Hehehehe. But they are originals… All clothes look the same so who owns the patents for the really unusual looking clothing that no one ever wears I’d like to know? So all jeans are really Wranglers. I thought that Levi owned the original patent for jeans?
Blend on!
everyone wears uggies! 
I think that when this patent stuff gets going we will have some good laughs to be sure
( can I use a “period” to close this sentence or do a need to check out the patent on that before I ever close a sentence with a “period” again?)
Hehehehehe.
Modern ways are so funny sometimes.
Hehehehe.
Oh no, I used a “period” three times------
Hehehehe.
Just think, the guy that originally invented the “period” to end a sentence would have owned the world if he had a patent on it.
Hehehehe. But they are originals… All clothes look the same so who owns the patents for the really unusual looking clothing that no one ever wears I’d like to know?[/quote]
you know the story of Ugg boots?
it is similar to the story of an american trade marking my countries name and being granted the trademark by a US official.
retarded 
Ugg boots (the name) have been in the dictionary in my country and australia for many years before being trademarked.
Ugg boots were a case of a poor decision by a trademark office. they didn’t do the research.
its like me trademarking the name “car” when talking about automobiles.
basicly Ugg is a public word, and anyone making boots that look like ugg boots is allowed to use the name.
Alltaken
It is definitely a crazy world.
Objective behind it all is probably EU trying to jump on the internet bandwagon.
They want to get into the action so to speak.
But I’d say they are way too late.
It’s like if I start a company called “table”, with a logo that looks like a board with four legs.
Then when I get successful, I trademark it, and earn revenue from everyone using the word table and the image of a table.
It’s probably impossible in sweden (where i am), to trademark swedish things like that.
But I could probably trademark american terms in sweden, and then just go international through GATTS and TRIPS 
Patents are what Thomas Alva Edison (an American inventor who had more of them to his name than anyone…) called “a license to steal,” and that is exactly what they are. They’re an invention by lawyers to give them an endless excuse to litigate.
If you submitted a patent application for “a process of wiping your a*s with a piece of paper or similar substance arranged on a roll,” somewhere a patent-examiner would rubber-stamp it and pick up the next packet of paper from his or her in-basket. (A typical examiner looks at over a hundred new patent applications a day.) You would soon have a pretty piece of paper – and you could frame it and put it on your wall as a conversation-piece … or you could exercise your own patent with it … it makes very little difference.
Why? Because to actually obtain any of the supposed benefits of your new patent, you must … you got it … start suing people. You can actually lose your patent if you don’t sue everyone who could possibly be “a violator” of your patent! Which means paying still more money to lawyers. You can extort your competitors in this way (because with tens of millions of patents out there in the United States alone, everything is “a violation”…) and your competitors surely will extort some of that money back from you. Who wins? Only the lawyers.
The European Union would be very wise to reject the overtures of American patent attorneys … but guess who the lawmakers are? Yup… %| They’re lawyers, one and all. %|
But the software industry, in the end, has to move beyond this issue, because the software industry actually produces money and goods. Lawyers do not. The Open Source movement has abundantly proven, not only that there is no monopoly on “good ideas” in this world, but that tremendous and very profitable progress can be made by international cooperation facilitated by the Internet. The notion that one person can lay an exclusive claim on an idea and keep anyone else in the world from having or using a similar idea by means of a silly piece of paper … is silly.
Somewhere out there, I’m sure that there’s an American letters-patent that solemnly proclaims that “the only way” to transfer music from a tangible medium into an audible expression is by means of an Edison® phonograph-roll." (Circa 1920.) Therefore, turn in your iPods? I don’t think so! But this kind of bst makes perfect sense to a lawyer, because he sees billable time in it (and nothing else matters to a lawyer). A lawyer would sell his own daughter; it’s simply a question of the price.
Yeonil
About innovation. I hope you are right, however it seem in the 1997 in USA there is a patent on texture mapping!
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=3d.TTL.&OS=TTL/3d&RS=TTL/3d
OpenGL used it almost since first years of '90…so how it’is possible the patent above? Maybe I’ve not understand perfectly the description of
’ Method of processing 2D images mapped on 3D objects ’ ?