Al Johnson wrote: > On Thursday 05 February 2009, Helge Hafting wrote: >> arne anka wrote: >>>> (http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2009012 >>>> 344A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090122&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_US) >>> i didn't read it fully, but how does that differ from a simple hub or the >>> common docking station well known to notebook users? and it what respect >>> exactly is it not obvious? >> Yeah, it is jsut like the docking stations used for laptops. >> Doing exactly the same with a *phone*, now that phones almost are >> notebooks - wasn't obvious to microsoft or that patent office, it seems. > > The patent office sees obviousness differently to engineers. Having a patent > for something on a tractor for a particular reason doesn't stop someone > getting a patent on the exact same thing for the same reason on a fork lift. > Somehow it isn't obvious that if it works in one situation it'll also work in > a similar one. They see moving the idea from one type of vehicle to another > as > an inventive step rather than an application of the blindingly obvious.
Hm. But in that case, I won't be infringing if I do the same thing on a car. The tractor guy only has a patent for tractor application. So perhaps a cradle for an _open source_ phone isn't covered then. :-) Or maybe an "openmoko communication device". It isn't a phone, it is a thing that has phone capabilities as one of many uses. Helge Hafting _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
