Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:20:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher R. Bowman" <crb@Glue.umd.edu> To: Tony Kimball <Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM> Cc: jfarmer@sabre.goldsword.com, freebsd-chat@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: supermicro p6sns/p6sas Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95q.970930151413.3251A-100000@stochastic.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <199709301557.KAA29056@compound.east.sun.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Tony Kimball wrote: > Quoth John T. Farmer on Tue, 30 September: > : > : That I don't know off the top of my head. I suspect that you're > : correct & they all are using patented sockets. > > [moved to chat] > > The fault for that would lie squarely on the shoulders of the patent > office. Obviousness is *supposed* to be a prima facie criterion for > denial of patent. I hate to add only a meet to to any conversation, but in this case, I really think that we have ignored this criterion for patents far to long, and that our patent office ought to be more strigent that it has in recent years with regard to granting patents that are obvious. I will grant complete lack of knowledge of the backround of patent examiners but it almost appear that the people examining the patents are complete lay-people with no computer backround. --------- Christopher R. Bowman crb@Glue.umd.edu <A HREF="http://www.glue.umd.edu/~crb">My home page</A>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.3.95q.970930151413.3251A-100000>