|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 12:21 PM EST |
any patent application should affirm and document the existence of a working
model. Such model to be produced as part of a re-exam or lawsuit to limit the
patent claims.
That should be the case for ALL patents.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Which is why - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 12:46 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 12:55 PM EST |
Why would you have to separate the software from the hardware? If you're
patenting the device, you're patenting the device. You don't have to patent
every part of a device to patent the whole device, witness the ability to patent
machines built with screws, washers etc. that the builder of the machine doesn't
have a patent on. So, if I patent a GPS receiver, I don't have to patent the
firmware to patent the whole. Likewise, patenting the whole doesn't mean the
algorithms in the firmware are patented (although the firmware is copyrighted so
nobody can legally merely copy your firmware even if they use it on hardware
different from yours).
That doesn't help those who want to lock down the
idea of doing something, rather than a specific means of doing it, but I don't
see where we're obliged to help them. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 12:44 AM EST |
| Link
Shareholders voted down a
proposal during Monsanto Co.'s annual meeting Thursday that would have forced
the company to be more transparent in how its genetically modified organisms
(GMO) affect organic farmers.
Only 7% voted for it.
This
is what happens when the BoD gets millions of shares.
The shareholders that
really care do not have a say,
because the BoD has control, and it is all about
money.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
