Re: Seen on aus.legal
From: benlizross (benlizro_at_ihug.co.nz)
Date: 11/29/04
- Next message: Count 1: "Re: Israeli officer: I was right to shoot 13-year-old child"
- Previous message: M. Ranjit Mathews: "Re: French becoming agglutinative (was: deepfriedmars.com)"
- In reply to: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Reply: John Atkinson: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Reply: Richard: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:02:48 +1300
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
> >
> > > Jacques Guy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "This is presumably because the parties previously agreed
> > > > that the property could be caveated or an agreement touched
> > > > on the property to enable it to be caveated"
> > >
> > > It's probably something specific to Australian law.
> >
> > No. Putting a caveat on a property is pretty common in British and Canadian
> > legal practise too. I'm sure you have something equivalent in US property
> > law -- maybe you call it something else?
>
> That's what I said. "Put a caveat on" is not the same word as
> "caveated," which ought to be "caveatted," no?
>
> > I understand US patent law allows you to "caveat" an invention before taking
> > out a patent on it.
>
> I don't think it's called that.
> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net
There's an old Big Webster next door and occasionally I like to wipe the
grime off it and look something up. (The title page is missing, but the
Preface is dated 1909.)
caveat n. 1a. Eng.Patent Law. A notice filed upon an application for
renewal of a patent by a person who wishes to oppose the renewal.
1b. U.S.Patent Laws. A notice given to the Patent Office of the
caveator's claim as inventor, in order to prevent the grant of a patent
to another person for the same alleged invention...
caveat v.i. 1. To enter a caveat.
So there is, or was, such a term in US patent law, but the absence of a
v.t. would preclude "caveated". This as of 1909. Updates to follow.
Ross Clark
- Next message: Count 1: "Re: Israeli officer: I was right to shoot 13-year-old child"
- Previous message: M. Ranjit Mathews: "Re: French becoming agglutinative (was: deepfriedmars.com)"
- In reply to: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Reply: John Atkinson: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Reply: Richard: "Re: Seen on aus.legal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|