Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting Bob La Quey as of Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 12:59:14PM -0700: >> On 10/13/07, Lan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] >>> Between prior art and the bloody obvious, I can't see even the present >>> corporatist courts upholding this. >> As my inventor friend Bob Hotto likes to say >> "Obvious is a function of time." The first >> patent was filed in the late 80's and granted >> in 1991. Thye will likely argue that the claims >> were "Not obvious" then. >> >> The issue of prior art, properly obsfucated by >> "good"lawyers before a jury can be argued damn >> near anyway. > > Amiga, 1985. > > But I fear that you're right... > >> The software patent system is such a mess ... >> it could take decades to sort the mess out but >> this looks like an important early battle. > > Don't patents have an enforce-it-or-lose-it clause?
I know that applies to trademarks (isn't aspirin the famous story). But I wasn't aware it applied to patents. Remarks, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
