 | | RE: Lego Protocol Patent
|
| (...) Good grief! Maybe I should get involved in patent law (or at least spec'ing for patent lawyers). Honestly, the basic protocol that is described has been implemented LOTS of times in small proprietary projects. In fact, the fire alarm system (...) (25 years ago, 3-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Lego Protocol Patent
|
| (...) I agree with everything you've said, Ralph. My turn to say somthing about patents. I know the job of being a patent clerk must be amazingly difficult -- how can any person possibly know about enough prior art to tell the obvious from the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Lego Protocol Patent
|
| (...) In theory, patents are only allowed for inventions that are "novel and unique". This means that if someone trained in a given field, with access to all published literature and knowledge, when faced with the same problem could reasonably be (...) (25 years ago, 4-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Lego Protocol Patent
|
| (...) I agree. But I'm pretty sure that a patent only prevents someone else from doing everything mentioned in _all_ of the claims put together. For example, if I were granted a patent containing two claims: 1. Walking 2. Chewing gum. ...then I (...) (25 years ago, 4-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Lego Protocol Patent
|
| (...) Not true. Each claim acts as its own mini-patent. For an accessible article and discussion, check out: (URL) the comments section make sure to set it sort high moderation scores to the top... otherwise it will take years to weed through. -Paul (...) (25 years ago, 4-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
