Religious people get very little reps, it's xenophobia and religionism.

[brewer]

Is this the same buy where god sent you $8000 thru accounting errors?

Don't tell me that drippy paid for a house with money he knew he received in error.  Because that is theft, and drippy, being the bestest christian, would never steal.

I'm not sure it was for the house (he was buying/paying off something) but drich admitted that the money didn't come from him, he didn't know the source, yet he accepted it claiming a blessing from god.

I'm not sure it rises to the level of theft but certainly is evidence of disturbed ethics.

[The Grand Nudger]

Don’t worry his soul and ethics are clear, at least on that count, as he never got that money through an accounting error or otherwise.

[Deesse23]

Don't tell me that drippy paid for a house with money he knew he received in error.  Because that is theft, and drippy, being the bestest christian, would never steal.

...unless his big daddy will tell him so.

[Drich]

At work.

 Uhm.... some one please correct me if I'm wrong but aren't patents like, totally open to scrutiny once,  y'know, applied for/filed?

 Like the German's having full access to Whittle's  turbine ideas once the patent office granted it in 1930 something? (As an example)?

 Or that the really complex formula for WD40 has never been actually patented.  Hence why it's a huge industrial secret. Hence the physical moving of said document from one secure location to another actually made the news.

An 'NDA' isn't/shouldn't do squat for or against publuc disclosure?

What am I not grokking here?

 Cheers.

Correct. Also, the "Inventor(s)" field will not change regardless of how many times it is sold.

this would be true if both patents were non provisional. if provisional patent was purchased by a larger company their non provisional would supersede my work, and they could attribute anyone they wanted as inventors or co inventors.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh just link to someone else’s patent and pretend that it’s your own, already.

You can either feign concern about revealing your name or insist that your name isn’t on it, but it’s not like anyone would have known either way in any event. Pointless, as always.

[no one]

If you thought the bearded lady or siamese twins were a sight to behold, just wait until you see drick and his Everest dwarfing mountain of horseshit.

[Drich]

talk to your boy ran-i-corn once he makes a decision as to whether or not we can all move forward we will. or you can keep hiding from the truth.

He is not preventing you from disclosing the patent number.  You can, you choose not to do so.  Your tedious refusal simply makes it clear that you probably can't.

no he wanted to discuss the technical details of the invention. he made a lot of foolish assumptions and flat out lied to try and discredit my work. i will not allow this discussion to continue till he concedes his mistake. if he or any of you want to judge my work i left a test in my first post discussing this. if you show yourselves worthy of this privileged information then i would be happy to share. via pm. however if you show yourself to be untrustworthy i will not openly post details to my personal self or business be privy to people who openly hate me. 

I actually have two to share a provisional i did myself, and the larger corporate non-provisional patent which still belongs to a large international corporation.

[Ranjr]

You never described your work or answered my original question.  You wrote a wall of nonsense which discredited itself.  All you had to do was say "I designed and built a <hardware description> that <task description>.  Now, you're stacking lies on lies for all to see.

[Pat Mustard]

Don't tell me that drippy paid for a house with money he knew he received in error.  Because that is theft, and drippy, being the bestest christian, would never steal.

I'm not sure it was for the house (he was buying/paying off something) but drich admitted that the money didn't come from him, he didn't know the source, yet he accepted it claiming a blessing from god.

I'm not sure it rises to the level of theft but certainly is evidence of disturbed ethics.

Over here using money you don't know where you got it from is most definitely a theft, especially in the kinds of ways you're going to find c. €6750 (i.e. not down the back of your couch). If such a sum of money turns up in your bank account you're legally obliged to report it and if you find such a sum of money you're legally obliged to hand it in to a Garda station (if the cash remains unclaimed and it cannot be shown to be the proceeds of crime, after c. a year the money is returned to the finder). If you use the money without reporting it first and getting the all clear, it's theft.

[Drich]