Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards

Alex Hudson home at
Thu Apr 11 04:49:01 UTC 2002

On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 00:10, Claus Färber wrote:
> > No, it's not. Prior art doesn't mean "an example of something having
> > been done before". The question to ask is, "Given the claim in this
> > patent, would it be obvious to a skilled software engineer how to
> > implement it?".
> No. If it is not obvious how to implement it, the invention is not
> disclosed and the patent is invalid.
> The question is rather: Given the problem the invention solves, is
> it obvious to find the solutiopresented in the patent.

Sorry, you're right, my wording is bad - s/claim/solution/, as you
rightly point out.

Of course, people skilled in the arts are rarely consulted anyway - the
patent offices tend to rely on published works to avoid the "20:20
hindsight" problem (where the solution is 'obvious' once it is provided



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list