On BNET: Online porn struggles for profits
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 9 of 16:
Next »
« Previous
Immaterial
If there is prior art, whether patent or not - say an article in Dr Dobbs or IEEE Transactions - you would not be entitled to a patent. A patent is a monpoly granted in return for disclosing innovation, and why would the U.S. want your disclosure if the art is already known?
Posted by: IT_User   Posted on: 08/14/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Great. The IP hoarders can apply for their BS patents even faster now...  BitTwiddler | 08/12/05
So you assume ALL patents are BS.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/14/05
Patents, and Copyrights, per se, are not  James Dean_z | 08/12/05
Actually  CobraA1 | 08/12/05
It's timing that counts  Ken_z | 08/13/05
If Bell could prove prior invention  IT_User | 08/14/05
You have it backwards..  Patrick Jones | 08/15/05
The problem is...  Henry Miller | 08/13/05
Immaterial  IT_User | 08/14/05
What new system?  IT_User | 08/14/05
Patent eFiling  elektros | 08/15/05
Barnacles  Martini_z | 08/13/05
Insane Stewardship  Martini_z | 08/13/05
Stewardship  IT_User | 08/14/05
No Software Patents  Roger Ramjet | 08/15/05
Software patents  elektros | 08/15/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Click Here
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here