|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 12:14 PM EST |
Don't worry. It doesn't make sense to the US person either. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 01:43 PM EST |
A personal view:
In the US patent system you pay money and get a license to
sue others that may have a similar idea. The idea does not
have to be innovative or unique. The default mode of patent
application is to grant the patent unless it is blatently
obvious to a dead man or two rocks. The actual patent laws
may say something else, but this is how it really seems to
operate, at least with software related patents.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 01:56 PM EST |
I stopped reading in the middle of the the first sentence of
the first patent.
"access hypermedia content via a wireless link"
Keep repeating the word "wireless" like it has anything at
all to do with the claimed "invention", which is just a set
of one-key macros for common parts of URLs.
Limiting the claim to wireless devices is mostly a ploy to
pretend there's anything new here. URLs don't care about
the transport layer, and neither do key macros. Take out
the "wireless link", and I was practicing prior art on my
bourne-shell command line as soon as I knew what a URL was
(sometime around 1994, in my case). (The URL limitation is
another bogus attempt to narrow the patent around obvious ob
viousness - a macro is a macro is a macro, text is text is
text, using a macro for URLs is obvious obvious obvious.)
This patent was filed in 2000 and granted in 2004! No, it
doesn't make sense to anyone in the US either.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|