|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 09:46 PM EDT |
Don't discourage anyone from looking for
prior art, please. Not on Groklaw.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 05:17 AM EDT |
THe standard's intent, as I understand it, is "it was obvious at the
time".
The prior art is used to show what was already being done, and from there you
go: "that's just an obvious next step"
That's the system, if you want to change it, run for public office.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
Is most most all software obvious or do patents not describe inventions in
sufficient detail?
I would submit that you can't make both arguments.
If software is obvious then big picture descriptions should be sufficient. Once
the big picture is described, the coding is (according to you it would seem)
trivial and there is no need to clutter up a patent application with it.
If I've misunderstood you, and the coding is not trivial or obvious, then the
attitude that in general software is obvious is clearly wrong.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BJ on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
That's my first reaction, although I am unable to
see all the consequences of it at this time (friday
at 8 PM...).
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:13 PM EDT |
If it's so obvious then there must be lots of examples of
prior art, no?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
