andrel wrote:
> mostly because an inventor has talked about it to somebody before filing 
> the patent. And indeed most patents are rather obvious. 

The rules in the USA are somewhat different. IANAL. But "non-obvious" means 
"it's not the same as a combination of things already patented." It doesn't 
mean "any idiot would have thought of that."

And you get a year here between telling people about it and filing for a 
patent, which seems to me a pretty stupid way of working things, given that 
a patent is supposed to encourage you to tell people about it.

> have to specify on what grounds you are going to contest the patent 
> because you only have to start an investigation after the company 
> refuses to pay you for dropping the case. 

That is a pretty interesting approach, tho. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message