Gordon <gbplinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:13mis805vnd6fdc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On 2007-12-19, Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Mark knows about as much about UK law as the average American knows
>>>>> about US law, so of course he makes massive mistakes whenever he speaks
>>>>> on the subject.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure a lawyer could handle this tangle. <grin>
>>>
>>> Interesting - Timmy claims that just because a patent is registered
>>> somewhere, it's valid?
>>>
>>> Wow. I should get advice elsewhere were I you. The man has no clue.
>>
>> So, the various European patent offices issue the patents, which creates
>> a presumption of validity. European courts have upheld them and
>> enforced them against infringers.
>>
>> Evidently, the word "valid" is not the same in Markish as it is in
>> English, as I'd say a patent that has been issued and has been
>> successfully enforced in a given jurisdiction is valid in that
>> jurisdiction. Could someone provide a translation of what Mark means
>> when he says "valid"?
>
>
> I'm not sure that a patent issued outside the UK is necessarily enforceable
> in the UK...I think that is what is meant. Just like a patent that has been
> issued by the UK patent office is not necessarily effective in US.....
>
How many patents have been revoked this month? Because of prior art?
This prior art didn't happen /after/ the patent was granted, ergo, the
patent was never valid.
This seems simple to me.
Amazon and their one-click thingy is one example; anything which is an
attempt to patent "software-only" in the EU or the UK is another
example. These are not valid even if they have been granted.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
