On Wednesday 04 June 2003 02:39 am, Roger Oberholtzer wrote: > 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): > > >Does this mean that I can patent fire and the wheel. If so, you guys with the wheel mice better look out or I'll send you an official looking nasty letter threatening to sue you.
_______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
