury detailing real interactions between myself, this woman and other co-workers are all hearsay? How can you say so without even examining the content of them? Yes they are. If you had gone to law school you would know this. This doesn't make it in admissible, because there are a lot of exceptions and ways around the hearsay rule, but basically any statement not made on the witness stand in the matter you are in is hearsay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
This is better than Pookie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:As far as getting a patent lawyer, plan to spend at least $10k. That means you should spend a lot of time googling around to find out what is already out there. You'll be amazed. Eh, assuming that he has noble intentions and just wants to stop this from being patented at all, he just needs to disclose this thing properly (which he can't until someone technically inclined writes a description of it) It's not going to cost $10k, but it'll cost a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
I just received a cease and desist from U-Haul in regards to a website I am in no way even remotely associated with. Apparently this website has some Google adwords campaigns that use /u+haul/ in the URL, and U-Haul thinks they're "my client." I have zero clue how or why they decided that. Can I just email them back and say, "You got the wrong person, buddy" or would it be better to talk to my lawyer first? e: At first I thought it was some a scam or something, but after reviewing the email headers it did indeed originate from uhaul.com. So I guess it's legit. e2: District of Columbia, if that matters. kedo fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Welcome to living in an at-will employment state, protecting your freedoms from the threat of pernicious European socialist ideas like not setting people up with financial incentives to gently caress each other over! I'm finding some traction with an HR rep thats an aquaintance from 2 jobs ago at least. According to her if their employee handbook requires 2 weeks notice they're required to pay it, so most likely that's why I've always been paid in the past. At any rate I started a week earlier at the new job so I'm almost 3 weeks in here. 1 week of vacation sure wasn't too bad. Thank you much for the advice, and my reminder about those evil bastard policies. I'll be making sure my duty to uphold them is met!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Gounads posted:I wonder how this affects your ability to collect unemployment. That's a good point - if you give two weeks' notice, and as a result you are fired (obviously without any subsequent pay for the 2 weeks), it seems like you would be eligible. I wonder if calling your old HR department to confirm that you're not being paid and mentioning filing for unemployment would light a fire for them to pay those 2 weeks, to keep their rates from going up. Although for professionals, where they know you'll be working again shortly and probably not filing for unemployment for that small gap, they probably think they're not taking much risk. kedo posted:I just received a cease and desist from U-Haul in regards to a website I am in no way even remotely associated with. Apparently this website has some Google adwords campaigns that use /u+haul/ in the URL, and U-Haul thinks they're "my client." I have zero clue how or why they decided that. You should just delete that email, it's hearsay. Edit: Not a lawyer, not legal advice, this post is hearsay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
I didn't come here to argue with lawyers (always a losing proposition, they are trained to be quarrelsome) but a quick look at wikipedia (the ultimate legal reference) suggests 'There are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in U.S. law.[1] Federal Rule of Evidence 803 lists the following:..." including 'Reputation concerning personal or family history, boundaries, or general history, or as to character' So perhaps it is hearsay, but that doesn't mean it was inadmissible, and the message behind his post was, "you're full of poo poo and those statements don't mean anything you idiot" which is hard to consider anything but trolling. The reality is that it's very telling that I was able to obtain a massive amount of hearsay (admissible or not) in my favor and that none was presented other than out of her own mouth. If I was an abusive, harassing rage-a-holic constantly threatening this woman at work certainly at least one person other than the plaintiff would have said so, right? The case was exactly the opposite though where the majority of the staff stuck their neck out for me knowing they almost certainly would be subject to retaliation for their statements in my defense. I even had one person ask to redact their statement and that I not present it because this girl was TERRIFIED that this woman would come after her in some way. I'd like to add that I've never personally spit in anyone's food or keyed a car, but through my experience in the restaurant industry I know it is extremely common - almost customary. As a manager I dealt with allegations that this was done by drivers working for me or another location at least once. Edit: I think I should be commended for warning the general population that this activity does happen, and that it's probably a better idea to add on a 2 dollar tip instead of risking that you come across the type of person who *will* mess with your food. This practice is detailed in popular culture such as the movie Waiting and can also be seen a wide variety of other media. EDIT: I'm not sure why there is this campaign to discredit me and paint me as a monster when everything points to the opposite... Edit EDit: I gathered those statements under the advice of a licensed attorney who felt after reviewing the details of my case that it was a good and proper course of action. I was briefly coached in the type of statements and the wording I should seek to get from declarants during my meeting with the attorney. I have every bit of confidence that the 30+ pages I attached to my response were not worthless and were quite convincing. Angry Hippo fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:It's really not hard at all to get a patent by dancing around a non-exhaustive description. The disclosure might invalidate the patent during litigation, but you really want to make sure that the Examiner has whatever he needs to stop it during prosecution. If he wants to stop it during prosecution, he basically needs to file a patent anyway, since most examiner searches for non-patent literature are basically limited to scientific publications, which this doesn't seem to be a candidate for. Exhaustive public description will provide a decent option if he's ever sued, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Dear god angry hippo, stop trying to understand evidence. It is a hard subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
