Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The problem with doing that afterwards has as has been pointed out on this list in previous IP discussions is the enormous costs of patent litigation. It is very expensive to overturn a patent and very expensive to defend one. It is better to repudiate it early when the patent office is listening rather than paying lawyers later to kick down the doors. As to nonobviousness, I'm not sure I understand you. If I were hired as a patent examiner and my background in English did not include the years of computer science on the job training that followed, I would not have a clue about the nonobviousness of the ideas patentned. Heck, I'd believe that XML was invented by Zig Zag. After all, it is just a thin wrapper for content, right? It is a really hard job. Where they have an open ear and it is early in the game, we can have influence if played well. I suspect that just as the very technical lists require very formal exchanges, one should be careful to meet their expectations as to content and form if one wants them to listen attentively. len From: Doug Ransom [mailto:Doug.Ransom@p...] I don't think determining the originality of the work is a problem, even after a patent grants if prior art is found claims of originality can be repudiated. In general (as opposed to being concerned with the MS patent), it the interpretation of nonobviousness by the patent office I find interesting.
|
