2015.08.27 Curtis Wayne Wright: Charged with Murder in the 2nd Degree

[human]

It is interesting that CWW is defended so intensely.

MS loves him like a bro.

Skinner is very impressed with him.

I wonder what he has that is so attractive in that he is a POI in one murder, wouldn't pay back money on a car to RB, was into meth and has lots of other charges,and is arrested for a brutal murder.

I don't understand the charm

 

[Webjunkie]

No worries. Just wondering why this website leaves out his first name (Curtis).

He went by Wayne to those who knew him.

 

[relay]

He went by Wayne to those who knew him.

By chance, do you know him?

 

[Webjunkie]

Not really

 

[relay]

Not really

Have you met or had contact with him? Or, do you know someone who knows him?

 

[PeskySlueth]

And MS' (current) nickname on FB is "Smiley."

I find his 2nd quote 'about me' very telling. I have crossed paths before with a couple of people that could never hold a job - either was fired or left in a huff....they always thought EVERYONE IS AN IDIOT. In fact one of them recently posted something like 'stupid people shouldn't breed' ...

 

[SeesSeas]

Hi Skinner, it was me who was so sure that as an inventor, CWW would be listed on the patent. In my experience, anyone who contributed in a meaningful way to the development of what is patented, has their name listed. I stand by this statement.

Let's go back to the original bio claim:
In 2000, Wright created an internationally distributed patent pending commercial web application allowing fully interactive dynamic e-commerce web sites to be created in minutes for the restaurant industry.

I think what you're trying to say is you (wrote?) and filed the application and decided to keep CWW's name off the application. Patent owner and inventor are two different areas - they are not always the same, so while you may be the sole owner of the invention, CWW could be listed as an inventor. I have found no proof that CWW is listed on any patent application, and while this may have been a personal choice, the fact is that CWW doesn't have a patent if he isn't listed on the application, for whatever reason.

I am unclear how your statement that you are the sole owner of the "invention", makes my claim that any inventor who contributes to the development of a PATENT is credited as an inventor (not OWNER) on said patent. If you chose not to give credit to CWW as an inventor on YOUR application, why give him credit now?

The way I understand it is that Skinner came up with an idea, created flow charts and a blueprint for the idea; he then “hired” experts to create a web application based on his flow charts and blueprint. While there are often many who contribute to the development of a patent, the names of the worker bees aren’t typically listed as patent owner or inventor.

Skinner “So I contracted with Wayne and his partner's company to bring my invention to life, but in the contract I was sole owner with all rights. That is why Wayne's name does not show up in the Patent search,”

Skinner’s idea is the invention, so Skinner is the inventor. Skinner acknowledges “I had basic computer programming skills, but not the type of skill necessary to bring my application to life on the internet. Few did, nor do.“
Skinner then contracted with CWW (IT expert), and his partner’s company, to create the invention. Apparently, Wayne and his partner's company were the ones who had the “type of skill necessary to bring my application to life on the internet”

= = = =
I had my idea in the mid-1980's, prior to the advent of the world wide web (www) protocol. The www protocol came about in 1990. I continued to develop my idea on paper and add flow charts and blueprints. By the late 1990's, nobody on the web was doing what my invention was to do.

I had basic computer programming skills, but not the type of skill necessary to bring my application to life on the internet. Few did, nor do.

When Wayne saw my flow charts and blueprint for the idea, he said "Wow. I think you're really onto something here." And he loved the challenge of bringing it to life. Even to this day, my invention remains state-of-the-art, and is not being done properly by companies, who still do not understand the proper ideas, nor the technology that should be in place to give them great profits and super customer service.

So I contracted with Wayne and his partner's company to bring my invention to life, but in the contract I was sole owner with all rights. That is why Wayne's name does not show up in the Patent search, and why the idea that somebody working on a patent will have their name on the application process, is simply not true.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...uding-MS-speculation)&p=12099358#post12099358

 

[creepingskills]

The way I understand it is that Skinner came up with an idea, created flow charts and a blueprint for the idea; he then “hired” experts to create a web application based on his flow charts and blueprint. While there are often many who contribute to the development of a patent, the names of the worker bees aren’t typically listed as patent owner or inventor.
<snipped for space>

Respectfully, SeesSeas, I disagree. The software patent process is typically just what you described, there is a great idea in abstract form but in order to bring that idea to life, engineers are required. The 'idea' people and a team of engineers sit in a big room and the idea is discussed, and then the engineers create the product. Those 'bee' workers are always credited or they would have no real incentive to produce the most cutting edge work. Also, when the patent attorneys sit down to actually write the claims of the patent, the engineers are the only ones who can accurately and technically describe the invention. I don't want to derail this thread into a summary on patent process, but the 'claims' of a patent can not be written by lay people like me. Even if I had the original idea. If you read any software patent, you'll see what I'm trying to explain.

