3 ms·
Well, it was apparently upheld twice on reexamination, where they could have fixed that. The problem is more that the bar for non-obviousness is so low, it's ba
by rbehrends 3y ago
Well, it was apparently upheld twice on reexamination, where they could have fixed that. The problem is more that the bar for non-obviousness is so low, it's basically on the floor. Paired with a discipline (software development), where independent reinvention is common, this is just a recipe for disaster.
- pbhjpbhj 3y agoEveryone knows 1+1=2, so why did Russell spend many many pages/hours on a proof, surely if people know it then it's easy to demonstrate? /s Programmers are notoriously good at documenting everything after all. /s It's easy to give documentary evidence for things someone found self-evident and so only wrote a scribbled note about in a workbook 40 years ago. /s FWIW patent law obviousness is not the same thing as ordinary notions of obviousness either. All my personal opinion, ofc.