RE: The Great Cancer Hoax:

RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 9:19:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The government cannot steal a patent. That's how I know the film is bullshit without viewing a single frame. Only individuals can hold patents. Wrong once again. "Because of this enormous funding, the federal government has the most United States patent rights. It is estimated that the government has title to over 30,000 patents and annually files several thousand new applications. "

DomKen -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 9:31:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The government cannot steal a patent. That's how I know the film is bullshit without viewing a single frame. Only individuals can hold patents. Wrong once again. "Because of this enormous funding, the federal government has the most United States patent rights. It is estimated that the government has title to over 30,000 patents and annually files several thousand new applications. " I have no idea where you got that but organizations cannot own a patent. Only a natural person can receive a patent. The US government has a lot of patent rights assigned to them but that isn't the same.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 10:04:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The government cannot steal a patent. That's how I know the film is bullshit without viewing a single frame. Only individuals can hold patents. Wrong once again. "Because of this enormous funding, the federal government has the most United States patent rights. It is estimated that the government has title to over 30,000 patents and annually files several thousand new applications. " I have no idea where you got that but organizations cannot own a patent. Only a natural person can receive a patent. The US government has a lot of patent rights assigned to them but that isn't the same. When are going to stop embarassing yourself? Take a leave of absence like your boy Weiner. Do you know what the word "Title" means? It doesnt mean rights are assigned, it means OWNERSHIP. Executive Order 10096, only about 60 years old: (a) The Government shall obtain the entire right, title and interest in and to all inventions made by any Government employee (1) during working hours, or (2) with a contribution by the Government of facilities, equipment, materials, funds, or information, or of time or services of other Government employees on official duty, or (3) which bear a direct relation to or are made in consequence of the official duties of the inventor. And here is how to license an invention OWNED by the US Government: http://law.justia.com/cfr/title37/37-1.0.4.10.2.html

DomKen -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 10:58:22 AM)
I guess I have to say it again, only a natural person can apply for and be awarded a patent. Employees, including government employees, can, as part of their employment contracts, be required to assign any patents they receive to their employer but the patent holder remains the person. No organization can obtain a patent.

CruelNUnsual -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 11:30:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I guess I have to say it again, only a natural person can apply for and be awarded a patent. Employees, including government employees, can, as part of their employment contracts, be required to assign any patents they receive to their employer but the patent holder remains the person. No organization can obtain a patent. Say it as many times as you like, youre wrong. Words have meaning, and OWNERSHIP is a word. You can look it up. Your confusion is that only a natural person can be listed as the INVENTOR.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 12:06:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Obviously no point in any further discussion. You simply don't know what you're talking about... "steal" is the implication of filing 11 Patents on someone else's work (which the FDA did)... a couple hundred people doesn't/wouldn't cut mustard as a drug trial goes... and yeah, there's plenty of research on CoQ10, but they're silent on it. Believe what you want to believe... you couldn't be more wrong about soooooo many things. [8\|] What part of "A government agency cannot hold a patent" do you not understand? RealOne's post sufficiently showed it's YOU that is sorely lacking in understanding. [8\|]

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 12:08:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Thank you. [:)]

DomKen -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 12:18:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I guess I have to say it again, only a natural person can apply for and be awarded a patent. Employees, including government employees, can, as part of their employment contracts, be required to assign any patents they receive to their employer but the patent holder remains the person. No organization can obtain a patent. Say it as many times as you like, youre wrong. Words have meaning, and OWNERSHIP is a word. You can look it up. Your confusion is that only a natural person can be listed as the INVENTOR. And only the inventors can be granted a patent. Therefore only natural persons can be granted a patent. A patent holder can then assign his rights to an organization but there is simply no way the US government can file for a patent.

