|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
Also - "FILED FOR THAT PATENT PRIOR TO HIS JOINING THE EFFORT TO WORK FOR
IT"...
So, did he get a patent on an idea, then hired a programmer to actually develop
it.
If so, then I thought you could only patent "inventions"... and can
not patent an idea before you have any work done to "invent" a working
device that is supposed to be what is patented (but, only if it is not math, or
not-obvious)?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
At the time I was very surprised this guy was left on the Jury. I would have
thought the Judge would have dismissed him and if not one of the parties would
have use a peremptory challenge. Reading the Voir Dire he stick out like a sore
thumb.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 04:30 PM EDT |
"And in 2008 I filed a follow-on patent in more detail and that is
currently pending."
Well, that explains how the invalidity was ignored. Someone who is waiting for
a patent to issue is not likely to see any patent as invalid.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|