--- James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > jonathon wrote: > > James Knott wrote: > > > > > > > >> For example, to prove it's not based on prior > art, you'd have to know > >> *ALL* prior art. > >> > > > > That is a trivial issue. > > > > > > Really? So, how would one know about all prior > art?
Not so. Having worked with patents (And even been awarded a few), the way it works is: The inventor writes up a patent and a patent attorney files the patent. A search is done to see if the new patent attempts to patent something already patented. If it doesn't a patent is granted. If a patent holder feels his patent is being infringed, he can attempt to seek damages from the infringer. The "Infringer" can use prior art to defend himself against the claims of the patent holder. Demonstration of a product incorporating the patent holders invention produced before the patent was granted, either as a production item or a prototype, or even well documented lab work will lead to a successful defence. Microsoft are blowing a lot of hot air on the software patents issue, but are slow to do anything, since it will be very costly for them to try, and there is no guarantee they would win. Colin. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
