P3D Re: Patents

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 
>From: Michael Kersenbrock  writes:
>..................
>Let me pose a question.  Patents have been shown to have been
>granted to things which have not ever been implemented and the
>inventor has said that he didn't expect to ever implement it.
>
>If patents only patent implementations, then how was a patent
>granted for something that was never implemented?
>

*****  For one thing, the patent review process is intended to see that a
patent isn't granted for that which cannot be implemented. If there is
reasonable assurance from several points of view that an implementation can
take place, then a patent can be awarded. If you should come along later and
prove that implementation is NOT possible, you might be able to negate a patent.

If a patent is able to be implemented, but the inventor chooses not to carry
it to that point or can't for various reasons, then he/she loses the rights
to that patent at some point in time, allowing someone else to come along
and use it freely. One has to maintain patent rights to carry it's coverage
to full term. Part of the reason for the documentation is precisely so
others have access to it later in time.

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


------------------------------