News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Crunchpad is proof of obviousness in iPad design by Duff on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:26AM (#3333991)
Issac Asimov described, in detail, humanoid and mechanical robots in books published 60 years ago.

So when somebody invents a similar robot, should they be unable to patent that invention?

Re:The Crunchpad is proof of obviousness in iPad design by ConstantineXVI on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:29AM (#3334008)
The physical design of a humanoid robot? No; Asimov's designs would constitute prior art (not to mention the existing real-world humanoid robots, or even humans themselves if you want to get existental). Any novel mechanical workings that make a humanoid robot possible would certainly be patentable, however.
Re:The Crunchpad is proof of obviousness in iPad design by Symmetry on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:32AM (#3334021)
Yes, they certainly shouldn't! They can patent the inner working of the robot that they came up with, but they can't patent all possible humanoid robots, regardless of how they're implemented on the inside.
Re:The Crunchpad is proof of obviousness in iPad design by wavephorm on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:45AM (#3334084)

  should they be unable to patent that invention
Of course not, they didn't invent anything.