Subject:
|
Re: Lego Protocol Patent
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:14:20 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Paul Speed <PSPEED@AUGUSTSCHELLavoidspam.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
867 times
|
| |
|
|
Chris Phillips wrote:
>
> In lugnet.robotics, Dave Baum writes:
> >
> > 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 expected to come up with the same solution,
> > then the invention is not novel enough to be patenable.
> >
> > In practice, the US Patent Office is backlogged and appears to be in the
> > mode of just taking the filing fee and approving the patent after a
> > somewhat narrow and cursory prior art search. Granted its tough to be
> > comprehensive in these things, but some of the allowed patents are
> > pathetic.
> >
> > However, getting a patent and being able to enforce it are entirely
> > different matters. The reduced amount of screening up front has simply
> > moved the "prior art" problem to the courts where it gets sorted out amid
> > huge legal fees.
> >
> > I only read through the first few claims, but they all seemed to be overly
> > broad, and easily refuted by prior art. A narrow enough claim may not
> > directly conflict with other work, but then it may still be similar enough
> > to be ruled out as "obvious".
>
> 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.
Not true. Each claim acts as its own mini-patent.
For an accessible article and discussion, check out:
http://slashdot.org/features/99/10/19/1032254.shtml
For the comments section make sure to set it sort high
moderation scores to the top... otherwise it will take years to
weed through.
-Paul (pspeed@progeeks.com, http://www.progeeks.com/)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