Real0ne -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 12:54:19 PM)
look you guys.... kenny is doing his usual fucking with people k a corporation association franchise whatever is a civilly but not dead legal entity in contemplation of law. Remove the people from the corp and there is no one to sign anything. So a corp is legally dead. It takes a man to do the paperwork and get the patent approved and then the man can "assign" all his rights title and interest over to the guv. So the guv does not need to hold the patent directly, only indirectly, just like all the property in the us of a! yep you heard me right, your homes too. its done by "assignment". A patent is not an inalienable right, if the ever existed and therefore is convertible. So ken is fucking with you all. The guv has "paramount" interest, possibly ultimate interest in the patent "RIGHTS" and usage etc. Now this guy claims he is not party to the guv other than being a us citizen...... hmmm.... Do I hear employee? You all see its what I was trying to teach you when I was arguing property rights... and as you can see the wrong people listened [8D]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 12:58:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I guess I have to say it again, only a natural person can apply for and be awarded a patent. Employees, including government employees, can, as part of their employment contracts, be required to assign any patents they receive to their employer but the patent holder remains the person. No organization can obtain a patent. Say it as many times as you like, youre wrong. Words have meaning, and OWNERSHIP is a word. You can look it up. Your confusion is that only a natural person can be listed as the INVENTOR. And only the inventors can be granted a patent. Therefore only natural persons can be granted a patent. A patent holder can then assign his rights to an organization but there is simply no way the US government can file for a patent. What part of "OWN" dont you understand. Did you see the name of the patent OWNER on RealOne's threads. And owned by RealOne and me in the same thread....take that leave...Weiner can use the company.

Real0ne -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 1:09:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I guess I have to say it again, only a natural person can apply for and be awarded a patent. Employees, including government employees, can, as part of their employment contracts, be required to assign any patents they receive to their employer but the patent holder remains the person. No organization can obtain a patent. Say it as many times as you like, youre wrong. Words have meaning, and OWNERSHIP is a word. You can look it up. Your confusion is that only a natural person can be listed as the INVENTOR. And only the inventors can be granted a patent. Therefore only natural persons can be granted a patent. A patent holder can then assign his rights to an organization but there is simply no way the US government can file for a patent. What part of "OWN" dont you understand. Did you see the name of the patent OWNER on RealOne's threads. And owned by RealOne and me in the same thread....take that leave...Weiner can use the company. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks/antiplas.jpg[/image] Thats correct, the assignee is the owner and holder of the rights title and interest unless otherwise stipulated, in this case the dept of human and health services. If there is no contingency or stip the guv then has total right title and interest in the patent and the inventor has no say in the matter at that point what so ever. telling ya all its nasty biznezz and how they get around the constitution, perfect example

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 1:13:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Thats correct, the assignee is the owner and holder of the rights title and interest unless otherwise stipulated, in this case the dept of human and health services. If there is no contingency or stip the guv then has total right title and interest in the patent and the inventor has no say in the matter at that point what so ever. telling ya all its nasty biznezz and how they get around the constitution, perfect example Thats where we depart. there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Real0ne -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 1:16:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I guess I have to say it again, only a natural person can apply for and be awarded a patent. Employees, including government employees, can, as part of their employment contracts, be required to assign any patents they receive to their employer but the patent holder remains the person. No organization can obtain a patent. the guv, then becomes the holder in due course,without looking and a guess, ucc 3.305,306 roughly, with full enforcement rights of the instrument. In other words you are playing with a technicality and what is syntax terrorism against the people as it requires the people to either be a fucking lawyer or forces them to hire one just to walk and chew bubble gum. ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact there are 60 million fucking laws is irrelevant.

Real0ne -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 1:18:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Thats correct, the assignee is the owner and holder of the rights title and interest unless otherwise stipulated, in this case the dept of human and health services. If there is no contingency or stip the guv then has total right title and interest in the patent and the inventor has no say in the matter at that point what so ever. telling ya all its nasty biznezz and how they get around the constitution, perfect example Thats where we depart. there is nothing unconstitutional about it. the conversion requirement is, not specifically on that topic but it works the same elsewhere, where it is unconstitutional.

mnottertail -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 1:47:47 PM)
bullshit. there is no coercion. both parties gain in the contract. nothing unconstitutional.

