|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 04:49 PM EST |
"Also, patents do not provide the actual implementation but allow someone
skilled in the art to provide an implementation."
Does this mean that someone skilled in the art has to do 99% of the work?
--
Bondfire
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 06:11 PM EST |
I am one skilled in the art (10+ years programming). Reading a patent does not
tell me how to implement a concept, it only describes the concept.
Again, this is the fallacy of using a specific implementation to monopolize a
general concept. How is this right?
You also did not refute the fact that you are still not transforming the machine
into something different than before.
---
I voted for Groklaw (Legal Technology Category) in the 2012 ABA Journal Blawg
100. Did you? http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100. Voting ends Dec 21.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 06:21 PM EST |
Except that a legally valid patent MUST TEACH THE IMPLEMENTATION!
If it is left to the reader to provide an implementation (any implementation)
then the patent does not comply with the law.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|