Event JSON
{
"id": "92f88a1785a2e762fe37788e24ea246638dade2f3754ee540922ec53a28f28ca",
"pubkey": "c7f5fd2b13846f45595c336d4be2dff3faacebe400cb1eef90a97fb56f034dd6",
"created_at": 1704735397,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"e7f76f0d1fdf887c12cbf5eaf15dd3bb0b88f806051739f63200aae91a8a734e",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"9eefd04d32ab5da8de12d7b83201578ea095a676acf3a692ec1b0b202ae4e16f",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"7b0e774d46c5436a0488cc54c698d9e30168b10318e5f323169ee5ea76761eeb",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://historians.social/users/tkinias/statuses/111721539005352223",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:npub1ulmk7rglm7y8cykt7h40zhwnhv9c37qxq5tnna3jqz4wjx52wd8q2whweg \nIs this something of a vicious circle where the existence of patents on trivial designs (that is, unoriginal, obvious, or not novel) requires the courts to construe the protected design very narrowly, which then leads to pressure to approve more trivial design patents?\n\nI mean, the label and hinge design patents in your article are *laughable*.",
"sig": "ec1e209728bd19803ec23ecaa8bff865a952f410edcb9dc9239c445bb7146a4516bd8b8a2966ca83e31711b324064529385f140f5f2729943d1fa224fd6ddfc7"
}