Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:35:50 -0500, Alan Beagley
wrote: I understand that patents do not always tell the whole story either: many, many years ago I worked in a pharmaceutical laboratory where we were trying to come up with a product that circumvented a German patent, but we could not even get the process described in the patent to work -- they may have omitted mention of a catalyst. -=- Alan Hi Alan, More their problem. By law, a patent is FULL disclosure. Failure to that end is sufficient to nullify it. If you simply copied their work and added that "catalyst," then you have just nudged their patent into the dust bin. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna | Antenna | |||
Ten-tec vee beam | Antenna | |||
50 Ohms "Real Resistive" impedance a Misnomer? | Antenna |