| |||||||||||||
is there a place to contribute prior art?is there a place to contribute prior art?Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:39 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: is there a place to contribute prior art? by stevenj Parent article: Microsoft sues TomTom We don't necessarily need prior art, given the recent Bilski decision. The threshold for obviousness has been raised. But perhaps Microsoft hopes that if it sues on the basis of six questionable patents (or maybe more), at least one will stick.
(Log in to post comments)
Bilski Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:59 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Bilski isn't the one about obviousness -- it's the one about a new btest for software patentability: how much of a real-world effect does software have to produce in order to be a patentable process and not an unpatentable mathematical fact. KSR v. Teleflex was about the test for obviousness. We still don't know how the two tests will interact.
|
|||||||||||||