On Saturday 17 March 2007, Les wrote: [...] >And all of this overlooks the base design of patent law. Patents are >supposed to give the grantee the exclusive rights to his work for a >limited time. After that by law, the work is to pass into the public >domain. Thus technology would have a profit attached, but would benefit >all of us by creating and then liberating technology for the next round >of advancement of society as a whole. All patents were to have an >expiration date set at the issuance of the patent. > >Regards, >Les H This WAS the intent of the framers. However, the 'fine art' of the language used to describe the patent and what it does, has become so obfuscated over the years its not English anymore, and ANAICT, the idea is to describe the patent is such obtuse terms that it is of no use even after the patent has reached its 'use by' date. If any of you think this is an accident, it is not. It is 100% an attempt to continue the exploitation of said patent, by the owner of it, for long after its expired by simply making it impossible to duplicate the work based on the description published in the patent. This, IMNSHO, should be sufficient grounds to negate the patent even without any prior art. AIUI, the patent is supposed to be reproducible by anyone familiar with the art, from information that is self-contained within the published patent or within its external references. When, in reality, in the last say 30 years, has anyone seen a patent that was sufficiently lucid as to allow that? I'm not a lawyer by any means, but the ones I've read recently might as well have been writtin in Swahili for all the sense they made to me. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Never forget what a man says to you when he is angry.
