|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 08:39 AM EDT |
A patent is valid or it isn't. Prior art is one important way
to prove invalidity (obviousness being the other main one).
You can use prior art to prove the invention claimed by a
patent is not novel, and then there is no patent.
If the patent is valid, then your defense is that you don't
infringe. Prior art is irrelevant to proving non-
infringement. You either practice the specific claims of the
patent, or you don't. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 09:44 AM EDT |
as the patent is so specific then you 'specifically' engineer around it.
This is a long established practice and has been going on for more than 200
years.[1]
That is why patent lawyers wrap the claims in 100 layers of wool just to make
them non specific. Well, just non specific enough to fall foul of violating
another patent or prior art.
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|