Comments on: A Patent should pass a test of Obviousness http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/2006/11/05/a-patent-should-pass-a-test-of-obviousness/ dynamic typeof() guy Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:02:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Danne Lundqvist http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/2006/11/05/a-patent-should-pass-a-test-of-obviousness/comment-page-1/#comment-28228 Danne Lundqvist Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:04:44 +0000 http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/2006/11/05/a-patent-should-pass-a-test-of-obviousness/#comment-28228 One other thing I would like to point out that to me make this thing even more weird. As I understand it, the patent holders have not had anything to do with the implementation of the script tag or how it works. They have discovered functionality that was already existing. No one, or at least very few, had used it in that way but it was still not their invention or design that enabled the script tag to work as described in the patent. Feel free to enlighten me if I missed something here. They did not invent anything. They just used a tool (or whatever you want to call it) in a slightly different way. One other thing I would like to point out that to me make this thing even more weird. As I understand it, the patent holders have not had anything to do with the implementation of the script tag or how it works. They have discovered functionality that was already existing. No one, or at least very few, had used it in that way but it was still not their invention or design that enabled the script tag to work as described in the patent.

Feel free to enlighten me if I missed something here. They did not invent anything. They just used a tool (or whatever you want to call it) in a slightly different way.

]]>