graywolf wrote: > Interesting, since the US patent laws specifically says PM machines are > not patentable, and any such are automatically rejected without > consideration. Now it is possible some things have been patented that > fall into that category, but the fact that they do has, in that case, > been cleverly concealed by the applicant.
Seriously, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of obtaining the patent? If motion without decay from the world around it (entropy, I guess) is not one of the claims, the applicant/patent holder has no claim or recourse against those who wold steal the essence of the idea. Just thinking about it... keith -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
