Microsoft patents drop-in split-screen

[Reasonable]

Mendicate Bias said:

said:

Mendicate Bias said:

I did not say the inventor has to file a patent but that they have to work to make a statement directly or soon after the invention. They can not make the invention, make money off the invention for years and then file a patent after their competitor figures out how to make their product. There is a law against that, I'll look it up and post it when I find it. So basicaly the inventor has to show proof of a statement towards a patent application soon after invention but do not neccesarily require the patent its self.

But they can!

They can do exactly that. That's exactly what first-to-invent protects. They don't demonstrate "prior art" by patenting, they demonstrate it by producing the invention.

For an actual reduction to practice, the invention must have been sufficiently tested to demonstrate that it will work for its intended purpose, but it need not be in a commercially satisfactory stage of development.

First-to-invent protects individuals from the patent system. Consider that example I made above. Say you made the first Frizbee in 2000. Say you became the Frizbee King and made your fortune selling Frizbees. You have a multi-billion dollar Frizbee empire by 2005. Now imagine someone little patent troll files a patent on Frizbees and sues you trying to take all your hard-earned Frizbee wealth away. First-to-invent says "Knock it off you little patent troll, he was here first." That's why it's so great.

Well I just asked my friend that is in his 3rd year at the university of chicago law school to be a a patent lawyer and according to him your wrong. The original inventor must make an attempt to patent his invention within 5 to 6 months of invention. Under almost no circumstances can the original inventor not patent his invention for a year and then file a case against a competitor that patents his invention. So in your frisbee case yes if I did not patent the frisbee within those 5 years someone else can come and patent the design and I will lose my product.

Also making money off of a invention you have not pattented and then trying to patent it later severely weakens your case in a court of law. So basically every thing I have been saying is correct. Your clearly a bright individual but in this instance your just wrong, I'm sorry.

The 'Grace Period' is 12 months I think, maybe longer, but I'm sure its not 5 to 6 months.  'First to invent' is US only I believe, most other countries use 'First to file' for patents - although I believe they also have some form of 'prior use or invention' as a safety catch.  Again though I think a grace period is involved.

Personally I'm with John Carmack, who has always argued patenting SW is bad for the industry and has sought as much as possible to release source code to the internet community.  Patenting something like this to me is pretty silly.  Patent Natal, sure, or the Wii Mote, but a gameplay mechanic?  Get out of here.