Re: Jackpot Federal Court Appeal won
- From: Terry Given <my_name@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 12:49:59 +1200
Tim Shoppa wrote:
Yet. :>(
Actually, they did patent it, but the court seems to have ruled that their patent cannot stop others from implementing the same obvious formula in their equipment.
Tim.
its pretty scary really, the number of patents which IMO are blindingly obvious to anyone with a modicum of skill. Rudy Severns has written some hilarious stuff on bull*** patents. Most things have been thought of before.
Cheers Terry .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Jackpot Federal Court Appeal won
- From: keith
- Re: Jackpot Federal Court Appeal won
- From: Rich Grise
- Re: Jackpot Federal Court Appeal won
- References:
- Jackpot Federal Court Appeal won
- From: The Real Andy
- Re: Jackpot Federal Court Appeal won
- From: Tim Shoppa
- Re: Jackpot Federal Court Appeal won
- From: Winfield Hill
- Re: Jackpot Federal Court Appeal won
- From: Tim Shoppa
- Jackpot Federal Court Appeal won
- Prev by Date: Re: How to protect H-bridge from short?
- Next by Date: Re: Synchrounous signal extraction technique name
- Previous by thread: Re: Jackpot Federal Court Appeal won
- Next by thread: Re: Jackpot Federal Court Appeal won
- Index(es):