3 ms·
There has to be more than merely an arbitrarily defined "innovation" to grant a patent, even in the US (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/part-II/chapte
by TomaszZielinski 13y ago
There has to be more than merely an arbitrarily defined "innovation" to grant a patent, even in the US (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/part-II/chapter-10 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/part-II/chapter-10).
- TylerE 13y ago"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process"
- eli 13y agoYou left off the rest of that sentence.
- TylerE 13y agoI didn't consider it relevant since it is ORed "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."
- eli 13y agoYou misunderstand it. All of those things listed are "subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." The next few sections are about conditions and requirements. That's the important part.
- TylerE 13y ago...none of which would seem to apply. What's the prior art? It's defiantly non-obvious or someone would have done it decades ago - color screens have been around for a long time. If you were thinking of something else, I kindly ask you to make a point, instead of asking me to prove a negative.
- Already__Taken 13y agoYou're conflating non-obvious and not caring.
- wtallis 13y agoColor screens have been around a long time, but staring at them all day has only recently become common behavior. And the solution to a problem can be obvious even if the existence of the problem isn't obvious.