🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <910@nddsun1.sps.mot.com> waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com (Mike Waters) writes:
> Me too. I was off sick with the flu and it was fun for a while, but now
> I have to go back to work. Now I'm just sick of hearing the same old
> fantasies trotted out again and again.

Indeed. Look, folks, there's this thing in patent case law called the
``doctrine of equivalents,'' and if you have feet you can wander over to
your local library, find a USCA (that's United States Code, Annotated),
and look it up for yourself. It says essentially that a patent covers
anything equivalent to the original invention.

A few rulings you won't find in a keyword search on ``colorable
changes,'' ``equivalents,'' or ``gist of the invention'': ``Infringement
is not avoided where patent's teachings are not followed exactly, so
long as substance of invention is appropriated by accused device.''
Shields v. Halliburton Co., D.C.La. 1980, 493 F.Supp 1376, affirmed 667
F.2d 1232. ``There is infringement where defendant has adopted the
principle of the invention.'' Nelson Planning Limited v. Tex-O-Graph
Corp., D.C.N.Y. 1968, 280 F.Supp. 226, affirmed 423 F.2d 36.

---Dan