|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 10:18 PM EDT |
So has anyone woken up the patent lawyers at HP and had them search through
their stuff as well as all the stuff they bought when they sucked up Compaq.
IOW - what about the stuff that DEC's Western Research Lab did that
eventually became AltaVista?? Or, anything else that DEC might've done??
I'd think that HP would jump on this Apple patent application with track
shoes, but then again, maybe they're too enthralled with sucking up to
Microsoft that they don't care about what their competition is patenting
behind their backs...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 11:09 PM EDT |
Yes, but the prior art in 103 would not invalidate the patent if it was
non-obvious.
Attempts to invalidate a patent by prior art are from what I have read normally
attacks on novelty under 102.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
Not having read the patent, i am not sure what the non-invention is.
However, in 1984, I was searching the local library card catalog, in person for
books it contained, DIALOG for other material that might be relevant to my
thesis, and using THE_SOURCE, to glean other, relevant material.
It was obvious to me, back then, that being able to combine all three searches
into one, would have been far faster, and easier.
Especially when culling the gunk retrieved by the information dragon.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 12:06 PM EDT |
35 USC 103 may define the standard for obviousness, but 35 USC
102 defines the
conditions for patentability:
A person shall be entitled to a patent
unless—
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this
country, or
patented or described in a printed publication
in this or a foreign country,
before the invention thereof
by the applicant for patent, or ...
I
think it's safe to say that this "invention" (while
perhaps not "obvious" in
the prior art sense) is and has
been in common usage for decades, making it
entirely non-
patentable.
TimH[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|