Colin Sharpe wrote:
--- 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.
Even assuming you could successfully search all patents, what about
prior art that hasn't been patented? As I recall, someone managed to
patent the wheel a while back. Then there are inventions that have been
patented elsewhere...
--
Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