kedo posted:I just received a cease and desist from U-Haul in regards to a website I am in no way even remotely associated with. Apparently this website has some Google adwords campaigns that use /u+haul/ in the URL, and U-Haul thinks they're "my client." I have zero clue how or why they decided that. You're over-thinking this; you don't need a lawyer to answer this question. Tell them they are not your client, wish them luck in their pursuits, and move on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:"you're full of poo poo and those statements don't mean anything you idiot" Which part of that statement do you actually take issue with? I don't know poo poo about law or legal processes, but from reading your posts here, it all seems to check out. [ ] you're full of poo poo [ ] your statements don't mean anything [ ] you're an idiot Just check the boxes as appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Devor posted:You should just delete that email, it's hearsay. the littlest prince posted:You're over-thinking this; you don't need a lawyer to answer this question. Tell them they are not your client, wish them luck in their pursuits, and move on. Thanks! I kind of figured I was perhaps a little more worried about it than I should be, but letters from lawyers for big companies make me nervous. Much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If he wants to stop it during prosecution, he basically needs to file a patent anyway, since most examiner searches for non-patent literature are basically limited to scientific publications, which this doesn't seem to be a candidate for. Exhaustive public description will provide a decent option if he's ever sued, though. Well, there's always this: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs-preissuance-submissions.jsp but it's a pain because you have to know of the application being filed and then time things right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
kedo posted:Thanks! I kind of figured I was perhaps a little more worried about it than I should be, but letters from lawyers for big companies make me nervous. I would ask them how they associated you with the web site. There must have been some bread crumb that they followed. It would be good to know what it is. They'll probably refuse to tell you. Keep notes on who you talked to and what was said. Keep your notes with the C&D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If he wants to stop it during prosecution, he basically needs to file a patent anyway, since most examiner searches for non-patent literature are basically limited to scientific publications, which this doesn't seem to be a candidate for. Exhaustive public description will provide a decent option if he's ever sued, though. They've been citing non-scientific, non-patent references more often recently in my experience, I got a few rejections based on wikipedia a while ago, which is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Devor posted:That's a good point - if you give two weeks' notice, and as a result you are fired (obviously without any subsequent pay for the 2 weeks), it seems like you would be eligible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Which part of that statement do you actually take issue with? I don't know poo poo about law or legal processes, but from reading your posts here, it all seems to check out. I gathered those statements under the advice of a licensed attorney who felt after reviewing the details of my case that it was a good and proper course of action. I was briefly coached in the type of statements and the wording I should seek to get from declarants during my meeting with the attorney. I have every bit of confidence that the 30+ pages I attached to my response were not worthless and were quite convincing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Gounads posted:I wonder how this affects your ability to collect unemployment. He is probably entitled to unemployment for the 2 weeks he intended to still work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:EDIT: I'm not sure why there is this campaign to discredit me and paint me as a jerk when everything points to the opposite... There's no campaign to discredit you, but nobody's validating you either, which may feel the same way to you? The way you present yourself (at least on the internet) paints you as a jerk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:They've been citing non-scientific, non-patent references more often recently in my experience, I got a few rejections based on wikipedia a while ago, which is hilarious. I've gotten a couple of those, but I've gotten the impression that they're usually just the examiner wanting to avoid using official notice by citing to something. They still don't really seem to have a good way of searching that kind of information overall, beyond the limited access Google provides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:So perhaps it is hearsay, but that doesn't mean it was inadmissible, It's called admissible hearsay, yes Angry Hippo posted:and the message behind his post was, "you're full of poo poo and those statements don't mean anything you idiot" No, his point was that it is hearsay. His point was that he is technically correct, the best kind of correct 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:27
|
|