|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/20/1811246&tid=473
>
> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/10/1218231
>
> Apparently, now US patents either have to be about how to build
> something ("transforming one thing into another") or about a specific
> machine (excluding that which you can build on a general purpose computer).
>
> Yay!
>
> Sounds like Finnish law even excludes the first one, from what I've
> understood talking here, but at least there's no more "patents on
> hanging up a sign to advertise your business" stupidity.
Just think of the clear-cutting that would take place if only the
inventor of a thing could hold the patent on that thing, and if only the
author of a work could hold the patent on that work.
A.K.A. what the Constitution says...
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |