|Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT|
"If I were aware of any non-design patents on fashion dresses
I would not have used those as an example. And if you happen
to find any, I will withdraw that as an example."
Perhaps you missed that."
Perhaps I missed what?
Previously You wrote:
"By the way, all your 'fashion' patents are design patents.
No points there. Bzzzt. Try again."
So, previously I wrote:
"1) Read Again. The second and fourth patents I recently listed are not
design patents. I can list plenty more if you like."
I meant I could list plenty more utility patents directed toward clothing if you
like. However, those will not be directed specifically to the look of the
garment. Fashion is patentable as evidenced by the design patents. I can
provide more of those if you like. Fashion is patentable.
"ergo, the mathematics professor does not believe software is mathematics.
You are wrong."
You can say that if you like. But, when the professors guard was down, the
truth slipped out in the phrasing he chose. Or perhaps it was your true belief
that came out as you paraphrased what the professor said. Shrug, in any event,
one of you deep down, when the posturing is pulled away, knows that software and
math are different.
"Why wait. The patent office has proved over and over and over again that
NOT NEW and PERFECTLY OBVIOUS things qualify for software patents. So why should
legal argument be any different. Why wait for a new and not obvious
Because to do otherwise would be to commit a fraud against the patent office.
You're assertions that things are obvious does not make it so. If they are
obvious you must show they are obvious.
Maybe you should look up the word obvious.
"Idonotthinitmeanswhatyouthinitmeans" - Mandingo Mantoya.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]