 

[Riversinthedesert]

It is interesting that CWW is defended so intensely.

MS loves him like a bro.

Skinner is very impressed with him.

I wonder what he has that is so attractive in that he is a POI in one murder, wouldn't pay back money on a car to RB, was into meth and has lots of other charges,and is arrested for a brutal murder.

I don't understand the charm

Psychopaths can be very charming.

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard for other people&#8217;s rights, often crossing the line and violating those rights. It usually begins in childhood or as a teen and continues into their adult lives.

Antisocial personality disorder is often referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy in popular culture. However, neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are recognized professional labels used for diagnosis.

Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal (e.g., feel that ordinary work is beneath them or lack a realistic concern about their current problems or their future) and may be excessively opinionated, self-assured, or cocky. They may display a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile (e.g., using technical terms or jargon that might impress someone who is unfamiliar with the topic).

Lack of empathy, inflated self-appraisal, and superficial charm are features that have been commonly included in traditional conceptions of psychopathy and may be particularly distinguishing of Antisocial Personality Disorder in prison or forensic settings where criminal, delinquent, or aggressive acts are likely to be nonspecific. These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships.

A personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates from the norm of the individual&#8217;s culture. The pattern is seen in two or more of the following areas: cognition; affect; interpersonal functioning; or impulse control. The enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations. It typically leads to significant distress or impairment in social, work or other areas of functioning. The pattern is stable and of long duration, and its onset can be traced back to early adulthood or adolescence.
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/antisocial-personality-disorder-symptoms/

 

[debbiegarcia36]

On the account...I'm curious who donated $10,000 on September 24, and posted it anonymously? 3 days BEFORE the arrest??

If it was after the arrest I might speculate JR'S GF giving back the money. Interesting for sure.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[SeesSeas]

It is not CWW's resume, its a bio where he claimed to be the creator of an internationally distributed patent pending commercial web app. Creator = inventor. As you've said, CWW is the person who brought your idea to life. He created it. Much different from saying you're working on or helping to develop.

Its not a leap. If CWW claims to have CREATED a patent pending web app, it follows that if in fact an application was filed, his name would be listed as an inventor. Its not an assumption, its a basic tenant of patent law.

This is the way I see it………….
An invention is the IDEA. To create is the EXECUTION of that idea.

 

[SeesSeas]

Respectfully, SeesSeas, I disagree. The software patent process is typically just what you described, there is a great idea in abstract form but in order to bring that idea to life, engineers are required. The 'idea' people and a team of engineers sit in a big room and the idea is discussed, and then the engineers create the product. Those 'bee' workers are always credited or they would have no real incentive to produce the most cutting edge work. Also, when the patent attorneys sit down to actually write the claims of the patent, the engineers are the only ones who can accurately and technically describe the invention. I don't want to derail this thread into a summary on patent process, but the 'claims' of a patent can not be written by lay people like me. Even if I had the original idea. If you read any software patent, you'll see what I'm trying to explain.

I agree to disagree creepingskills. I&#8217;ll briefly explain my personal knowledge about inventions and patents.
<modsnip>

I worked for an international manufacturing company where the inventor of devices, primarily flow meters, is the only name on the patents for his ideas that he &#8220;invented&#8221;. The ideas of this one man are the reason the company was originally established with an investor who believed in the concepts of the inventor. But he, the inventor, didn&#8217;t *create* the product which he invented.

What started as a 2-person partnership is now, 30 years later, an international company which locally employs about 100 people, including 5 engineers for R&D. The original inventor keeps inventing. He is the sole owner and sole name on his inventions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The corporate name is listed as Assignee.

The names of the R&D engineers have never been on any of the patents. The inventor owns all of the patents, even though others helped in the development and creation of the devices sold by this outstanding company which has huge profits.

Here is one example of what I&#8217;ve just described &#8211; United States Patent 8,544,342
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=onicon&OS=onicon&RS=onicon

 

[creepingskills]

Snipped by me for space

What's to stop any of us from putting something like that on our resumes since it can't be proved if we're not named on it or have something legitimate to back up that claim?

People can lie, of course. Typically, one taking credit for the creation of a patent pending web application would not lie about this fact because the patent application process creates a legitimate "back up", proof of the claim. If patents only listed the owner, the entity with vested legal rights, then yes, these kind of lies, taking credit for others work, it would be rampant. I could claim to have invented the iPhone, but you could simply check the multitude of patents held by Apple that together = the iPhone. But that's why we have the USPTO. There is a system in place to ensure credit is properly attributed no matter how many contributors there may be and it is easily verifiable, on purpose.

