Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- From: loos <loos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:30:09 -0200
Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 17:16 -0500, Michael Marsh escreveu:
> On 1/11/06, Jochen Schulz <ml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > But you definitely have to come up with some soft of working
> > implementation, be it hard- or software, I agree.
>
> Actually, that requirement was dropped awhile ago. You only have to
> roughly describe an implementation. There are actually a lot of
> patents that have been issued for "inventions" that won't work. The
> USPTO specifically disallows patents on alleged perpetual motion
> machines, but has been known in recent years to grant patents on
> perpetual motion machines masquerading under different names.
> "Zero-point energy" is a particularly popular one.
>
> Rest assured, software isn't the only area in which the US patent
> system is somewhat askew.
Yep, there are a lot of "mystic" Patents on water, which make no sense
at all. Something patented does in no way mean that it works and even
less that the explication makes a sense at all.
Michel.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- From: Hal Vaughan
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- References:
- FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- From: hendrik
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- From: John Hasler
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- From: Andrew Sackville-West
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- From: Jochen Schulz
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- From: Mike McCarty
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- From: Jochen Schulz
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- From: Michael Marsh
- FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- Prev by Date: Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- Next by Date: Re: apache2
- Previous by thread: Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- Next by thread: Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
