Next in thread → Next in month →

RE: [xml-dev] Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: [xml-dev] more pate nt fun

From
Jeff Lowery <>
To
"'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'" <>, 'John Evdemon' <>,
Date
2003-01-23T19:19:18Z
ID
<>
Thread
RE: [xml-dev] Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: [xml-dev] more pate nt fun
There use to be a requirement that patent seekers had first to construct a
working model of their invention.

I realize that frivolous software is easy to construct, but that's not the
point. The point of constructing such a model is that it would allow the
patent examiner to see just what's being patented, rather than interpret
words on a page. This may make more obvious "inventions" obviously
unpatentable.
Next in thread → Next in month →