Basic legal things everyone should know

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of this is somewhat fuzzy, although my IP learning was under UK/EU systems rather than the US (although IIRC you're under Berne as well now wrt copyright) so I could be incorrect - over here copyright has no system of registration whatsoever, and I think that's now the case in the US as well.

[/ QUOTE ]Not true here. You can register a US copyright with the US copyright office.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
You may not patent something that has been voluntarily publicly disclosed. (e.g. if you show off some new invention and explain how it works at a conference, you can not then try to patent it.) There are probably some conditions here that I do not know.


[/ QUOTE ]In the US, you can file for a patent within a year of a public disclosure. But it's still better to file before you disclose because that fact is not true in any other country.
[ QUOTE ]

This also applies to things others have publicly disclosed. (i.e. you cannot patent someone else's publicly disclosed idea).

[/ QUOTE ]True, but the reason YOU can't patent it is because you didn't invent it, someone else did.

[ QUOTE ]
The patent process is not quick and easy, nor is it free.

[/ QUOTE ]
About 2-5 years from the time of filing to the grant of a patent.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the patent office is pretty diligent in their searches (and I believe the filer is also responsible for doing a patent search, as well).

[/ QUOTE ]The filer is NOT required to do a patent search, though if he did a search, he is required to disclose it.

[ QUOTE ]
In any event, I am pretty sure if their is a dispute, the first filed wins.

[/ QUOTE ]The first to invent wins. Let's say person A invents something on July 1, 2007, but does not file a patent application until December 1, 2007.

Person B invents the exact same thing on September 15, 2007, but files a patent application on October 15, 2007.

Person B's patent prevents Person A from getting a patent. However, if Person A can prove that he invented it before September 15, 2007, he can get the patent and prevail in a law suit. Proving invention may be difficult, though.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you knew you were in violation or not is pretty immaterial I think.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually a "willful" infringement creates enhanced damages that can be up to triple the actual damages.

[dreq]

My mechanic is my hero. This is how he got her to sign a pre-nup. He put it on the breakfast table the Monday morning before the wedding. The wedding was immediately called off. By Monday afternoon she took it to her attorney. Tuesday afternoon, she brought it back with only minor changes, signed. Wednesday morning he signed it in the presence of his attorney.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Well yeah the arbitrator is chosen by both parties. If by "chosen" you mean the company has already designated the arbitrator in the contract then yes, I suppose if you sign that contract you agree with their choice (even though Joe Public probably has no real idea what the implications are).

There's plenty of stuff out there (maybe it's all put out by tinfoil heads) to suggest consumers should at least be WARY of arbitration clauses.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Sav...umersHands.aspx
http://www.citizen.org/publications/...&catID=126
http://autoissues.org/arbitration_faq.htm
http://www.naca.net/binding-mandatory-arbitration/

[/ QUOTE ]

I read all of the threads. I don't really agree with any of them.

1. Arbitration really does cost less. The article arguing otherwise only takes into consideration the cost to file. With arbitration, you pay for some of the arbitrator's time upfront which artificially inflates the number. In any event, the initial pleadings are done on forms and in the end take much less attorney time to prepare. That is a savings right there.

2. One article mentions that it severely limits a party's options. Not really. Arbitration only replaces a bench/jury trial. Otherwise, the parties are still free to pursue mediation or non-binding arbitration.

3. Most high-ticket torts items are not covered by the arbitration agreement; therefore, you can still take that nefarious corporation to court and score your million-dollar award.

4. Most of this is moot unless the case actually proceeds to trial. At that point, the parties save a ton of money compared to court, especially since the arbitrator is already familiar with that area of law and the issues it presents, and because the date and time of the proceeding is specific (don't have to pay your lawyer to wait around waiting for the case to proceed).

In short, binding arbitration is nothing to worry about and (in my opinion) benefits the consumer as well.

