|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
I'm sure this would meet a lot of opposition. The whole point of patents these
days is obfuscate and to hide the idea you are claiming so that you can ambush
people with it later.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 04:53 AM EDT |
This makes me wonder,
if a patent can be challenged at the patent
office to clarify terminologies
being used. Forcing them to add specific
definition of words to the patent to
increase specificity.
I
cannot see why not, as the USPTO itself in its Specification [Description and Claims] says:
The
specification must include a written description of the invention and of the
manner and process of making and using it, and is required to be in such
full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled
in the technological area to which the invention pertains, or with which it is
most nearly connected, to make and use the same.
[emphasis added]
and if the terms specified are not precise enough, then the validity of the
patent must surely be in doubt until such time as they are fully and clearly
specified.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
I think the discussion about dexopt would be unfathomable to anyone who had no
knowledge of assembly language or bytecode.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|