original thinking. How original can it be if hyperlinks have been around since the 60's and several companies come out with there own way of adapting it to there documents.. Patenting just an idea is and always will be an horrible idea. If you dont have a working model by the time your patent actually goes in for review you shouldn't be able to get a patent.
First to the market should win period. If its an secret thing then dont tell anybody till its ready.
Ok.... so the patent was filed in 2006. I'm pretty sure prior works using such tech were in place long before then. Didn't Works, Word, WordPerfect, and most other major apps (including e-mail) have this functionality before 2006?
If we can now patent and sue in the face of prior works I'd like to go ahead and get patents on respiration and reproduction... or at least copulation.
Will for the interest of thought or idea to say at a time within interest of such would probably be more placed within copyright then a patent. Given for a patent would be within concept within itself at a time, but could still be placed probably within some means though saying a concept can't be taken.
The issue is probably that of rather what basically isn't done can be placed as something viable to say its something "different" within its own self or the like. The likelyhood of that happening against just say the interest of just of a finished product taking place for say documentation is probably hard placed.
Patenting on the idea if almost non-viable given the inital interest of such. To say Copyright is a lesser though isn't probably as fitting. But whats the difference though really? Other then the say affordability and attainability for one or the other then most probably at anytime.
The agurement almost within itself is own for its own place of issue probably given intial interest of use despite any difference of arguement or not. But of so though within arguement is that of which is placed within use that is without though. But for it though to say that any others have its place for one without one, is probably its own arguement again to say, but maybe not.
But on ideas of concepts though would gind its place as such, given an idea as a concept is subjective and perspective. Given a concept is usually within an idea. So for the royalties I think would still be valid I think if found say plausabile for whole of idea. But of it though if placed within interest of say issue within difference of hardware and say software within interest of idea and/or concept is probably placed within the difference, which would probably be a royalty or say fee, tax, and/or the like.
Probably alot to argue of course at a time, but to say that one is valid is hard placed given say the interest of such is probably a broad one at times for one. But again to say that most ideas of concepts within themselves as an idea or just idea within itself to be placed within interest before say final interest of such is more placed is probably more complicated to do then otherwise. Given also thats most does find its place of interest within thought of such more then not. So copyright to say would seem more fitting, given that much has its place of say interest of copyright. Though given interest of say "documentation" has more of a place for one. Rather say paper or digital. Can or could say at a point the interest of arguement extends itself at a time, but think it left to the intial interest at a time unless say otherwise.
For place of argue though again is more placed for ideas of lessers ones probably more then not as well. But for it though as think placed within article and/or comments, if interest of what is say patented and/or copyrighted is probably within interest of when "able" to do so. At a time within interest of say ideas or concepts, is probably limited to a point, but not maybe all points. Be like saying the idea or concept that counting in a row is useful or just counting in a row and not really expecting much interest of the idea or concept anywhere. But to say there could be more specifics then not though, yes?
Not trying to say its a broad interest, just of it though does have a basic one probably within itself that might find a place of being broad on the idea or interest of use that can be placed probably within a more specific means of interest of its say own limited say rights. There probably a few ideas within itself that might be of similar or difference/same-difference or again the like that might or is not the same.
Electronic does seem to have a place of interest at a time though probably as well within say arguement for thought or idea/concept that might say precede itself given an intial difference within say usage at anytime. To think of for say any interest of such is probably as placed only within the interest of say issue or arguement, if not interest within itself of topic and/or subject.
Hard telling or saying really hve the time though too as well, but of such probably does have a more fitting place then not. But still does argue rather to say the interest of idea within itself would place itself for itself without the say interest of idea or concept "alone" to itself. Might leave itself to sill say being viable for itself of course, but does have it place of say interest or issue or arguement otherwise probably at a time or a time. Also saying others thoughts to a point or ideas and/or concepts are also placed within themselves to say as well with or without say other thoughts, ideas , and/or concepts. Kinda off on that on but still. Cn say that there is a "system" of interest within idea of interest within itself or not. Might be better off or not for the interest of say arguement and/or issue. Maybe neither at a time.
[citation][nom]duk3[/nom]The patent system is so flawed...It needs to be redesigned in order to prevent obvious patent trolls from occurring.[/citation]
That's not the only thing that's flawed in the US. Just sayin'...(i.e. First & Second Amendments)
[citation][nom]nicodemus_mm[/nom]Ok.... so the patent was filed in 2006. I'm pretty sure prior works using such tech were in place long before then. Didn't Works, Word, WordPerfect, and most other major apps (including e-mail) have this functionality before 2006?If we can now patent and sue in the face of prior works I'd like to go ahead and get patents on respiration and reproduction... or at least copulation.[/citation]