Plus, people seem to think that syscalls are too slow, and that
communication with the kernel should be done via shared pages - also an interesting concept.
I find the restartable sequences on Linux to be quite interesting -
it allows fast user space updates to per-CPU data structures.
These are atomic with respect to the scheduler.
They can be used to implement locks, for example. https://gitlab.ethz.ch/extra_projects/cpu-local-lock.git is
an implementation of such a lock which does not need atomic
instructions on the fast path, and is therefore extremely fast
when there is little contention.
Plus, people seem to think that syscalls are too slow, and
that communication with the kernel should be done via shared
pages - also an interesting concept.
... there is almost a complete lack of attribution in open
source.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:39:11 -0400, jseigh wrote:
... there is almost a complete lack of attribution in open
source.
The VCS repositories will have a contributor name attached to every
commit. The Linux kernel furthermore insists on valid contact details for every contributor, else the code gets dropped.
In other words, there is a trail you can follow, if you want to.
If you didn't know the origin of the idea, if it was patented or
public domain, you could be in trouble. The GPL has a poison pill
for patents but it doesn't work for patent trolls.
On 6/19/25 18:08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:...
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:39:11 -0400, jseigh wrote:
... there is almost a complete lack of attribution in open
source.
That's for copyright. Copyright covers an expression of an idea,
not the idea. If you didn't know the origin of the idea, if it
was patented or public domain, you could be in trouble.
If you came up with the idea by yourself, and it was patented by someone else, you could still be in trouble.
I find the restartable sequences on Linux to be quite interesting -
it allows fast user space updates to per-CPU data structures.
These are atomic with respect to the scheduler.
They can be used to implement locks, for example. https://gitlab.ethz.ch/extra_projects/cpu-local-lock.git is
an implementation of such a lock which does not need atomic
instructions on the fast path, and is therefore extremely fast
when there is little contention.
Plus, people seem to think that syscalls are too slow, and
that communication with the kernel should be done via shared
pages - also an interesting concept.
jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> writes:
On 6/19/25 18:08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:...
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:39:11 -0400, jseigh wrote:
... there is almost a complete lack of attribution in open
source.
That's for copyright. Copyright covers an expression of an idea,
not the idea. If you didn't know the origin of the idea, if it
was patented or public domain, you could be in trouble.
If you came up with the idea by yourself, and it was patented by
someone else, you could still be in trouble. If you got the idea from
A and attribute it to A, but B patented it, you could still be in
trouble. If B came up with the idea and applied for a patent, and you attribute it to B, you could still be in trouble. Attribution of
ideas does not change anything as far as patents are concerned.
What do you mean with "public domain" wrt. ideas?
If there is no
patent on the idea, e.g., because all patents on it have expired, why
could one be in trouble?
Lack of inventive step is more thorny.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:07:43 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lack of inventive step is more thorny.
Also, you don’t actually have to prove an idea works before getting a patent on it.
As I recall, the US Patent Office was getting flooded with patents for perpetual-motion machines (none of which worked, naturally), until a
rule
came in specifically forbidding those.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:59:03 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
Plus, people seem to think that syscalls are too slow, and that
communication with the kernel should be done via shared pages - also an
interesting concept.
The performance bottleneck seems to be in the privilege transition
between
userland and kernel. To avoid that bottleneck means having the userland request service of a kernel thread which is already running. Which means
the service threads are running all the time, concurrently with
userland.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 05:21:58 GMT, Anton Ertl wrote:
If you came up with the idea by yourself, and it was patented by someone
else, you could still be in trouble.
Independently coming up with the idea can be a defence in a copyright
case, apparently, but not a patent one.
Why? Who knows ...
Though of course independently coming up with the idea *before* it was patented is supposed to be grounds for invalidating the patent ...
though that’s usually easier said than done ...
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
I find the restartable sequences on Linux to be quite interesting -
it allows fast user space updates to per-CPU data structures.
