Robert Newson <ReapNewsB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>>[1]"sufficiently clearly defined" phrase suggests that the patent wasn't
>>>written in such a way that someone [knowledgeable in the art] could build
>>>the invention claimed - something patents require, don't they?
>>
>> Patents -- referring to ownership of merely everything under the sun,
>> probably used /a priori/ by one among 6 billion people -- require and depend
>> on obscurity.
>
> I must have it wrong then: I understood a requirement for a patent to be
> granted was that the [intimate] details of the invention were openly disclosed?
>
I think you have it right, but Roy was responding on a philosophical
point, whereas your remark was a technical one.
> The point being that the goverment granted you a limited monopoly on your
> invention iff you were willing to divulge the mechanics of it?
>
I believe that was the essence of the approach.
--
| 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/ |
|
|
