Warp wrote:
>   If patents on prior art can be granted if the patent does some tiny
> detail differently and originally, wouldn't that mean that, conversely,
> you don't infringe the patent if you implement it with some tiny detail
> being different from the patent description?

There's two bits.

If I patent (say) black and white TV, you can patent how to send color over 
the airwaves in a way that a B&W TV will get the right picture too. 
However, I can't manufacture my color TVs without licensing the B&W patents, 
and you can't sell a color TV doing it my way without paying both licenses.

In other words, I can patent a device that does A&B&C. You patent a device 
that does A&B&C&D.  Anyone that does A&B&C infringes my patent, and if it 
also does D it *also* infringes your patent.  But the patent on A&B&C&D is 
still a valid patent. Someone doing A&B&C&E does not infringe your patent 
but it infringes mine. Someone that does A&B&X doesn't infringe either patent.

>   The latter would make patents basically useless, but that means that
> patents should not be granted on prior art simply because the patent has
> a minor difference compared to all existing usage.

The argument in the above case would be whether my patent already covers "D" 
in your patent. Just because I have a patent doesn't permit me to 
manufacture devices covered by that patent. I have to license all the other 
patents that also cover the device.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message