The inventor did not list any material of mine in the patent.
Nor did the
inventor list any of my sources in the patent.
Nor did the inventor list of
the sources of my sources, in the patent.
If it comes down to a lawsuit,
I'm going to say that the patent was filed
in bad faith, failing to disclose
all of the relevant prior art. I'm not sure if
I'll start with the material
from 1943, 1929, or the sixteenth century.
This is over and above the
fact that the "invention" is software, and
software is mathematics.
second thoughts, I can dispense with the "software is mathematics"
and say that the description is merely applied mathematics,
but unlike the
rubber cure patent, there is nothing novel in the
application of that math,
citing a paper from 1898 as the genesis of the
invention. (Nineteenth century,
for those who might think the date is a
I still have to figure
out a way to eliminate the other six patents that
were issued after 1980, that
individually and collectively claim to cover
the use of a computer in every
aspect of the field. I hoping that the
patents issued between 1950 and 1980,
that cover the entire field of
endevour, and include essentially the same
claims, will suffice as "prior
art", as they describe the exact same
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]