Scott,
Probably true, and one is prime, three is prime, five is prime, seven is prime, so by induction all odd numbers are prime.
Intel uses good intelligent design for their products, so by induction The Institute for Creation Research has a valid model.
Logic can be so wonderfully misused. The downside is the humor impaired don't get it.
Have a good week.
ES
In my search, I found another article that shows something important about design breakthroughs. Who do you think INVENTED the DRAM 'memory'? Intel? NO. It was Robert Dennard of IBM, in 1967, who worked on the problem for months, day and night, because he was interested in the problem.
'At Intel, someone was asked:" 'Did you invent DRAM' And he said, 'We don't care about inventions. We care about products' " Think about it, everyone.
'IEEE Spectrum' 05.09 p.48.
'At Intel, someone was asked:" 'Did you invent DRAM' And he said, 'We don't care about inventions. We care about products' " Think about it, everyone.
'IEEE Spectrum' 05.09 p.48.
The Hillsboro engineer received his 200th patent this year -- 40 more than anyone else at Intel -- and has 67 more pending.
"I never really keep track of the numbers, quite frankly, because this is really part of the job," he said.
And while it's "exciting to invent new things," Chau said, "it's actually far more exciting if these inventions actually end up in your products."
It's the kind of mindset that might explain why Oregon inventors are among the nation's most prolific patent producers, winning more than 2,000 a year. Intel's researchers lead the hunt, capturing about a third of that tally.
"I never really keep track of the numbers, quite frankly, because this is really part of the job," he said.
And while it's "exciting to invent new things," Chau said, "it's actually far more exciting if these inventions actually end up in your products."
It's the kind of mindset that might explain why Oregon inventors are among the nation's most prolific patent producers, winning more than 2,000 a year. Intel's researchers lead the hunt, capturing about a third of that tally.
So what you're saying is that the corporate culture of late '60s Big Blue (very buttoned down, tightly structured, tightly controlled) is the best environment for innovation?
Patents are not necessarily breakthrough discoveries. Patents are generated by large companies to keep other companies in line. Of course, in the process of developing a new product, new ideas of some sort will be generated. However, many breakthroughs are really accidents, for example: X-rays, Teflon, and many, many, others.
The problem with small companies patenting their new ideas, even breakthroughs, is the merciless exploitation by larger companies when they get ahold of the patents. That is why I can't give patent numbers here of several recent technologies, Wurcer, Cordell, et al are the first in line to try to get them. Just look at recent pages on this thread.
I have developed a number of circuit topologies and patented only one. This patent was ignored by Ortofon and Quad, back around 1980, with the patent was in effect, for example. So much for patents and the little guy.
The problem with small companies patenting their new ideas, even breakthroughs, is the merciless exploitation by larger companies when they get ahold of the patents. That is why I can't give patent numbers here of several recent technologies, Wurcer, Cordell, et al are the first in line to try to get them. Just look at recent pages on this thread.
I have developed a number of circuit topologies and patented only one. This patent was ignored by Ortofon and Quad, back around 1980, with the patent was in effect, for example. So much for patents and the little guy.
After doing a little research myself, I find that the dichotomy between 'inventions' and 'products' is invalid here. As this article makes plain, Dennard's invention was clearly motivated by its potential product application. He wanted to get the number of transistors down from six (for a typical SRAM IC cell) to one, saving considerable die area in the process.
Many good researchers have worked at IBM. I was fairly familiar with IBM in my early years, because we had a big plant nearby, and many of my friends' fathers worked there. It WAS a pretty up-tight place in the 1950's and early '60's. I remember operating an IBM 7094 mainframe computer in 1963, and being politely 'snubbed' by the IBM repair techs, even though I was better educated than they were, at the time. They were apparently told not to mingle. Sometimes, such a place, with its facilities, promotes innovation. Other times, the same 'innovators' quit and start their own companies, because of the attitude of the management to control innovation.
Sometimes this website has posted an IBM computer with an operator sitting at the console, during breaks for repair. That operator could have been me.
Sometimes this website has posted an IBM computer with an operator sitting at the console, during breaks for repair. That operator could have been me.
Very. My friends there had to be at their desks at a certain time, wear certain clothes, get formal management approval to blow their noses... I had far more freedom at Lockheed.
Wow. I worked at Collins Radio during the summer when I was going to college and it was real loose, even though it was owned by Rockwell International. When it was owned by Art Collins and my dad was there in the sixties, it was almost nutty lax. Lots of innovation during that period. Collins had to sell to Rockwell when he ran out of money trying to invent the internet, which he called "The Loop".
John
Another cheap shot, John. You should print out this thread to help the person who writes your prescriptions.
No, it's true. That is why I can't post pending patents. I was harassed for withholding the numbers, by the named above, I'm pretty sure. It is important to know when to hold them and when to fold them, and even run if necessary. I have given plenty away, and it came down to being my fault for being so naive.
Normally I would not say very much in a critical way about any individual here, but these same people certainly have taken cheap shots at me on this thread, over the years. Pooge, you are not blind to this, are you?
Normally I would not say very much in a critical way about any individual here, but these same people certainly have taken cheap shots at me on this thread, over the years. Pooge, you are not blind to this, are you?
actually US patent applications are publicly available (and searchable) 18 mo after filing
"Eighteen months after filing, and while the application is patent pending, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will publish the application unless the applicant files a Nonpublication Request at the time of filing and doesn't file for a patent outside the U.S. If the application is published during the pendency or patent pending period, an inventor can later obtain royalties from an infringer from the date of publication provided (1) the application later issues as a patent; and (2) the infringer had actual notice of the published application"
"Eighteen months after filing, and while the application is patent pending, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will publish the application unless the applicant files a Nonpublication Request at the time of filing and doesn't file for a patent outside the U.S. If the application is published during the pendency or patent pending period, an inventor can later obtain royalties from an infringer from the date of publication provided (1) the application later issues as a patent; and (2) the infringer had actual notice of the published application"
Last edited:
Exactly. You need to make up your mind. Either you protect it with a patent and that means disclosure, or you just use your trick and don't tell anybody.
The idea with a patent is to tell the world: "look, it's me who invented this and if you want to use it, you need to pay me". You only can do that with disclosure. You WANT people to know about it.
If you're afraid that you'll lose out to the Big Bucks, don't patent it, keep it to yourself.
The idea to patent something and somehow trying to keep it under wraps at the same time is nonsensical and against your interests.
jd
- Status
- Not open for further replies.