[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue 3: (STANDARD_MEASURES)
to follow up on what Ted Hardie said:
> I am also not wedded to the idea that the second registrant of
> "pixels per something" should be the one to define how it
> relates to the first "pixels per something"--it just seems one
> way to handle the need.
Just curious. I don't see any alternative. Do you? In practice
the registrar will have to exercise bias in the direction of
assuming that a new registration is related to some old
registration, and ask for compare/contrast clarification where
there seems to be overlap. Otherwise there will be a lot of
un-articulated overlap in registered features.