[gobbomom]

that's interesting. I'm in Il., but I'd imagine the guidelines are similar. I've just been debating having the ARDC look into it to get it over with and avoid any further legal maneuvers.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
PS, Someone said above that you should refuse a breathalizer if you're drunk and get pulled over. Is this true? Why is this better than submitting to a breathalizer? What happens to you when you refuse to take a breathalizer versus what happens when you fail one?

[/ QUOTE ]

It differs from state to state, but in many states the penalty for refusing a breathalyzer test is an automatic suspension of the driver's license (though most states allow an "occupational license" to allow driving to school/work).

Obviously this sucks, but it is way better than having a DUI/DWI criminal conviction and possibly serving time. You do not want a criminal conviction, period.

There was a thread about this a few months ago and someone said there was some state where the penalty for refusing a breathalyzer was identical to a DUI conviction. I didn't believe this and the person never came back with the actual criminal statute. I pretty much think that kind of law would have massive constitutional problems.

Anyway, if you're sober, do all the tests. If there's any possibility you are over the limit, refuse.

[gobbomom]

I also wonder about the difference in insurance rates between a DUI conviction and a refused test. I'm sure it's substantial.

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PS, Someone said above that you should refuse a breathalizer if you're drunk and get pulled over. Is this true? Why is this better than submitting to a breathalizer? What happens to you when you refuse to take a breathalizer versus what happens when you fail one?

[/ QUOTE ]

It differs from state to state, but in many states the penalty for refusing a breathalyzer test is an automatic suspension of the driver's license (though most states allow an "occupational license" to allow driving to school/work).

Obviously this sucks, but it is way better than having a DUI/DWI criminal conviction and possibly serving time. You do not want a criminal conviction, period.

There was a thread about this a few months ago and someone said there was some state where the penalty for refusing a breathalyzer was identical to a DUI conviction. I didn't believe this and the person never came back with the actual criminal statute. I pretty much think that kind of law would have massive constitutional problems.

Anyway, if you're sober, do all the tests. If there's any possibility you are over the limit, refuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I spoke with a WA state lawyer who told me that it was my right to refuse a breathalyser and instead demand a blood test in a local hospital. Generally it takes 2-3 hours to get the blood test organized and executed, hopefully enough time for you to properly sober up.

I don't drive drunk, but I'd definitely not take a breathalyser if I knew I was going to fail it.

[baiter]

Hail Eris!

All Hail Discordia!

[z28dreams]

I thought I'd post some common IP / patent law here, since it seems a few of the questions came up.

Qualifications: I worked for the US Patent Office as an examiner for about 6 months. I am not an attorney. Don't quote me on all of this, but it should be pretty close from what I remember.

- US Patent law is different than every other country in the world, in that it's "first to invent" rather than "first to patent". That is, in every other country you have to actually patent something to protect it. In the US as soon as you invent it it's protected, you just have to have some kind of documentation/publication to prove it.

- The catch to the above rule is that, once you invent something, you have one year to patent it. After that one year expires, it's pretty much a race to see who patents it first.

- Patent examiners almost never actually read your specifications. We don't have time. Typically we just jump directly to your claims, and compare those against known patents. If you want to get your patent approved, don't try to make super broad claims. Keep it as broad as you can without being ridiculous, though.

- One useful tip is to claim as many possible references as you can on your IDS form. I don't remember the exact rule, but I believe one your patent is approved, all considered references on the IDS can never again be compared against it again.

- When I was working there in 2005, I was typically working on patents from 2002 - 2003. It takes a long time.

- You can use either a patent agent or patent attorney to file your patent. (or do it yourself, but this isn't too recommended). A patent agent is about 1/2 the price, but can't be used later if you are taken to court.

- There is method of rejecting patents by stating that "It would be obvious for a professional in the field of this patent to do X", but it's generally frowned upon to use it in a rejection.

- Almost all patents are rejected under USC 103b rather than USC 102. Basically 102 is rejection on something that is the exact same invention as yours (per claim). A 103 lets examiners combine multiple patents where features would obviously combine together.

- Other obvious rejections fall under 101, but you'll rarely run into them. These state things like the invention must actually do something, the language must be clear, etc.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I just thought you might find some of this useful.