🚀 go-pugleaf

Dan Bernstein writes:
>DO NOT follow that advice. If you ever wind up in court about a patent,
>ask your lawyer what to do. He will almost certainly recommend that you
>challenge the patent on dozens of grounds, including obviousness (if you
>can get even one expert witness to agree), prior art (if you can find
>even one reference), fraudulent procurement, et al.

Point to Dan.  Anyone who goes into court and relies solely on Usenet
for his case probably won't do too well :)

On the other hand, 'obviousness' is a pretty weak claim if, in the
field of bit-mapped graphics, where there are 16 '2-argument' functions
which can be applied to the bit-map, the one that is self-inverting
can be patented.

I suppose I should have said something along the line of "it's more
likely you'll find something researching prior-art than researching
obviousness."  

So sue me :)

Raul Rockwell