These are atomic with respect to the scheduler.
They can be used to implement locks, for example.
https://gitlab.ethz.ch/extra_projects/cpu-local-lock.git is
an implementation of such a lock which does not need atomic
instructions on the fast path, and is therefore extremely fast
when there is little contention.
Plus, people seem to think that syscalls are too slow, and
that communication with the kernel should be done via shared
pages - also an interesting concept.
Syscalls are much slower than they used to be before Spectre.
I wonder how long we will wait till some security researches
discovers previously unexpected threat due to userspace
constructs.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 8:53:58 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Though of course independently coming up with the idea *before* it
was patented is supposed to be grounds for invalidating the patent
...
Only if you disclosed the idea publicly prior to their application
arriving ts USPTO.
though that’s usually easier said than done ...
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 23:48:34 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:07:43 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lack of inventive step is more thorny.
Also, you don’t actually have to prove an idea works before getting a >> patent on it.
No, you just have to explain the idea to the examiner in such a way
that [s]he::
a) thoroughly understands the idea
b) can find no patent disclosing that idea
c) verifies the claims match the evidentiary text
d) finds no essentially identical claims in other patents.
MitchAlsup1 wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 23:48:34 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:07:43 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lack of inventive step is more thorny.
Also, you don’t actually have to prove an idea works before getting a
patent on it.
No, you just have to explain the idea to the examiner in such a way
that [s]he::
a) thoroughly understands the idea
b) can find no patent disclosing that idea
c) verifies the claims match the evidentiary text
d) finds no essentially identical claims in other patents.
Please note that "no patent disclosing the idea" means that all Knuth-
era textbook sw algorithms can now be implemented in VLSI and then
patented.
Being documented in a 20-year old uni text book is not enough to stop
the US patent office from allowing your patent.
I have personally reviewed 4 different, supposedly valid, patents that
fell into this category, along with 4 others where the "patent step" was non-existent, i.e. obviously the only reasonable way for anyone "skilled
in the art" to sole that particular problem.
Terje
That is all true. Patents are a lot weaker than most people think they
are. Essentially, they don't prevent anyone from copying anything.
They only provide a presumption in court if the patent holder sues for >infringement. If someone did get a patent on something in Knuth, in the >suit, smart people like you will testify that there was prior art, and
the patent will presumably be invalidated.
You have to have some sympathy for the patent examiner. They can't
possibly be knowledgeable of every development in the field, much less
in all the fields for which they are responsible. So inevitably some
patents that are later declared invalid will get through. That is what
the courts are for.
Yes, the system is broken, but attempts to fix it have so far not been successful. :-(
MitchAlsup1 wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 23:48:34 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:07:43 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lack of inventive step is more thorny.
Also, you don’t actually have to prove an idea works before getting a
patent on it.
No, you just have to explain the idea to the examiner in such a way
that [s]he::
a) thoroughly understands the idea
b) can find no patent disclosing that idea
c) verifies the claims match the evidentiary text
d) finds no essentially identical claims in other patents.
Please note that "no patent disclosing the idea" means that all
Knuth-era textbook sw algorithms can now be implemented in VLSI and then patented.
Being documented in a 20-year old uni text book is not enough to stop
the US patent office from allowing your patent.
I have personally reviewed 4 different, supposedly valid, patents that
fell into this category,
along with 4 others where the "patent step" was
non-existent, i.e. obviously the only reasonable way for anyone "skilled
in the art" to sole that particular problem.
That is all true. Patents are a lot weaker than most people think they
are. Essentially, they don't prevent anyone from copying anything.
They only provide a presumption in court if the patent holder sues for infringement.
If someone did get a patent on something in Knuth, in the
suit, smart people like you will testify that there was prior art, and
the patent will presumably be invalidated.
You have to have some sympathy for the patent examiner. They can't
possibly be knowledgeable of every development in the field, much less
in all the fields for which they are responsible. So inevitably some
patents that are later declared invalid will get through. That is what
the courts are for.
