|
Authored by: myNym on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 05:38 PM EST |
They didn't patent the machine.
They patented the process.
If there was a new process that was novel enough and sped
up the curing process, then they could apply for a patent on
the process. Today's USPTO would probably grant it.
But even if that new process was a software only change, I
am _not_ using the process if I only run the software in a
rubber process _simulation_, as then I am _not_ curing
rubber.
Thus, the software by itself is not protected by that
patent.
The (new) process of curing rubber might be.
Assuming you're the same person that has been carrying this
argument forward, then you are just repeating yourself. And
thus I'm just repeating myself in rebuttal.
Feel free to have the last word.
"I'm done with this witness." -- Joe Pesci, as Vinny
Gambini, in "My Cousin Vinny".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|