|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |