3 ms·
The prior art had the bulk of the device attached significantly above the neck line which was not enough to render the patent invalid (paraphrased) I don't kno
by Ntrails 13y ago
The prior art had the bulk of the device attached significantly above the neck line which was not enough to render the patent invalid (paraphrased)
I don't know how you write down in law the difference between an invention (something new) and a new product (doing something that's already been invented in a slightly different way). There has to be a way though right... right?
- wnight 13y agoNo. You can't draw useful lines when there are no useful distinctions.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ScottBurson 13y agoI think the way you do it is by requiring objective evidence of nonobviousness. I should write a blog post about this, but failing that, I refer you to a couple of my previous HN posts on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5566382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5566382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5483777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5483777 Also relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5563058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5563058