[%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 == 'ehj@cleosan.com' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)

Simo Sorce wrote:

Well I think such patents should never pass the obviousity test, prior
art may be considered the unix hardlink that also permit you a similar
concept (different name for the same file).

The relevant question in the light of the Parliament Amended Directive is if the patent qualifies as "subject matter".

//Erik





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

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