Yes, the system is broken, but attempts to fix it have so far not been successful. :-(
On 6/19/2025 1:39 PM, jseigh wrote:
[...]
Speaking of patents:
https://patents.justia.com/patent/5295262
:^D
Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> schrieb:
That is all true. Patents are a lot weaker than most people think they
are. Essentially, they don't prevent anyone from copying anything.
Beg to differ there.
Yes, the system is broken, but attempts to fix it have so far not been
successful. :-(
There are things that are not OK, but I wouldn't say it is
completely broken.
Too Sarcastic? A shit load of people in the world can have a similar
idea that is good. Well, now. How many of those are going to file for a patent, if any at all, per second of time on Earth? Humm... Not sure.
Ahh, those who write about it first in "public"? Humm... Any thoughts?
"first to file" was a big step in the direction of broken as
it favors the institutional inventor over the solo inventors.
It's good for the patent attorneys, sadly.
Too Sarcastic? A shit load of people in the world can have a similar
idea that is good. Well, now. How many of those are going to file for a >patent, if any at all, per second of time on Earth? Humm... Not sure.
Ahh, those who write about it first in "public"? Humm... Any thoughts?
On 6/24/2025 12:20 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> schrieb:
That is all true. Patents are a lot weaker than most people think they >>>> are. Essentially, they don't prevent anyone from copying anything.
Beg to differ there.
<snip general agreement with Thomas>
Yes, the system is broken, but attempts to fix it have so far not been >>>> successful. :-(
There are things that are not OK, but I wouldn't say it is
completely broken.
"first to file" was a big step in the direction of broken as
it favors the institutional inventor over the solo inventors.
It's good for the patent attorneys, sadly.
Too Sarcastic? A shit load of people in the world can have a similar
idea that is good. Well, now. How many of those are going to file for a patent, if any at all, per second of time on Earth? Humm... Not sure.
Ahh, those who write about it first in "public"? Humm... Any thoughts?
Back in my heyday of patent filings (1983-2000), every computer
architect was reading the same academic and industrial literature, had
access to the same fabrication technology, went to the same conferences,...--it is any wonder why we reinvented each other's ideas
??
It is MY OPINION that if USPTO receives more than one patent covering essentially the same idea at essentially the same period of time, that
this is prima-facia evidence that the idea is obvious to one skilled in
the art--so, nobody gets the patent.
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 15:24:43 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
Back in my heyday of patent filings (1983-2000), every computer
architect was reading the same academic and industrial literature, had
access to the same fabrication technology, went to the same
conferences,...--it is any wonder why we reinvented each other's ideas
??
There was a time, I recall, when the legal advice from a company’s
lawyers
to its staff was *not* to read about other people’s patent filings.
Because you might decide that patent was not applicable to what you were doing, until later the lawsuit came along anyway, and they managed to
make
a case stick, and because you knew about the patent, that made the infringement wilful, so the damages would be triple.
It is MY OPINION that if USPTO receives more than one patent covering
essentially the same idea at essentially the same period of time, that
this is prima-facia evidence that the idea is obvious to one skilled in
the art--so, nobody gets the patent.
That’s common sense. As far as I can tell (IANAL), patent law is not
based on common sense.
On 6/25/2025 8:24 AM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 5:06:50 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/24/2025 12:20 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> schrieb:
That is all true. Patents are a lot weaker than most people think >>>>>> theyBeg to differ there.
are. Essentially, they don't prevent anyone from copying anything. >>>>>
<snip general agreement with Thomas>
Yes, the system is broken, but attempts to fix it have so far not been >>>>>> successful. :-(
There are things that are not OK, but I wouldn't say it is
completely broken.
"first to file" was a big step in the direction of broken as
it favors the institutional inventor over the solo inventors.
It's good for the patent attorneys, sadly.
