Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, you can think whatever you want. I have tried to help you understand the patent process. I have managed a patent function (among other functions) as an engineering manager, and I personally have several hundred patents myself as an inventor (counting US and foreign counterparts). Nevertheless, feel free to wallow in your ignorance until you actually learn something. But you might want to ask your counsel about preserving claim breadth when you file a provisional. I don't need to pop your bubble, but the only reason anyone ever files a provisional is as an economy measure for an invention of questionable value. All it takes to remedy this weakness is to include one broad claim, much broader than the embodiment given in the application, to avoid problems of estoppel and then negotiate downward during prosecution. This requires, however, a much larger filing fee, which your employer evidently feels would not be justified based on the value of your work.
Well, you can think whatever you want. I have tried to help you understand the patent process. I have managed a patent function (among other functions) as an engineering manager, and I personally have several hundred patents myself as an inventor (counting US and foreign counterparts). Nevertheless, feel free to wallow in your ignorance until you actually learn something. But you might want to ask your counsel about preserving claim breadth when you file a provisional. I don't need to pop your bubble, but the only reason anyone ever files a provisional is as an economy measure for an invention of questionable value. All it takes to remedy this weakness is to include one broad claim, much broader than the embodiment given in the application, to avoid problems of estoppel and then negotiate downward during prosecution. This requires, however, a much larger filing fee, which your employer evidently feels would not be justified based on the value of your work.
Filing a provisional patent application is a stop-gap measure to utilize the time given to place a flag on the hill and then decide within a year whether the hill should be defended. That is done for all the applications filed at most major corporations today. I'm not sure which era you're from. Are you retired? If not, you might want to ask your organization to go this route. Haha.
A broad claim can be made, only if the provisional application is to apply for a patent that has been granted in part to another claimant. And your assumption is that all my provisional applications are under that category. Another condescending post! Why should I expect anything else from you!
Filing a provisional patent application is a stop-gap measure to utilize the time given to place a flag on the hill and then decide within a year whether the hill should be defended. That is done for all the applications filed at most major corporations today.
A broad claim can be made, only if the provisional application is to apply for a patent that has been granted in part to another claimant.
No. In fact, most corporations who can afford utility patent applications expressly forbid the filing of provisional applications. The reason is that they risk not supporting broad claims a year later. They are used as an economy measure, and as a come-on by television hucksters who try to fleece independent inventors. Look at the difference in filing fees if you want to understand why organizations really file provisional applications. In other words, "follow the money."
Your statement about a "patent that has been granted in part to another claimant" makes no sense. Nothing can be patented again that is already granted in part (whatever that might mean) to another claimant. What on earth are you trying to say?
Edit -- on second thought, I don't really care what you're trying to say. Why am I wasting my time with you? Your posts in this thread suggest that you are overconfident and uninformed, indicating that it's poor judgement on my part to read your stuff. Come back when you either pass the USPTO bar exam or have several hundred patents under your own belt; in other words, when you actually know something.
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 04-29-2013 at 03:49 PM..
Hovering around the median net worth is not pathetic, but if you want to think that to push yourself, good for you. College educated skilled professionals who bought into the housing boom lost a lot of net worth but it might be argued that they gained net worth disproportionately as well due to a runaway housing bubble. I doubt your friends, the pharmacist and the lawyer would stay in negative net worth if they persist and keep at their profession. They are both recession proof jobs
It's pathetic that the median is so low. Being in my late 20s and having taken a year and a half hiatus, I shouldn't be around the median. We're a nation of spenders with a very low saving rate. And trust me, I wish it were true that the legal profession was recession proof. I work in litigation support now (predominantly) with some M&A/contract law stuff that'll mostly end up in litigation.
The Urban Institute released a study to show the disparity between the wealth of whites versus minorities (Hispanic and black---don't think they included Asians).
"By the most recent data, the average white family had about $632,000 in wealth, versus $98,000 for black families and $110,000 for Hispanic families."
Wealth is defined as assets like savings, retirement accounts, and house minus liabilities of mortgage and credit card debt.
I find it very surprising that wealth would be this high since no one I know has anywhere close to this. But since it's averaged, is it just that the wealthiest people skew it so high? Is it really possible for such a small percentage to skew it so high? I guess it must be, because the median wealth tells a far different story: $77,300, where half have more than this and half less.
As a New Yorker I sometimes don't take the NYT seriously. Much of what they write is sensationalism and Yellow Journalism. If the average white family had more than half a million dollars in combined assests than why are silly white kids from the burbs camped out and protested in front of Wall Street a year and a half ago for months at a time? This is a clear sign that many whites in this country are far from wealthy.
Last edited by Bronxguyanese; 04-29-2013 at 04:53 PM..
The Urban Institute released a study to show the disparity between the wealth of whites versus minorities (Hispanic and black---don't think they included Asians).
"By the most recent data, the average white family had about $632,000 in wealth, versus $98,000 for black families and $110,000 for Hispanic families."
Wealth is defined as assets like savings, retirement accounts, and house minus liabilities of mortgage and credit card debt.
I find it very surprising that wealth would be this high since no one I know has anywhere close to this. But since it's averaged, is it just that the wealthiest people skew it so high? Is it really possible for such a small percentage to skew it so high? I guess it must be, because the median wealth tells a far different story: $77,300, where half have more than this and half less.
I'm curious why the Urban Institute would discriminate against Asians by omitting them from the study.
Maybe it would interfere with the dots we're supposed to be connecting.
Anyway , count me in as one who thinks that the median is what matters, not the average. All this study tells us is that the ultra-wealthy Americans are overwhelmingly not-black and not-hispanic.
Name one ultra-rich American hispanic? Carlos Slim lives in Mexico, not the United States.
Okay---this thread is going way off topic. I just found it interesting to read that $632,000 was the average wealth since the media always talks about people being underwater with their mortgages, high credit card debt, no savings, etc. And most of the people I know don't seem to have this much wealth (yes, I know in some social circles they have this much and much more).
I wasn't looking at the racial aspects of it at all, although as I commented in my OP, I did find it interesting that Asians weren't included as one of the minorities (possibly because their wealth may be as much or more than white Americans).
I suggest the moderator close this thread.
c'mon now -- you opened this can of worms by posting a politically-charged study. now you want to un-say what you've already said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
