Guy Dudeman on Nostr: npub1ulmk7…whweg :) I was reading that case about the cocktail smokers and ...
npub1ulmk7rglm7y8cykt7h40zhwnhv9c37qxq5tnna3jqz4wjx52wd8q2whweg (npub1ulm…hweg)
:) I was reading that case about the cocktail smokers and thinking... what does this have to do with what we're talking about? Then I came back here and saw you edited the link to go to your paper, which makes so much more sense!
Obviously I'm not a lawyer and I'm talking out of my ass here and probably wasting your valuable lawyer time :) But this stuff fascinates me and I want to keep learning more, so I thank you in advance if you deem this worthy of a reply. :)
I think I now see what you're saying, and let me know if I'm on the right track or not...
Company A builds a computer with a distinctive/original physical button that performs ABC command, instructing the computer to accomplish task XYZ. They get a patent on it.
Company B at some later date builds a piece of software with a GUI that exactly copies Company A's physical button design, and, when activated, accomplishes the same XYZ task.
Both buttons accomplish the same function on their respective computers, and both buttons look alike and let's say they are both positioned in similar places on their respective physical surfaces.
Company A sues, saying that Company B has violated their patent for that button.
Company B says "no, ours is Software, so therefore we aren't in violation of your patent"!
Company A should win on both design and utility grounds, right?
:) I was reading that case about the cocktail smokers and thinking... what does this have to do with what we're talking about? Then I came back here and saw you edited the link to go to your paper, which makes so much more sense!
Obviously I'm not a lawyer and I'm talking out of my ass here and probably wasting your valuable lawyer time :) But this stuff fascinates me and I want to keep learning more, so I thank you in advance if you deem this worthy of a reply. :)
I think I now see what you're saying, and let me know if I'm on the right track or not...
Company A builds a computer with a distinctive/original physical button that performs ABC command, instructing the computer to accomplish task XYZ. They get a patent on it.
Company B at some later date builds a piece of software with a GUI that exactly copies Company A's physical button design, and, when activated, accomplishes the same XYZ task.
Both buttons accomplish the same function on their respective computers, and both buttons look alike and let's say they are both positioned in similar places on their respective physical surfaces.
Company A sues, saying that Company B has violated their patent for that button.
Company B says "no, ours is Software, so therefore we aren't in violation of your patent"!
Company A should win on both design and utility grounds, right?