What is the fastest sustainable web service response time?
in [MFC]
|
From: Hector Santos on 9 Mar 2010 02:07 Jerry Coffin wrote: > Say what? I've been doing consulting about patents since well before > 1996, and I'm quite certain no such thing was ever true. 602 Original Oath or Declaration [R-7] http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0600_602.htm#sect602 18 U.S.C. 1001 Statements or entries generally. - Patent Laws http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_18_U_S_C_1001.htm#usc18s1001 This is all part of an DUTY TO DISCLOSE with no malpractice, intentional neglect and misconduct in order to plea ignorance to limit your liability and tort lawsuit by others. While the guidelines (156) indicates that you are not required to disclose, if its pertinent and you willingly neglect to disclose the information, you better SHOW why you CHOOSE not to disclose. The 1995 version of 156 specifically states intentional non-compliance is not liable, however intentional non-compliance assumes risk. As to the what depth an examiner follows the guidelines and makes judgment calls on the quality of the patent is another matter, and its also another matter if the patent holder begins to sue you at which point he better have your ducks lined up because most judges don't accept ignorance as an excuse. The fellow in question was a naive "patent troll", an applicable level operator who used existing open source technology, nothing invented but used his open source software add-on scripting feature to develop a rule and uses the flawed patent laws in a vain attempt to claim IP to a script rule. He was ignorant of the technology market place to know enough it was already prior art, so obvious no one would bother to focus special to it. -- HLS |