Too Sarcastic? A shit load of people in the world can have a similar
idea that is good. Well, now. How many of those are going to file for a
patent, if any at all, per second of time on Earth? Humm... Not sure.
Ahh, those who write about it first in "public"? Humm... Any thoughts?
Back in my heyday of patent filings (1983-2000), every computer
architect
was reading the same academic and industrial literature, had access to
the
same fabrication technology, went to the same conferences,...--it is any
wonder why we reinvented each other's ideas ??
In this period of time about 2/3rds of my filings were knocked down
by other filings of complete or near complete overlap.
It is MY OPINION that if USPTO receives more than one patent covering
essentially the same idea at essentially the same period of time, that
this is prima-facia evidence that the idea is obvious to one skilled
in the art--so, nobody gets the patent.
I actually mailed one of my encryption algos to myself. Its still
unsealed. Fwiw,
here it is:cba71c0d266d16df7a9996bab499332e541728313a4ac8f429c552f8e56233fe4b1e124a81f9836a960d809ff477254cb3398179165be0105859882055dabc223feee98aabc5f7b88453233dc0e6b4b341ff22b22028e35e370a0e68
http://fractallife247.com/test/hmac_cipher/ver_0_0_0_1?ct_hmac_cipher=
On 6/24/2025 12:32 PM, jseigh wrote:
There's https://patents.google.com/patent/US7769791B2/en
which was filed years after
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/Sev_8xKh3RU/m/
wEkEqnOhs_oJ?hl=en&pli=1
and lot of follow up posts on this.
Also it was based on differential reference counting from the
5295262 patent.
I think I remember breaking it down and basically proving that it
infringes on your work? That was a long time ago. My mind might be a
little blurry on that.
On 6/27/25 14:40, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/24/2025 12:32 PM, jseigh wrote:
There's https://patents.google.com/patent/US7769791B2/en
which was filed years after
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/Sev_8xKh3RU/m/
wEkEqnOhs_oJ?hl=en&pli=1
and lot of follow up posts on this.
Also it was based on differential reference counting from the
5295262 patent.
I think I remember breaking it down and basically proving that it
infringes on your work? That was a long time ago. My mind might be a
little blurry on that.
You can't infringe on public domain.
So basically there are 3 ways to protect an idea, intellectual property.
1) keep it propietary (secret), e.g. formula for coca cola.
2) publish it and put into the public domain. No one can prevent you
from using it then.
3) patent it.
I've done both (2) and (3). I'm leaning towards (1) now. Less
work, I don't have to write it up or code it or anything.
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 22:08:37 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 15:24:43 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
Back in my heyday of patent filings (1983-2000), every computer
architect was reading the same academic and industrial literature, had
access to the same fabrication technology, went to the same
conferences,...--it is any wonder why we reinvented each other's ideas
??
There was a time, I recall, when the legal advice from a company???s
lawyers
to its staff was *not* to read about other people???s patent filings.
That WAS the case here
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 22:05:10 +0000, jseigh wrote:
On 6/27/25 14:40, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/24/2025 12:32 PM, jseigh wrote:
There's https://patents.google.com/patent/US7769791B2/en
which was filed years after
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/Sev_8xKh3RU/m/
wEkEqnOhs_oJ?hl=en&pli=1
and lot of follow up posts on this.
Also it was based on differential reference counting from the
5295262 patent.
I think I remember breaking it down and basically proving that it
infringes on your work? That was a long time ago. My mind might be a
little blurry on that.
You can't infringe on public domain.
So basically there are 3 ways to protect an idea, intellectual property.
1) keep it propietary (secret), e.g. formula for coca cola.
2) publish it and put into the public domain. No one can prevent you
from using it then.
3) patent it.
I've done both (2) and (3). I'm leaning towards (1) now. Less
work, I don't have to write it up or code it or anything.
My 2 last patents took at least 2,000 hours of work to complete.
I can see why (1) is the best option.
But then if someone else patents it, you can be accused of infringing
your own invention. The "first to file" rule has changed the
calculation significantly.
