[%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 == 'pb@breese.fr' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
> So even if the patent is simple and straightforward, if nobody had the
> same idea before, it is "non-obvious", right?
No, it is "new", but not necessary "non-obvious".
> 
> Perhaps the problem is that it is difficult to convince lawyers that
> having the idea of how to solve a problem is generally easy for a
> programmer. 
The programmer is "the skilled man of the art". If the technical embodiment
that solve a problem is "easy", this embodiment is obvious, in application
of patent law...
 
Pierre




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

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