jlf1961 -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 2:32:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Obviously no point in any further discussion. You simply don't know what you're talking about... "steal" is the implication of filing 11 Patents on someone else's work (which the FDA did)... a couple hundred people doesn't/wouldn't cut mustard as a drug trial goes... and yeah, there's plenty of research on CoQ10, but they're silent on it. Believe what you want to believe... you couldn't be more wrong about soooooo many things. [8\|] What part of "A government agency cannot hold a patent" do you not understand? RealOne's post sufficiently showed it's YOU that is sorely lacking in understanding. [8\|] I posted directly from the patent law. Only a NATURAL person can own a patent, they can ASSIGN the rights to a company OR agency. If Real had any idea what the law said, or the true meaning of the term, he would not be near as funny. As it is, he is nothing more than a troll. Read the law, quite being a sock puppet for a member of the lunatic fringe.

DomKen -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 2:43:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I posted directly from the patent law. Only a NATURAL person can own a patent, they can ASSIGN the rights to a company OR agency. If Real had any idea what the law said, or the true meaning of the term, he would not be near as funny. As it is, he is nothing more than a troll. Read the law, quite being a sock puppet for a member of the lunatic fringe. THIS!

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 2:54:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Save yourself from futher embarrasment and stop posting -- especially to me. You've been proven wrong. [8\|]

Kirata -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 3:34:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Only a NATURAL person can own a patent, they can ASSIGN the rights... THIS! You are both wrong. USPO Ownership/Assignability "Assignment," in general, is the act of transferring to another the ownership of one's property, i.e., the interest and rights to the property. In 37 CFR 3.1, assignment of patent rights is defined as "a transfer by a party of all or part of its right, title and interest in a patent or patent application...." An assignment of a patent, or patent application, is the transfer to another of a party's entire ownership interest or a percentage of that party's ownership interest in the patent or application. Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations § 3.73 Establishing right of assignee to take action. (a) The inventor is presumed to be the owner of a patent application, and any patent that may issue therefrom, unless there is an assignment. The original applicant is presumed to be the owner of a trademark application or registration, unless there is an assignment. (b) (1) In order to request or take action in a patent or trademark matter, the assignee must establish its ownership of the patent or trademark property of paragraph (a) of this section to the satisfaction of the Director. The establishment of ownership by the assignee may be combined with the paper that requests or takes the action. Ownership is established by submitting to the Office a signed statement identifying the assignee, accompanied by either: (i) Documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee (e.g., copy of an executed assignment)... (ii) A statement specifying where documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee is recorded in the assignment records of the Office (e.g., reel and frame number)... Are we done now? K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/13/2011 3:37:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Only a NATURAL person can own a patent, they can ASSIGN the rights... THIS! You are both wrong. USPO Ownership/Assignability "Assignment," in general, is the act of transferring to another the ownership of one's property, i.e., the interest and rights to the property. In 37 CFR 3.1, assignment of patent rights is defined as "a transfer by a party of all or part of its right, title and interest in a patent or patent application...." An assignment of a patent, or patent application, is the transfer to another of a party's entire ownership interest or a percentage of that party's ownership interest in the patent or application. Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations § 3.73 Establishing right of assignee to take action. (a) The inventor is presumed to be the owner of a patent application, and any patent that may issue therefrom, unless there is an assignment. The original applicant is presumed to be the owner of a trademark application or registration, unless there is an assignment. (b) (1) In order to request or take action in a patent or trademark matter, the assignee must establish its ownership of the patent or trademark property of paragraph (a) of this section to the satisfaction of the Director. The establishment of ownership by the assignee may be combined with the paper that requests or takes the action. Ownership is established by submitting to the Office a signed statement identifying the assignee, accompanied by either: (i) Documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee (e.g., copy of an executed assignment)... (ii) A statement specifying where documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee is recorded in the assignment records of the Office (e.g., reel and frame number)... Are we done now? K. Now just loop back to the Executive order and voila, the US government OWNS more patents than any other person or entity as a result.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875