[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) 
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Reply to sender(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)to list(074db819ec%END%074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email == 'Erik Josefsson poiqwe@excite.com' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
Hej.

In a patent application, along with the technical description of a machine I
think the inventor is obliged to include a structural drawing of the
invention. Am I wrong?

When it comes to swpats, would it be meaningful to discuss why the source
code is not published with the patent description?

To publish the source would perhaps make (logical) sense in the
monopoly/publicity exchange (i.e. the patent system)?

My point is (if there is one) that perhaps even a patentlayers answer would
show interesting differences between a structural drawing and a computer
program.

Thank you.

//Erik

Is there a link to the long awaited FAQ?





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/







(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)