|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] FAT conflicts?
|
One reason an application sometimes gets abandoned is because the work flow is not continued. The applicant does not follow up on say the first rejection, or whatever response may be an option or required.
Also, (I was curious to know more) here is a link I searched that shows the lawsuits in pdf (about 1/2 page down).
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10172068-56.html
----- Original Message ----
> From: Art Alexion <art.alexion@gmail.com>
> To: Philly Linux User Group (PLUG) <plug@lists.phillylinux.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 8:00:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [PLUG] FAT conflicts?
>
> On Monday 02 March 2009 06:07:16 Art Alexion wrote:
> > On Monday 02 March 2009 05:49:31 Bob Schwier wrote:
> > > Didn't the older non-MS DOS's like Dr. DOS use fat?
> > > Seems like one could not suddenly decide that something is patented that
> > > has been in the public domain for 25 years.
> >
> > Trademarks work that way. It is up to the owner to protect or lose them.
> > Not sure if the intermediately protected copyrights or the more highly
> > protected patents work that way.
>
> This (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_711.htm) seems
> to suggest that pending applications can be abandoned, but doesn't speak to
> existing patents.
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|