You are clearly reading too much into what I asked you. I simply was asking if I was on the right track of understanding what you posted. You sound as if you turned that basic question into "something else". And it's a bit presumptuous to assume I've speculated about anything within the scope of the patents themselves. I'm pretty sure I have never taken that kind of tack about the patents. I simply have been trying to determine best I can, the possible reasons, not anyone else's, but mine, that can explain certain angles that I see about how things have developed. I have read some of the patents & while I'm somewhat technically minded, I fully realized quickly that there's no way most could even begin to understand their technicalities, altho I did understand some elements. I can also say that certain parts showed me that some of the technicals are far simpler, on actual use, than they read in their concept & I figure that's normal legalese type of writing or maybe even sometimes intended to throw less than the top qualified off.
Lastly, to speak to something you said which really had nothing to do with my question, but I think is more about you, yes, I think certain things have a "right" & a "wrong" to them, but many others have many gray areas & "in-betweens", which can be interpreted one way or the other, maybe even determined by the viewer, just like the dual slit light experiment. If just as fine for you to choose to belive in something w/o all the answers, as it is for me to look for the answers.
Thx for your posts.
Oh, by the way, no way am I trying to dissect the IP. How could I presume to do that w/o being a hi level patent attorney? That would be a ridiculous endeavor. I would never want the headache of trying to understand that stuff. I only asked what are the basic parameters of what a patent means to hold. The rest here is a for of editorializing. You have not seen me attack the patents or anything else.
