Re: [Fed-Talk] Not good
Re: [Fed-Talk] Not good
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Not good
- From: "Blackmon Jerry (Contractor)" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:49:55 -0500
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Thread-topic: [Fed-Talk] Not good
That's fine, but one of two (or a couple thousand) bad patents doesn't invalidate ALL patents. Reform the system, don't destroy it. And don't demonize companies that use the law to defend their rights not to be ripped off. Or have we already forgotten the Dark Age?
--
Jerry Blackmon
From: "Miller, Timothy J." <email@hidden<mailto:email@hidden>>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:45:27 -0500
To: Microsoft Office User <email@hidden<mailto:email@hidden>>, Fed Talk <email@hidden<mailto:email@hidden>>
Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Not good
Actually, once you dig into the matter you'll find that the problem is the
awarding of both business process patents and software patents for the
bleedingly obvious, often with a totally inadequate or clearly absent
prior art search. My favorite example is when Certicom patented "Given X,
solve for Y".[1]
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden