clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (09/15/86)
In article <1335@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: >In article <8000003@ccvaxa> aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: >> >>...> Sun's patent, and response "I did first" from the University of Waterloo [BTW: Sun's patent on doing MMU translation during DRAM CAS time] >> >>Did Andy B. attempt to patent `his' approach in Canada? >> >>Andy "the Crazy Canuck" Glew. USEnet: ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew >>Gould CSD 1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801 ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms > > > This response confuses me. If there was prior knowledge of the method >claimed to be "new" in the patent application, and such information was >publically obtainable, then the patent was improperly awarded. It doesn't >matter whether the first user ever applied for patent protection. What *would* >matter is whether the information was secret at the time or published (NOT >published in the normal sense, but simply "publically available" in any way). It wouldn't be the first time that they've done it. While I worked at AES Data, I was informed that Nabu Corp (manufacturer of Teledon terminals) held a patent on the idea of distributing software over the telephone (bye-bye computer networks!) The person who told me was not particularly technical, so it is more likely that the patent is really held on distributing software via cable TV wires - fitting in with Nabu's software distribution service. That sounds like Stargate ... (Actually, I presume that Lauren has already cleared that potential problem). Presumably Canadian patents. Also, about a year ago, one of the original UUCP implementors was trying to find literature about the well known technique of call-back when trying to verify the identity of a telephone caller. You see, someone he knew was being sued for US patent infringement on just that (patent dated 1978 or 9)... He didn't think that the UUCP documentation of call-back (I've seen call-back in UUCP documentation dated in '78) would be sufficiently clear to establish prior knowledge. As it turns out, there's lots of published references to call-back dated prior to 1978 (especially non-computerized), and I shouldn't think that the patent could possibly stand if seriously challenged in court. I like Henry's idea, considering the effectiveness of some of the patent screening, why not patent some idea too simple for somebody to have patented before. Then make money by charging royalties to "infringers" too small to be worth fighting in court. -- Chris Lewis UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955