Also, again I don't want to bore everyone about patent prosecution (taking a patent to issue/granted status) which is different than patent litigation (patent owner suing another patent owner for infringement on one or all claims in first patent). However, I will point out that its highly common for owners of tech patents to sue another patent owner for essentially "stealing" their idea. There is a lot of debate out there whether 'patent trolls' (highly litigious wealthy patent holders) are inhibiting the growth of new ideas by suing competitor (usually small company) patent owners, or simply buying the competing patents. I'm explaining this because during the patent litigation process, it becomes so important that the listed inventors are an accurate representation of who worked on the patent. From both perspectives, the patent owner being sued and the patent owner doing the suing, you want to have all your ducks in row. You can't say at the litigation stage, but wait! X actually developed the technical process and we would like him to explain why its different (or similar) to the second patent.

Patent owners aim to be over inclusive rather than exclusive because say the key engineer does not get credited on Company X's patent, he leaves and starts working on an invention for Company Y. Company Y submits an application crediting the engineer. Company X has much stronger case against Company Y when Company Y's patent is at the publication stage, before it issues. They can nip it in the bud before the patent ever comes into existence. So basically, its cost effective for both sides to be complete and accurate listing inventors. Company Y won't waste money pursuing a patent that will be rejected because the engineer actually "invented" at Company X, and Company X probably won't have to prepare to sue on the patent, post publication, which is very costly.

 

[SeesSeas]

People can lie, of course. Typically, one taking credit for the creation of a patent pending web application would not lie about this fact because the patent application process creates a legitimate "back up", proof of the claim. If patents only listed the owner, the entity with vested legal rights, then yes, these kind of lies, taking credit for others work, it would be rampant. I could claim to have invented the iPhone, but you could simply check the multitude of patents held by Apple that together = the iPhone. But that's why we have the USPTO. There is a system in place to ensure credit is properly attributed no matter how many contributors there may be and it is easily verifiable, on purpose.

Also, again I don't want to bore everyone about patent prosecution (taking a patent to issue/granted status) which is different than patent litigation (patent owner suing another patent owner for infringement on one or all claims in first patent). However, I will point out that its highly common for owners of tech patents to sue another patent owner for essentially "stealing" their idea. There is a lot of debate out there whether 'patent trolls' (highly litigious wealthy patent holders) are inhibiting the growth of new ideas by suing competitor (usually small company) patent owners, or simply buying the competing patents. I'm explaining this because during the patent litigation process, it becomes so important that the listed inventors are an accurate representation of who worked on the patent. From both perspectives, the patent owner being sued and the patent owner doing the suing, you want to have all your ducks in row. You can't say at the litigation stage, but wait! X actually developed the technical process and we would like him to explain why its different (or similar) to the second patent.

Patent owners aim to be over inclusive rather than exclusive because say the key engineer does not get credited on Company X's patent, he leaves and starts working on an invention for Company Y. Company Y submits an application crediting the engineer. Company X has much stronger case against Company Y when Company Y's patent is at the publication stage, before it issues. They can nip it in the bud before the patent ever comes into existence. So basically, its cost effective for both sides to be complete and accurate listing inventors. Company Y won't waste money pursuing a patent that will be rejected because the engineer actually "invented" at Company X, and Company X probably won't have to prepare to sue on the patent, post publication, which is very costly.

An invention is the IDEA. To create is the EXECUTION of that idea.
Skinner was the inventor. CWW created.

 

[debbiegarcia36]

Psychopaths can be very charming.

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard for other people’s rights, often crossing the line and violating those rights. It usually begins in childhood or as a teen and continues into their adult lives.

Antisocial personality disorder is often referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy in popular culture. However, neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are recognized professional labels used for diagnosis.

Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal (e.g., feel that ordinary work is beneath them or lack a realistic concern about their current problems or their future) and may be excessively opinionated, self-assured, or cocky. They may display a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile (e.g., using technical terms or jargon that might impress someone who is unfamiliar with the topic).

Lack of empathy, inflated self-appraisal, and superficial charm are features that have been commonly included in traditional conceptions of psychopathy and may be particularly distinguishing of Antisocial Personality Disorder in prison or forensic settings where criminal, delinquent, or aggressive acts are likely to be nonspecific. These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships.

A personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates from the norm of the individual’s culture. The pattern is seen in two or more of the following areas: cognition; affect; interpersonal functioning; or impulse control. The enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations. It typically leads to significant distress or impairment in social, work or other areas of functioning. The pattern is stable and of long duration, and its onset can be traced back to early adulthood or adolescence.
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/antisocial-personality-disorder-symptoms/

Great info. I agree CWW definitely displays a form of personality disorder. Although CWW may be a brilliant computer genius his intelligence IMO (based on his arrest record) doesn't necessarily equate to being a good law abiding citizen. IMO Skinner is focusing on CWW'S computer genius while the rest of us are focusing on that dark passenger CWW carries around.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[creepingskills]

An invention is the IDEA. To create is the EXECUTION of that idea.
Skinner was the inventor. CWW created.

We could go around in circles about what an 'invention' is, who qualifies as in inventor. An idea is just an idea. A patent, like the one at issue here, is not an idea, its a series of 'claims' that describe a novel process.

&#8220;Any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof&#8221; 35 U.S.C. § 101

What is NOT a patentable:
Ideas
Scientific Principals
Methods of doing business
Natural Substances

 

[FelicityLemon]

People can lie, of course. Typically, one taking credit for the creation of a patent pending web application would not lie about this fact because the patent application process creates a legitimate "back up", proof of the claim. If patents only listed the owner, the entity with vested legal rights, then yes, these kind of lies, taking credit for others work, it would be rampant. I could claim to have invented the iPhone, but you could simply check the multitude of patents held by Apple that together = the iPhone. But that's why we have the USPTO. There is a system in place to ensure credit is properly attributed no matter how many contributors there may be and it is easily verifiable, on purpose.

Also, again I don't want to bore everyone about patent prosecution (taking a patent to issue/granted status) which is different than patent litigation (patent owner suing another patent owner for infringement on one or all claims in first patent). However, I will point out that its highly common for owners of tech patents to sue another patent owner for essentially "stealing" their idea. There is a lot of debate out there whether 'patent trolls' (highly litigious wealthy patent holders) are inhibiting the growth of new ideas by suing competitor (usually small company) patent owners, or simply buying the competing patents. I'm explaining this because during the patent litigation process, it becomes so important that the listed inventors are an accurate representation of who worked on the patent. From both perspectives, the patent owner being sued and the patent owner doing the suing, you want to have all your ducks in row. You can't say at the litigation stage, but wait! X actually developed the technical process and we would like him to explain why its different (or similar) to the second patent.

Patent owners aim to be over inclusive rather than exclusive because say the key engineer does not get credited on Company X's patent, he leaves and starts working on an invention for Company Y. Company Y submits an application crediting the engineer. Company X has much stronger case against Company Y when Company Y's patent is at the publication stage, before it issues. They can nip it in the bud before the patent ever comes into existence. So basically, its cost effective for both sides to be complete and accurate listing inventors. Company Y won't waste money pursuing a patent that will be rejected because the engineer actually "invented" at Company X, and Company X probably won't have to prepare to sue on the patent, post publication, which is very costly.

Thank you very much; I very much appreciate your explanation!! The patent issue can be confusing and frustrating and it's compounded by the who-did-what part of it.

 

[LaLaw2000]

We could go around in circles about what an 'invention' is, who qualifies as in inventor. An idea is just an idea. A patent, like the one at issue here, is not an idea, its a series of 'claims' that describe a novel process.

“Any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof” 35 U.S.C. § 101

What is NOT a patentable:
Ideas
Scientific Principals
Methods of doing business
Natural Substances

BBM:
And THAT is what I think it boiled down to being - methods of doing business.

 

[SeesSeas]

We could go around in circles about what an 'invention' is, who qualifies as in inventor. An idea is just an idea. A patent, like the one at issue here, is not an idea, its a series of 'claims' that describe a novel process.

&#8220;Any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof&#8221; 35 U.S.C. § 101

What is NOT a patentable:
Ideas
Scientific Principals
Methods of doing business
Natural Substances

True - the idea all by itself isn&#8217;t the &#8216;invention&#8217;. But the idea is the philosophy and intellectual property of the inventor. The inventor then hires others to put the idea into concrete action, to &#8216;create&#8217; and &#8216;develop&#8217;.

The inventor doesn&#8217;t owe the developers or creators anything but what was promised when they were hired, or contracted, to help create and develop. Just because they helped doesn&#8217;t mean they get their name on the patent as 'inventor'.

 

[DexterMorgan]

The idea is absolutely nothing without the engineer. Nothing at all. So the patent owner should put the actual master mind down to help eliminate a freelance engineer from wanting to jump ship to the competition. Jmo