|
| Authored by: artp on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:47 AM EDT |
I thought that litigation could not proceed on a pending
application.
How to cut the Gordian knot?
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mtew on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 05:31 PM EDT |
You said 20 years from grant? That does not match
my understanding, but my understanding is notoriously
vague. Please check that.
IIRC (and there is a good chance I'm wrong), the
limit was 16 (very questionable) from grant or 20
years from application, which ever is earlier.
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:30 AM EDT |
To solve the prior date problem: the date for prior art is the last date of
filing (any amendments) - who is to know they are not modifying their patent to
include inventions made *after* the original filing date which means that it is
not the original invention.
So there would be two dates:
1: The first filing date which is used to calculate the expiry date.
2: The last filing date which is used for existence of prior art.
This way patentees are encouraged to get it right first time- the patent deal is
for clear, revealed, detailed instructions for making the invention so they
should have them ready for others to use in exchange for the /limited/ (sic)
monopoly. If a patentee requires many modifications they are most likely to not
have a clear idea of the invention and so should not be able to patent the
/problem/ idea and wait for others to solve and claim off them; plus how can we
know they are not actually making use of inventions that came after they
supposedly made their invention to make their invention? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