You're disadvantaged either way: a patent can be revoked if you don't >actively defend it.
Then there are countries that either don't recognize Public Domain, or
make it very difficult to add something into it.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 01:18:55 +0000, mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
wrote:
My 2 last patents took at least 2,000 hours of work to complete.
I can see why (1) is the best option.
But then if someone else patents it, you can be accused of infringing
your own invention. The "first to file" rule has changed the
calculation significantly.
You're disadvantaged either way: a patent can be revoked if you don't actively defend it. "Defense" doesn't necessarily mean lawsuits -
good faith license negotiations count - but you can't simply ignore
potential infringements because if you do that might eventually be
used against you.
Then there are countries that either don't recognize Public Domain, or
make it very difficult to add something into it.
George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:
But then if someone else patents it, you can be accused of infringing
your own invention. The "first to file" rule has changed the
calculation significantly.
You're disadvantaged either way: a patent can be revoked if you don't >>actively defend it.
I have never heard that about patents, only about trademarks. Can you
cite a case?
Then there are countries that either don't recognize Public Domain, or
make it very difficult to add something into it.
Public domain is a concept from copyright. Why should it play a role
for patents? Just publish it in a way that makes the publication date >provable ...
(maybe on arxiv or github)
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 12:23:47 +0000, George Neuner wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 01:18:55 +0000, mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
wrote:
My 2 last patents took at least 2,000 hours of work to complete.
I can see why (1) is the best option.
But then if someone else patents it, you can be accused of infringing
your own invention. The "first to file" rule has changed the
calculation significantly.
Err, NO
You file a preliminary and then put in the 2,000 hours writing a
good patent. The preliminary only has to have enough content so
that someone reading the real patent can see that the idea was
indeed conceived in the preliminary.
You're disadvantaged either way: a patent can be revoked if you don't
actively defend it. "Defense" doesn't necessarily mean lawsuits -
good faith license negotiations count - but you can't simply ignore
potential infringements because if you do that might eventually be
used against you.
Then there are countries that either don't recognize Public Domain, or
make it very difficult to add something into it.
Another one, especially for the pharmaceutical industry, is the sheer
number of possible chemical compounds, which by far (and by this I mean orders and orders of magnitude) greater than the number of atoms
available to synthesize them. Just look at https://oeis.org/A000628 ,
which only lists alkanes.
You file a preliminary and then put in the 2,000 hours writing a good
patent. The preliminary only has to have enough content so that someone reading the real patent can see that the idea was indeed conceived in
the preliminary.
(Thinking of Titan, where H₂O forms solid rock, and the lakes and rain
and
snow are small-molecule alkanes.)
Any silicone polymers are unlikely to be useful in this environment.
I would guess that in such an environment, Oxygen or Chrorine based molecules, still with a carbon backbone, would be more useful (with
molecules tuned towards high reactivity). However, life that could
function on Titan would likely react explosively if subjected to Earth
like conditions.
If silicon based chemistry were a thing, I would expect it to be more
found in very hot environments (over 200C, possibly using metallic
solvents; such as sodium in place of water). And, for any such life,
exposure to Earth like conditions would likely also be lethal.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 12:23:47 +0000, George Neuner wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 01:18:55 +0000, mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
wrote:
My 2 last patents took at least 2,000 hours of work to complete.
I can see why (1) is the best option.
But then if someone else patents it, you can be accused of infringing
your own invention. The "first to file" rule has changed the
calculation significantly.
Err, NO
You file a preliminary and then put in the 2,000 hours writing a
good patent. The preliminary only has to have enough content so
that someone reading the real patent can see that the idea was
indeed conceived in the preliminary.
On 6/28/2025 5:40 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 09:21:07 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
Another one, especially for the pharmaceutical industry, is the sheer
number of possible chemical compounds, which by far (and by this I mean
orders and orders of magnitude) greater than the number of atoms
available to synthesize them. Just look at https://oeis.org/A000628 ,
which only lists alkanes.
