| |||||||||||||
prior art: Knight Riderprior art: Knight RiderPosted Mar 2, 2009 22:00 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544)Parent article: Third time is the charm? Didn't KITT do many of these things in the early 80s?
(Log in to post comments)
prior art: Knight Rider Posted Mar 2, 2009 22:23 UTC (Mon) by mgedmin (subscriber, #34497) [Link]
Store long filenames in a FAT filesystem?
prior art: Knight Rider Posted Mar 7, 2009 13:15 UTC (Sat) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]
LOL ... Wouldn't surprise me if KITT used 8.3 filenames though :-)
prior art: Knight Rider Posted Mar 3, 2009 16:56 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link]
Was KITT an open platform?
prior art: Knight Rider Posted Mar 5, 2009 11:43 UTC (Thu) by addw (guest, #1771) [Link]
Exactly what I thought. Are we, perhaps, overlooking a great source of prior art: science fiction ? Should patent busters be looking at old episodes of Star Treck & Dr Who and rereading Asimov & al ?
prior art: Knight Rider Posted Mar 6, 2009 19:16 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Are we, perhaps, overlooking a great source of prior art: science fiction? Should patent busters be looking at old episodes of Star Treck & Dr Who and rereading Asimov & al ? One of the few things I remember from my one patent law class is that you patent an invention, not an idea. An invention is "an idea reduced to practice." Or, in Thomas Edison's words, "invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." Sci Fi takes care of the inspiration, but unless Asimov also filled in all the details needed to implement it and did the testing to show that it works, it's not an invention. That's how we come to the obviousness test: once you've realized having a computer in a car is a good way to do something (the inspiration), it's obvious that it should and could go in the dashboard, so there's presumably nothing to perspire over and nothing to patent here.
|
|||||||||||||