Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 17:16 -0500, Michael Marsh escreveu:
> On 1/11/06, Jochen Schulz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > But you definitely have to come up with some soft of working
> > implementation, be it hard- or software, I agree.
> Actually, that requirement was dropped awhile ago. You only have to
> roughly describe an implementation. There are actually a lot of
> patents that have been issued for "inventions" that won't work. The
> USPTO specifically disallows patents on alleged perpetual motion
> machines, but has been known in recent years to grant patents on
> perpetual motion machines masquerading under different names.
> "Zero-point energy" is a particularly popular one.
> Rest assured, software isn't the only area in which the US patent
> system is somewhat askew.
Yep, there are a lot of "mystic" Patents on water, which make no sense
at all. Something patented does in no way mean that it works and even
less that the explication makes a sense at all.