----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:33 PM Subject: Re: more bad patents
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:19 PM > Subject: RE: more bad patents > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Behalf Of Erik Reuter > > > > ... > > > > > The quadratic equation is fairly narrow and specific, but it should not > > > be patentable. > > > > > > Think of things like prior art and (admittedly less easy to prove) > > > obviousness. > > > > Yes... but until I actually worked on some patents and worked around > others, > > I didn't realize how meaningless they can be. With 13 claims, you only > > infringe if you use all 13. > > I'm pretty sure that's wrong. If that were true, than most patents I've > looked at are exercises in stupidity and every patent lawyer I've talked to > is wrong. All one has to do is violate one claim to infringe. Let me give an example of that. I've seen a patent that claims process X as the first claim. It then proceeds with further claims where Using X in a tool that uses neutrons to determine formation properties. Using X in a tool that uses gamma rays to determine formation properties. Using X in a tool that uses acoustic waves to determine formation properties. Clearly, if one had to violate all of these sub-claims to violate the patent, the workaround would be to build separate neutron, gamma, and acoustic tools. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
