Den 28. jul. 2006 kl. 17.43 skrev keith_w: > 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...
A good thought, but some of these inventors are so certain that they have invented a PM that they try to fool the patent office into giving them the patent. The claims may be unclear (and difficult to attack or defend) but they still cover the PM. DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
