There's a difference between pointing out the existence of a similar comment on the post and stating that I have stolen the comment. Assumptions can make fools of us all.
How do you suggest that I make it clear? Keybase doesn't allow for G+ verification.
Prior art continues to be a basis for invalidating a patent: the prior disclosure of an invention to the public invalidates a later patent. All first to file does is change the rule for deciding who gets priority in the unusual case where there are simultaneous patent applications before the PTO. Before, there was an inquiry into who was the first to reduce the invention to practice. Now, priority goes to the first to file. But a patent still cannot be issued if the invention was previously disclosed to the public either by the inventor (outside the one-year grace period), or by someone else.
"Under the U.S. first to file system the inventor will still have a personal grace-period, which is not available to inventors outside the U.S. in many countries that follow a more traditional formulation of the first to file rule. This personal grace-period says that the inventor’s own disclosures, or the disclosures of others who have derived from the inventor, are not used as prior art as long as they occurred within 12 months of the filing date of a patent application relating to the invention. However, and this is a very big however, disclosures of third-parties who independently arrived at the invention information will be used against the inventor unless the disclosure is of the same subject matter. Said another way, there is virtually no chance that a grace-period will exist relative to third party, independently created disclosures."
Prior art indeed does invalidate the ability to patent something, unless the prior art was yours, and you patented said art within 12 months of its disclosure.
70 story high rise in Atherton and Belmont! That will be the day :-)
I quite liked the Peninsula. SF wasn't really my cup of tea. God forbid people like me that lived on the Cliffs of Despair (Pacifica) and were relatively happy.
Sales reset the property taxes on properties. It was one of a few reasons I didn't buy a home in the Bay Area a few years back. Probably should have, my buddy that bought his house for 500k in the city is sitting on probably 1.2-1.4m now. Not bad for 3-4 years appreciation.
Depends on how you define success and failure. I've had 7 failed startups (#8 is in the process of failing at the moment). I consider them all failures because I didn't end up with FU money. Funny thing is startup 6 & 7 really got me close.
Although, even if I won a billion dollar lottery, I'd still move on to startup #9. Half the fun is in the building anyway :-)
Agree that fun is in building the companies. But how long can you afford keep doing it (assuming you have family/commitment)? Success is what i call, you can keep doing what you like, not dependent on money, etc - iow, financial independence.
BTW, would be interesting to know the geographies of people who comment in this thread - say SF Bay Area, TX, MA, etc. That really adds new perspective to this discussion. My 2c.
I live in Oklahoma currently. I have done 5 of the startups in OK, one in CA (SF) and one in Texas.
You make choices in life and there are tradeoffs. I don't have kids nor do I anticipate having any. If they come, so be it. I partially left the Bay Area because I couldn't see even raising a hypothetical family there. That, the sticker shock never completely wore off and I never donned my rose colored glasses either :-)
I can afford to do it until the day I die. I've set myself up rather nicely in that regard. I'd be retired already if it weren't for my startups & first marriage. But being retired in your mid 30s sounds boring as well (I'm in my 40s now). However, I waffle on that position, so take it with a grain of salt.
American Indian tribes/nations have this down too. Chickasaw is booming here in Oklahoma. That doesn't count all the casinos where money is flowing out the back doors as well.
