Article View: comp.patents
Article #30Re: Patenable v. Unpatentable (2)
From: Graham Toal gtoal
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 07:11
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 07:11
11 lines
987 bytes
987 bytes
In article <4586@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> 0001811496@mcimail.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes: >In contrast, if the idea is covered by the patent claim (i.e. the idea >is novel and unobvious), then the patent owner _will_ be able to stop >the person who appropriates the idea. The trouble with this whole shebang is that one man's 'unobvious' is another man's 'trivial', and is reinvented daily, and taken for granted, without ever having hear of the patent or the 'original' inventor. G --
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4610@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!gtoal@robobar.co.ukReferences:
<4586@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!gtoal@robobar.co.uk From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu") Newsgroups: comp.patents Subject: Re: Patenable v. Unpatentable (2) Summary: [for man also read woman] Message-ID: <4610@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> Date: 7 Apr 92 07:11:55 GMT References: <4586@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> Sender: news@cluster.cs.su.oz.au Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND. Lines: 12 Approved: patents@cs.su.oz.au