On Tue, 30 October 2001, David Johnson wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 30 October 2001 06:24 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > =Patents must be novel (that is, it must be different from all
> > =previous inventions in some important way).
> > =
> > =Patents must be nonobvious (a surprising and significant development)
> > =to somebody who understands the technical field of the invention.
> The current system is based on "whoever filed first". It may not be the
> "law", but it is the practice.
But if I code some software, register it with the copyright office,
put a LGPL license on it, put it on the web, and I DON'T get a
patent for it,
then, YOU shouldn't be able to take my code and patent it,
just because there's no prior patent art, doesn't mean it's novel.
at work, we get a patent refresher every year or so.
basically, we are not to tell our customers anything
about future ASIC products without first passing it by our
legal department for approval. apparently if we say
too much, give away too much detail, we can lose
a right to a possible patent.
code registered with the copyright office decades ago
should similarly disqualify patentability.
>Unfortunately, the patent system is no longer being
>run by logic, common sense, or even the LAW. It's being
>run by lawyers. Despite our veneer of civilization,
>might still makes right, and the lawyers have a monopoly
>on the application of "might". The law means whatever
>they say it means.
OK, time for a beer. ;)
Greg
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
