Ask Michael Burke Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (81903)	6/24/2000 2:24:00 PM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (1) of 132070

Zeev, re: < I doubt that "clean room" conditions is a sufficient condition to determine "obviousness" for patent purposes.> I'm certainly no expert in patents nor "clean room" technology. I was witness to the creation of a "clean room", however, and if memory serves me, the approach was successful. (Been a long time ago). Perhaps "obviousness" comes in degrees of complexity, I don't know. But if a new implementation of a design were as simple as say, modifying some logic, and this would be obvious to any designer, is that patentable? Or if there were a slightly different modification to achieve the same result, would that be infringing? This whole discussion was triggered by a statement attributed to Barrett, and thus the interest. JMHO's

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next