|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 03:27 AM EDT |
so why isn't doing the same thing with a different material something that's
"obvious" and therefor not patent fodder?
now, there may be some trick to doing this with concrete that makes it
non-obvious, but if that's the case, they don't own the rights to all honeycomb
concrete, only honeycomb concrete created with their patented process. If
someone else were to come up with a different process, that would be worth of
it's own patent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: MadTom1999 on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT |
| They've been using honeycomb on telescope mirrors for a while I believe. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 05:06 PM EDT |
| I think it is the formwork system that allows easy and
continuous construction
that is being patented, not the
honeycomb structure itself. Still stupid
though.
Another example of patents that should probably not be
granted are
patents on geometric shapes for concrete armour
units for sea defences.
Companies patent different shapes
and all claim their designs have a cost
advantage. When the
patents run out they come up with new designs and patent
those so they can charge more for those.
Concrete Armour
Units
http://www.core-loc-africa.com/htm/Page3.htm [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
