On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 20:26:29 -0400 Kurt Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the existence of prior art had seems to matter to the USPTO > anymore. This is very true. Not only that, they don't seem to see if the 'new' thing to be patented is already patented, but using different words to describe the same thing. We have experienced this in the US in relation to one of our measurement parameters. It used to be common belief that you could not patent something if the details were previously given out. So, you had to patent it before you could tell the world about it. This is no longer the case. The reason for this was to prevent the following (which is no longer prevented and now occurs): Company A invent widget X. They make it public without a patent. Company B decides it would like to make a widget X as well, and given that there are no patents, feels free to do so. After company B make their version of widget X, Company A decides, oops, better patent that sucker. Leaving Company B SOL. This scenario was previously avoided. Company A's own public use of it before patenting was 'prior art' and thus disallowed later attempts to obtain a patent. Thus the 'Patent Pending' on many a product. Do Caldera have a patent in every country? A US patent only covers the US. Ericsson telephones came into existence because Bell neglected to obtain a patent in Sweden. Ericsson did get a patent. So, they could sell telephones all over the world. -- +����������������������������+�������������������������������+ � Roger Oberholtzer � E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] � � OPQ Systems AB � WWW: http://www.opq.se/ � � Erik Dahlbergsgatan 41-43 � Phone: Int + 46 8 314223 � � 115 34 Stockholm � Mobile: Int + 46 733 621657 � � Sweden � Fax: Int + 46 8 302602 � +����������������������������+�������������������������������+ _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
