🚀 go-pugleaf

On 13 Oct 1998 22:13:51 GMT, Bill Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>In <700fq7$aoe$1@husk.cso.niu.edu> system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu writes:
>
>>Note that "published" can be sending a description of it to yourself,
>>the postmark and sealed envelope help establishs when you came up with the
>>idea. 
>
>Only in a "first to invent" system of patents, which I believe only the
>US still uses and I thought I read they are also switching to a "first to
>file" system.  I think publication implying prior art must be accessible
>by the public under a "first to file" system. (When by the way did the
>US swotch to the "first to invent" system? In the last century I am
>pretty sure it was "first to file", as in the example of the telephone)
>
>>>Though if two (or more) people come up with the same idea
>>>independently of one another (and none knowing of the work/existence
>>>of the other(s)), does this not hint that the patent might be invalid
>>>because of the requirement that it be innovative and non-obvious (to a
>>>skilled practitioner in the field)?
>
>No. there are loads of examples of simultaneous invention-- eg the
>telphone is one, and in another area, Evolution is another.
>That two people independently come up with an idea is not necessarily an
>indication of obviousness.

	Why not? The state of the art is in a constant state of 
	flux. These 'coincidences' may be an indication that a
	particular idea has reached a certain threshold and gone
	from being non-obvious to obvious.


-- 
Unix had  startmenus and tasbars before Microsoft          |||
even had a decent memory manager for DOS.                 / | \

	In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com