xml-dev - RE: [xml-dev] Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: [xml-dev] more pate nt fun

RE: [xml-dev] Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: [xml-dev] more pate nt fun

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

To: "'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'" <clbullar@ingr.com>, "'John Evdemon'" <jevdemon@acm.org>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: [xml-dev] more pate nt fun
From: Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@creo.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:19:18 -0800

There use to be a requirement that patent seekers had first to construct a
working model of their invention.

I realize that frivolous software is easy to construct, but that's not the
point. The point of constructing such a model is that it would allow the
patent examiner to see just what's being patented, rather than interpret
words on a page. This may make more obvious "inventions" obviously
unpatentable.

Prev by Date: many-to-many
Next by Date: RE: [xml-dev] many-to-many
Previous by thread: RE: [xml-dev] Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: [xml-dev] more pate nt fun
Next by thread: RE: [xml-dev] Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: [xml-dev] more pate nt fun
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread