On Mon, 21 May 2001, Bob Meyer wrote:
> --- Terry Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It depends entirely on how the claims are drafted
> > and allowed. You can't
> > meaningfully discuss what a patent covers in the
> > abstract. You have to
> > read and construe the claims of the particular
> > patent.
>
> That's true. But over the last 10 years the Patent
> Office in the U.S has issued more than one patent
> which fails to stand up to the common sense test,
> especially in regards to software.
I'm responding to your comment "If a competitor could come up with a
significantly different way of accomplishing the same goal, they could do
it." That's not correct. It depends on what the claims cover.
This is a completely different question of whether the PTO is issuing
patents that are anticipated by the prior art. You and I agree on that
point.
--
Terry Carroll | No representations, warranties or characterizations
Santa Clara, CA | regarding any actual university, including any named
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | "UC Sunnydale" or "University of California at
Modell delendus est | Sunnydale" are intended and none should be inferred.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
