> In the US, previously publishing something does not affect whether or > not it can be patented, AIUI, unless it can (for other reasons than > just being published) be considered prior art. This is not correct. The US patent act, 35 USC 102, reads as follows: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -- (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant, or (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patant in the United States, or .... /Larry Rosen 650-216-1597 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rosenlaw.com www.opensource.org
- Re: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed Samuel Reynolds
- Re: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed Matthew C. Weigel
- Re: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed David Johnson
- Re: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed Eric Jacobs
- Re: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed Matthew C. Weigel
- Re: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed Ben Tilly
- Re: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed Ryan S. Dancey
- RE: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed Dave J Woolley
- Re: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed Chris Sloan
- RE: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed Lawrence E. Rosen
- RE: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed Dave J Woolley
- RE: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed Lawrence E. Rosen
- RE: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed Ravicher, Daniel B.
- Fw: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed none
- RE: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed Dave J Woolley