And of course the mathematicians have a name for those kinds of
objects. ;)
Carbon is unique in its ability to form long-chain compounds, which is why >> organic chemistry is such a bigger field than inorganic chemistry. But is
that only true under Earth conditions? Would something like, say, silicon, >> be able to form long chains under lower temperatures and higher pressures, >> perhaps?
Silicon does form long chain polymers.
For example, silicone rubber.
If someone did get a patent on something in Knuth, in the
suit, smart people like you will testify that there was prior art, and
the patent will presumably be invalidated.
Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes:
If someone did get a patent on something in Knuth, in the
suit, smart people like you will testify that there was prior art, and
the patent will presumably be invalidated.
The patent claim would almost certainly include _in VLSI_.i The presence
of a prior non-VLSI embodiment would not be as helpful as you might hope.
But then, I am not a lawyer. Please don't count on me for anything.
Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> schrieb:
The patent claim would almost certainly include _in VLSI_.i The
presence of a prior non-VLSI embodiment would not be as helpful as
you might hope.
That would very likely mean lack of inventive step.
Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> schrieb:
Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes:
If someone did get a patent on something in Knuth, in the
suit, smart people like you will testify that there was prior art, and
the patent will presumably be invalidated.
The patent claim would almost certainly include _in VLSI_.i The presence
of a prior non-VLSI embodiment would not be as helpful as you might hope.
That would very likely mean lack of inventive step. Quoting https://www.epo.org/en/legal/case-law/2022/clr_i_d_9_21_10.html :
# If the technical problem that the skilled person has set himself to
# solve brings him to the solution step by step, with each individual
# step being obvious to him in terms of what he has achieved so far
# and what remains for him to do, the solution is obvious to the
# skilled person on the basis of the prior art, even if two or more
# such steps are required, and it does not involve an inventive step.
But then, I am not a lawyer. Please don't count on me for anything.
:-)
I actually find the explanations on the EPO quite clear.
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> schrieb:
Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes:That would very likely mean lack of inventive step. Quoting
If someone did get a patent on something in Knuth, in the
suit, smart people like you will testify that there was prior art, and >>>> the patent will presumably be invalidated.
The patent claim would almost certainly include _in VLSI_.i The presence >>> of a prior non-VLSI embodiment would not be as helpful as you might hope. >>
https://www.epo.org/en/legal/case-law/2022/clr_i_d_9_21_10.html :
# If the technical problem that the skilled person has set himself to
# solve brings him to the solution step by step, with each individual
# step being obvious to him in terms of what he has achieved so far
# and what remains for him to do, the solution is obvious to the
# skilled person on the basis of the prior art, even if two or more
# such steps are required, and it does not involve an inventive step.
But then, I am not a lawyer. Please don't count on me for anything.
:-)
I actually find the explanations on the EPO quite clear.
I originally posted about the 4 (out of 10) patents that were in fact Knuth-era algorithms compiled to VLSI, and that IMNSHO these obviusly
failed the inventive step requirement.
Another 4 were exceedingly obvious, exactly as described in the
paragraph above: Every step was the most obvious solution.
I don't know this for a fact, but I strongly suspect that the company
that commissioned my patent investigation was the owner of them, and not
the opponent, since I never heard anything at all after getting paid.
Thomas Koenig wrote:----------------
Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> schrieb:
I actually find the explanations on the EPO quite clear.
I originally posted about the 4 (out of 10) patents that were in fact Knuth-era algorithms compiled to VLSI, and that IMNSHO these obviusly
failed the inventive step requirement.
Another 4 were exceedingly obvious, exactly as described in the
paragraph above: Every step was the most obvious solution.
I don't know this for a fact, but I strongly suspect that the company
that commissioned my patent investigation was the owner of them, and not
the opponent, since I never heard anything at all after getting paid.
Terje
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:23:33 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,782 |