|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
1) Read Again. The second and fourth patents I recently listed are not design
patents. I can list plenty more if you like.
2)The issue was patenting fashion. How things look. That is covered by patents
called design patents. Patents are patents. Why don't design patents count?
Point is: Fashion is patentable.
3)The statement that software patents are bad enough when asked about patenting
math clearly implies a difference between patenting software and patenting math.
If there were no difference in the mind of the speaker the reply would have to
be something along the lines of math is already being patented.
ergo, the mathematics professor does not believe software is mathematics.
Q.E.D.
4)As soon as you identify a legal argument that is new and not obvious, I'll set
about patenting it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|