Re: LAW:Patents

From: Ross A. Finlayson (
Date: Thu Feb 01 2001 - 14:39:40 MST

There is so much prior art to that that it's ridiculous.


John Calvin wrote:

> Isn't there a clear example in Prior Art here.
> "Californian patents thought process
> By: Lucy Sherriff
> Posted: 01/02/2001 at 13:10 GMT
> An interesting sounding patent has been filed in the US, following the change in US patent law that allows schemes as well as physical inventions to be patented.
> One Hugh Harlan of California, who is head of a company called The Brain, has patented the operation of code that mimics the human thought process. (US Patent 6031537)
> His patent covers computer operations that represent close and distant thoughts. It means he'll receive royalties for any process that can be represented by flow charts linking chunks of related information together.
> The New Scientist reports that he has also applied for a global patent (WO 0057257) in anticipation of similar changes in patent law elsewhere. "
> This sounds a whole like the "Mind Mapping" technique that I learned in a high school English class, though that was done on paper. I also remember about 5 years ago coming across a small brain mapper program that did just what this patent application describes. Is there no sense in the patent office. Curious, is there anyone here currently working on a project that would be impacted by this patent?
> John Calvin
> _____________________________________________________________
> Email your boss can't read - sign up for free email
> at, your gateway to the underground

Ross Andrew Finlayson
Finlayson Consulting
Ross at Tiki-Lounge:
Confucious says, "My name is Confucious."

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:34 MDT