| |||||||||||||
The patentThe patentPosted Jan 19, 2006 12:01 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474)Parent article: The .NET API patent, mono, and GNOME
How on earth could someone have granted such an obvious patent?
Claim 1 is just for remote procedure calls, a technique which has been known and used in computing since the 70s (and probably earlier). Claim 2 is for all of client-server computing. Claim 38 (to pick one at random) covers what has been done in X11 since the mid 80s.
Rich.
(Log in to post comments)
um...that's what "application" and "rejection" mean Posted Jan 20, 2006 4:20 UTC (Fri) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link] How on earth could someone have granted such an obvious patent?Perhaps if you were to go back and reread the article... ;-) Greg
The patent Posted Jan 25, 2006 2:55 UTC (Wed) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] "How on earth could someone have granted such an obvious patent?"
The usual technique is to file the most broad and comprehensive patent claims you think you can get away with, and then respond to specific points as they are raised by the examiner. If the examiner is paying attention, then you address whatever objections they raised in the most minimal way possible. Lather, rinse, pay a few legal fees, repeat until the examiner isn't paying attention any more.
|
|||||||||||||