Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 09:56 AM EST |
While they are busy patenting "the effect" they are taking known effects of
society and locking them away.
That's rather the opposite of what the
patent exchange is supposed to be about.
Instead of disseminating to the
public, it's locking away something the public already has - now there's
theft.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 10:50 AM EST |
Actually if you read the 'bounce back' patent it does describe how to implement
it. See Figure 7. From a perspective of an extensive graphics rendering
background at Silicon Graphics, having ordinary skill in the art, the
information presented in the patent written description is sufficient.
The '381 patent is one I'd personally class instead as one that should be
reviewed on semiotic and other grounds. For instance we're talking about a
transitory effect used as a signal. There is no transformation of matter into a
different state.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 12:50 PM EST |
The argument would be that a person having ordinary skill in the art (say a UI
programmer on that device) would know how to program this given the description.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|