Albert Einstein, Esq.

Albert Einstein’s 1905 paper setting forth the special theory of relativity is one of the most famous scientific articles ever written. Peter Galison’s influential book, Einstein’s Clocks, Poincaré’s Maps: Empires of Time (2003), demonstrates that Einstein’s paper was fundamentally shaped by his work as a patent examiner by showing that arguments previously seen as abstract thought experiments were instead derived from Einstein’s work on patent applications for devices that coordinate clocks. Moving beyond Galison’s insights, we can see portions of Einstein’s paper as reflecting the quasi-judicial role of a patent examiner. Like trial judges, patent examiners must apply settled legal principles to new factual settings. A close look at the structure of the 1905 paper shows a similar effort to apply settled physical principles to an open problem. Einstein’s own writings show how he appreciated the analysis of “concrete cases” found in legal materials

Boundary Condition Adjustment Methods And Systems

Methods and systems for reactor lattice depletion are disclosed. One exemplary method, among others, comprises the steps of defining a reactor eigenvalue, the reactor eigenvalue being a specified ratio of actual neutron production to loss in the reactor; producing a lattice eigenvalue, the lattice eigenvalue being an estimated ratio of neutron production to loss in the lattice; and adjusting a boundary condition of the lattice to cause convergence of the lattice eigenvalue and the reactor eigenvalue in order to produce at least one physics parameter.Georgia Tech Research Corporatio

Does Information Beget Information?

Using the language of mathematics, Professor Polk Wagner has recently argued that the impossibility of fully appropriating the value of information in a rightsholder leads to the surprising conclusion that expanding the degree of control of intellectual property rights will, in the long run, increase the sum total of information not subject to ownership claims and therefore available as part of the cultural and technological base on which new growth and development can occur. Indeed, he claims that open information will grow according to the formula for compound interest, where the interest rate is 100% plus or minus a factor z supposedly related to creation incentives. This article demonstrates that Professor Wagner’s mathematical analysis is simply wrong and does not lead to any of the conclusions he reaches concerning the growth of open information. It also shows both the difficulties and the dangers of the lay use of the language of mathematics in resolving complex social problems even if one does the math correctly

On The Foundations of Digital Games

Computers have lead to a revolution in the games we play, and, following this, an interest for computer-based games has been sparked in research communities. However, this easily leads to the perception of a one-way direction of influence between that the field of game research and computer science. This historical investigation points towards a deep and intertwined relationship between research on games and the development of computers, giving a richer picture of both fields. While doing so, an overview of early game research is presented and an argument made that the distinction between digital games and non-digital games may be counter-productive to game research as a whole

Physicality in Australian patent law

It is generally understood that the patent system exists to encourage the conception and disclosure of new and useful inventions embodied in machines and other physical devices, along with new methods that physically transform matter from one state to another. What is not well understood is whether, and to what extent, the patent system is to encourage and protect the conception and disclosure of inventions that are non-physical methods – namely those that do not result in a physical transformation of matter. This issue was considered in Grant v Commissioner of Patents. In that case the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that an invention must involve a physical effect or transformation to be patentable subject matter. In doing so, it introduced a physicality requirement into Australian law. What this article seeks to establish is whether the court’s decision is consistent with the case law on point. It does so by examining the key common law cases that followed the High Court’s watershed decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, the undisputed authoritative statement of principle in regard to the patentable subject matter standard in Australia. This is done with a view to determining whether there is anything in those cases that supports the view that the Australian patentable subject matter test contains a physicality requirement

Self-collimated unstable resonator semiconductor laser

Self-collimation of the output is achieved in an unstable resonator semiconductor laser by providing a large concave mirror M sub 1 and a small convex mirror M sub 2 on opposite surfaces of a semiconductor body of a material having an effective index of refraction denoted by n, where the respective mirror radii R sub 1, R sub 2 and beam radii r sub 1, r sub 2 are chosen to satisfy a condition (R sub 2)/(1 + r sub 1) = (n - 1)/n, with a value of geometric magnification 1 less than or equal to M less than or equal to (n + 1)/(n - 1) where r sub 1 and r sub 2 are the radii of counterpropagating beams at respective mirrors of radii R sub 1 and R sub 2