|
|
|
| Authored by: lnuss on Tuesday, April 16 2013 @ 07:49 AM EDT |
"Cost is direct proportional to obvious in that if the cost of development
is cheap then numerous people have the financial ability to work with the
concept but if development cost is high then only a select few do."
I thought obviousness was supposed to be whether one skilled in the art would
find it obvious, not how many people can afford to do something. So I guess I
don't understand that -- does patent law actually say cost is a factor? Are you
saying that a rich man can patent things that a poor man can't, just because he
can spend more money.
I didn't know that you should be able to *buy* a patent from the PTO just
because it cost more. It's a problem for me to understand how that should affect
whether something is patentable, as opposed to whether someone can afford it.
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 16 2013 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
I've been looking a a couple of interesting phenomena.
Testing the hypthesis I've developed about those phenomena will cost
roughly US$10M.
If my hypothesis is correct, why should the money spent be the major/sole
justification of obtaining a patent?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
