After reading the abstracts...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| JaseP Dec 19, 2011 12:22 PM EDT |
After reading the abstracts, I can't believe there isn't prior art all over these patents ... So incredibly un-novel of an idea, I have a hard time believing the implementation is novel ... Granted, I've only read the abstracts, ... but jeez... |
| rahulsundaram Dec 20, 2011 12:03 AM EDT |
Reading only the abstracts is not useful at all to determine unique claims in a patent filing. You have to ignore the abstract. Not saying this patent claim has any validity but your approach isn't effective. |
| gus3 Dec 20, 2011 12:30 AM EDT |
Obviousness? If the abstract lays out the patent's intention is proving that 1+1=2, then the claims are immaterial. Oh, that's right...all software is reducible to 1+1=2. Woops! |
| rahulsundaram Dec 20, 2011 9:24 AM EDT |
You would think so but in fact what the abstract says is immaterial. Always read the claims. |
| gus3 Dec 20, 2011 10:01 AM EDT |
In software patents, the purpose of the claims is to bamboozle the examiners and frighten the public into not doing anything without their corporate masters' permission. Such as adding 1 and 1. Because that's all they're doing, if they're doing it with a computer. Any claim otherwise is obfuscation, on par with redefining pi as 3.0. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!