On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 5:09 PM, mike smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20 May 2010 16:30, Arjang Assadi <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 20 May 2010 16:08, silky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I've never been to court for a patent infringement, but I'd imagine > > > the *process* of showing and proving "prior art" is non-trivially > > > expensive. > > > > Not if you have time machine!! > > > > Now that the idea of using time machine to show and prove "prior art" > > is in the open no one ever will be able to patent it! > > Not in a time-stream that has time-machines in it. If you contend > that the introduction and use of time machines changes things, then > you can.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.2106 There's another paper somewhere that tried to explain some results of quantum mechanics with a "crystalising" notion of time (i.e. travel back in time was possible). I'll try and find it. Found it: http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0808 Quite interesting. > -- > Meski > > "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, > you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills -- silky http://www.programmingbranch.com/
