Patents are a scam

Patents don’t exist.

They’re a scam to make money.

When a patent application is filed, it’s not because the patent has been found to be valid, but rather because the Patent Office believes it has the necessary technology for its product.

When patents are granted, they’re often for technology that is already commercially available, but has been rejected by the patent office.

It’s a double whammy because the patented technology will never be used or tested by the market.

But if a patent can be proven to be useful, it can then be awarded to a company or organisation that can then bring the patented invention to market.

Patents have been around for a long time, but their existence has been kept hidden by a lack of regulation.

There’s a lack the oversight required to protect the interests of patent holders and their customers.

In a recent interview with Patently Apple, patent lawyer and patent expert Timo Söderholm said that “patents are just a huge scam”.

“The patent office wants to protect their interests.

They are very good at that,” he said.

“They will not let anybody tell them what to do with the patent and they will not tell you that it’s an invention.

If somebody is trying to make a good product, they will make that product and it will be good.”

The patent system is set up to help businesses get their hands on the next big thing and it’s been this way since the mid-19th century.

The patent is granted by a government department, the Patent Board of America, and it sets out the basic rules of the field.

There are a variety of rules for a patent, but all are very similar.

A patent is only valid if it is patentable, meaning that a company can prove that it has developed a method of making something.

A person can claim to have invented a technology, but it’s only if they can prove they have a patentable invention that they are able to sell it.

The only way for a company to show that they have made a patent-able invention is to prove that a person has actually invented it.

It can be a lot of work to prove a patent and a patent office is constantly looking for ways to make it easier.

If the patent holder is granted a patent for a new invention, the company will often be granted a “treaty” which is a legally binding contract to settle disputes over the patent.

Treaties can be for things like a royalty on an invention, or a reduction in royalty rates on other inventions.

The biggest patent-related disputes between the two parties, however, are over the validity of a patent.

If you can’t prove that you invented something, you can be awarded patent infringement.

If someone claims that they invented something and you’re able to prove it, then you could lose your patent.

And if the patent claims that a particular invention is patented, then it can be used to sue you.

A few of the biggest patent cases in the history of patent law involve the alleged use of the iPhone in the iPhone 6s.

It was claimed that Apple had patented a “backside” display for the iPhone that could be used in conjunction with the display of the previous iPhone.

It turned out that there was no backside display, but instead a “display port” that could take a video signal and convert it into an image.

The original iPhone 6 display had a resolution of 1024×768, which meant that when the iPhone was used with a larger display, the resolution would not be able to display the full screen.

Instead, the device would have to be split into two parts.

One part was the screen, which could be a standard LCD display or an OLED display.

The other part was a “camera” that was able to take the image and convert the image into a photo.

In this case, the iPhone had a camera that could only take images of the front of the phone.

But the patent went on to say that Apple “had devised a new backside screen that could replace the LCD display” and that the new screen “can be used with the previous display”.

In the case of the alleged patent infringement, Apple was awarded a patent infringement award and was allowed to keep the alleged iPhone 6 design.

The iPhone 6 was not an iPhone design.

It wasn’t even an iPhone 6 Plus.

Apple’s patent, though, was not the first case where a company tried to use a patent to bring a patent lawsuit against a competitor.

In the early 1980s, a group of Australian manufacturers, including Dyson and Johnson & Johnson, sued Apple, alleging that the company had infringed their patent.

Apple claimed that the Dyson patents were invalid and that Dyson infringed its own design.

Dyson argued that the Johnson &amps; Johnson patents were “fair use” because they were a design feature, not a patent claim.

In an earlier case, Johnson &ams

Patents don’t exist.They’re a scam to make money.When a patent application is filed, it’s not because the patent has been…