Matt, On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Steve Richfield > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But I'm not sure what you are trying to patent. The floating point > >> hash probably has prior art so it is not patentable by itself. > > > > I looked but didn't find any. > > And neither will the USPTO. It's too much work. That's why you find so > many duplicate patents covering the same invention. When you sue > someone for infringing, then they will do the proper research to > invalidate your patent. > > >> If it > >> is one step in a longer process, then anyone could work around it by > >> substituting an integer hash, which is technically superior anyway. > > > > Its ONLY use is in two isolated dependent claims, the loss of which > wouldn't affect much of anything, especially since there are a couple of > super-broad independent claims that are at a higher level than details of > hashing. > > I know. "The system of the previous claim where the hash value is a > floating point number", etc. > Egad - you hacked my claims!!! Good job. Steve. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
