[patent]

"Do you think you are an expert because you have 10 patents?"

So your answer is none. Thought so.

You aren't going to address any of the substance of the argument are you? You have no argument, and so you are trying to claim that you are right because you have 10 patents. That's the weakest logic I've seen on the internet for some time. You don't know much about patent law, so you'd look foolish if you actually tried to debate me on the patent laws, obviousness, or anything else.

Instead, you just snort about having patents. It doesn't carry water. You are wrong, and simply refuse to admit it.

patent

[HighWheeler]

I don't need anymore of your "argument".

All of your "argument" is simply conjecture. He's not a legal invention mumbo-jumbo expert, so his choice of words has to be taken into the context --- all of which you ignore.

I laid out the facts: He still has no prior knowledge of the ancient process, still has no known ancient dye source, and no known expectation or results prior to the start of his process. The process was or is as patentable as someone who figures out a new process to make a new alloy from steel.

So --- you can't invent and and you can't convince.