Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: 68000 Memory Managment
Message-ID: <1335@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 14-Sep-86 13:15:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: lsuc.1335
Posted: Sun Sep 14 13:15:10 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Sep-86 17:15:25 EDT
References: <508@elmgate.UUCP> <8000003@ccvaxa>
Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Organization: Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
Lines: 23
Summary: No difference

In article <8000003@ccvaxa> aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP writes:
>
>...> Sun's patent, and response "I did first" from the University of Waterloo
>
>Did Andy B. attempt to patent `his' approach in Canada?
>
>Andy "the Crazy Canuck" Glew.		USEnet:  ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
>Gould CSD 1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801    ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms


     This response confuses me.  If there was prior knowledge of the method
claimed to be "new" in the patent application, and such information was
publically obtainable, then the patent was improperly awarded.  It doesn't
matter whether the first user ever applied for patent protection.  What *would*
matter is whether the information was secret at the time or published (NOT
published in the normal sense, but simply "publically available" in any way).

Cheers! -- Jim O.
-- 
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
(416) 652-3880