| Khuutra said: http://google.com/patents/about?id=SHnOAAAAEBAJ&dq=7,701,835 http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=QdbJAAAAEBAJ&dq=7,577,080 http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=8mbVAAAAEBAJ&dq=7,619,961 http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=5xXSAAAAEBAJ&dq=7,756,398 Let me know how vague you think these are - to the best of my knowledge, hardware patents are actually anything but vague. But I don't know anything about patents. |
The abstracts seem incredibly wide in range. The specifics I will have to spend more time looking at to see specifically, but it wouldn't surprise me. The patent office has not caught up to the electronic age. You can leave out almost all the specifics and still get the patent. This is why companies go out of their way to patent everything they can think of and make a living off the lawsuits that follow.
Edit: Or I am a complete tard. I am, naturally, talking about the US patent office which has absolutely no impact on this case. I have heard similar things from Europe but have no first hand knowledge.
