"Chris T. Daida" wrote:
> Then how does Amazon get away with patenting 1-Click? That's a
> feature--certainly not a technology.
Let me correct this...it's a feature that Amazon has called a
technology. But it doesn't take a half-wit to deduce that if
1-click is a technology, then so should something as mundane as a
newspaper be. Absurd as this sounds (but based on the patent
absurdity of today), if someone came along before "prior art"
could have been established on newspapers, and claimed a
newspaper for a patent, then the face of mass media might have
been rather different from what we have witnessed.
The sick thing in all of this is that there is no difference
between a feature and technology. The line is smeared all the
time, such that if anyone wants to contend that features can't be
patented, then he/she need only go as far as patent history to
see that stupidity prevails in the face of a slick lawyer who
outwits a patent officer. I don't know how this happens, because
you can't be a patent officer unless you have a law degree and an
engineering degree...
all I have to say is ..."1-click"
Chris
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
