Subject:
|
Re: Lego patents
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Dec 2001 19:14:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
553 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, "Scott D. Yelich" <scott@scottyelich.com> writes:
> Actually, the distinction is simple... the legos are what is used to
> implement the invention -- the patent would surely not claim that the
> invention is due to the legos and is confined to existing only when
> implemented with legos.
This bears repeating, and ought to be heeded by those who wish to teach IP
law or speak about it and be taken seriously... the correct term is a lot
closer to "LEGO(r) brick" or "LEGO brand building element" than it is to
"legos", and if you use the term incorrectly (signifying that you either do
not *understand* or do not *respect* trademark law) why should LEGO or
anyone else take whatever you say about patent law seriously?
The original questioner made this mistake as well.
It is one thing to be incorrect about it while speaking jocularly among
friends, or off topic, but if the topic *itself* is IP law, why then, it's
very dilutive of your standing to make such a mistake.
To your point, though, I could conceive of an invention, building on prior
art, which was a unique arrangement of elements that performed some useful
or novel function and which could not be achieved in any other realisation,
because it depended on some patented feature of the elements themselves.
I can CONCEIVE of such an invention but I can't think of an example. But
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lego patents
|
| (...) Actually, the distinction is simple... the legos are what is used to implement the invention -- the patent would surely not claim that the invention is due to the legos and is confined to existing only when implemented with legos. With that (...) (23 years ago, 27-Dec-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
