🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9260@cactus.org> ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:
> In fact, "obviousness" is technical term in patent law and the
> examination process.  Obviousness can be (and probably *must* be)
> legally argued by examining various indications, such as:
>    Unexpected Results,
>    Previously Assumed Unworkability,
>    Previously Unrecognized Problem,
>    Omission of Element,
>    Unappreciated Advantage,
>    Long-Felt and Unsolved Need,
>    Contrarian Invention,
>    New Principle of Operation, etc.

Actually, ``obvious'' is not a term defined by the courts, and Zippy's
list of ``indications'' is complete and utter bullshit. However, it
might let us identify which ``Patents for Preschoolers, First Edition''
book Zippy has been quoting from. Anyone recognize the list?

> I seriously doubt that a whole program could be patented effectively;

I wonder if Zippy has ever heard of ``data compression.''

> This was basically taken out of context.  A patent protects the
> manufacture, sale (or free distribution), and use, of an invention.

Now Zippy's rewriting United States law. Notice the parenthetical
``or free distribution'' comment, which Zippy had to introduce to
support his argument. As a matter of fact, distributing a patented
invention for free is perfectly legal.

---Dan