Warp wrote:
> (as we all know, prior art is a no-op in
> practice in the US patenting system).

I'm not sure *that* is quite true. But again, "prior art" doesn't mean 
"someone did it before" legally speaking.

But yes, patents are a mess here. If you were restricted to effective 
patents of existing technology, we'd be much better off. ("Effective" 
being the legal term for "actually describes how to make it work", i.e., 
a solution rather than a requirments spec.)

But if you were already selling something with the patented technology 
before the other person *filed* for their patent (not "was granted the 
patent"), then you have a good case you'll win.  (I've provided expert 
reports on several such cases, where I invented and sold stuff a couple 
years before someone else patented it. So far, my side has won.)

But again, it's cheaper to pay the patent trolls $2000 than to pay the 
lawyers $20,000 to fight it.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message