Russell Standish wrote:
Incidently, here's my own theory on the origin of matter. (Special)
relativistic quantum mechanics delivers the prediction of matter
being in perfect balance with antimatter - this is well known from
Dirac's work in the 1930s. However, if spacetime had a nonzero
unsubscribe please!
__
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:55:47 -0700 John Ross wrote
> The problem is I do not know for sure whether or not my theory is
> correct. I have tried without success to get my theory published in two
> very respected scientific journals and have been rejected out of hand.
> I have given descriptions of
Mr Forrester - yoohoo!!! You are not playing ther game by YOUR OWN
RULES IN ALLOWING THESE FRIVOLOUS POSTS ABOUT COPYRIGHT. The posters
are clearly and tendentiously ignoring the original poster's theory
by carrying on about this crap.
Time to lean on the "moderator's switch". HIGH TIME
Ki
I just checked the Australian patent office website - I meant
"design", not "pattern". I wonder where I got the name "pattern" from
- did it used to be used, or is my fading memory of IP nomenclature?
A design would be what Coca-Cola would register to prevent Pepsi from
selling their coke in the c
You're right, I shouldn't say that a copyright is "granted." The issue in
copyrights is establishing that one in fact has the copyright, i.e., that one
is the originator of the work or that one has obtained rights to it, and that
it's something such that the government should recognize it as bei
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 06:51:42PM -0400, Benjamin Udell wrote:
> Of course Penrose in Britain was granted a copyright (which I hear has
> expired) for the concept of the Penrose Tile -- the ability to create an
> acyclic pattern using only two tiles. He started proceedings against somebody
> fo
Some years ago a U.S. judge ruled that "business methods" could be patented,
perhaps he wanted to create a legacy for himself, anyway then he kicked the
bucket. Rulings and case law have proliferated since then. (Testing out a new
legal principle on that old "case-by-case" basis, ka-ching, ka-ch
--- Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi John:
>
> I do not know if one should use the word Theory but
> what strikes me
> is the convergence I see in numerous lines of
> thought. I see my
> model as having many features in common with
> Russell's even though
> some of the differences m
The United States Patent Law (35 U.S.C. 101) provides:
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title."
I b
John M wrote:
> Seriously: there are countries where a patent can be
> granted only if a working model can be produced (this
> is against the perpetuum mobile deluge of patents). It
> may be valid for a TOE as well.
The patent process is designed to provide an inventor with certain legal
rights r
Jonathan,
you brought up old memories...
Seriously: there are countries where a patent can be
granted only if a working model can be produced (this
is against the perpetuum mobile deluge of patents). It
may be valid for a TOE as well.
Less seriously:
I worked with the Hungarian Patent Office (right
I am not a mathematician and so ask the following:
In my model the ensemble of descriptions [kernels in my All] gets
populated by divisions of my list of fragments of descriptions into
two sub lists via the process of definition.
The list is assumed to be countably infinite.
The cardinality
13 matches
Mail list logo
