stever@videovax.UUCP (Steven E. Rice) (09/19/86)
In article <462@jc3b21.UUCP>, Fabbian G. Dufoe (fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP) writes: > . . . >>>> I hate to tell you folks, but Andy Bechtolsheim here at Sun has a patent >>>> (applied for and granted) on using the untranslated addresses as the >>>> RAS addresses and doing the MMU address translation before the column >>>> addresses are needed for CAS. > . . . > Using the untranslated addresses as the RAS addresses and doing the MMU > address translation before the column addresses are needed for CAS sounds > pretty general to me. I am sure the process Andy Bechtolsheim patented is > quite a bit more specific. A patent cannot be granted for a general idea. > It requires a specific implementation of an idea, either in a device or > process. Think about it. Without that provision patents would stifle > development. They are intended to do just the opposite. A patent is > supposed to protect the inventor of a process from those who would use his > work as their own. But it is not supposed to prevent people from using a > concept the inventor has brought to light in their own inventions, so long > as they don't plaigiarize from the original work. I'm afraid the "general idea" concept is no bar to a patent! Many years ago, Western Electric (I think. . .) obtained a patent protecting their interests in NPN-to-PNP transistor connections! Not too long after both varieties of transistor were circulating in their lab, someone saw that the collector of one type could be connected to the base of the other type (you can't do that with tubes!). Pretty general idea, eh? My employer paid royalties on this invention until the patent expired. As another example, there has been a long battle over who first invented the laser. Recently (the last year or so), a winner was declared and a number of patents issued. Can you think of a more general idea than the laser? Whether or not Andy's invention ultimately proves patentable (because of details having to do with the dates of the first public announcement and filing of the patent disclosure, prior art, and so forth), the idea is quite clearly patentable! Further, if the claims are drawn up broadly (lawyers are hired for this purpose. . .), the patent should cover any realization of the idea as used in memory mapping systems. Remember, though, that the patent could be invalidated merely by proving prior art! (Does anyone have an example of an equivalent, but earlier, implementation of this idea? To invalidate the patent, the prior art would probably have to involve dynamic RAMs. . .) A patent does not just "protect the inventor of a process from those who would use his work as their own." The idea is protected in all realizations that are covered by the claims made in the patent, as long as there is no reason (such as prior art) that they should be invalidated. For a period of seventeen years, the inventor is allowed to control the use of his invention, and charge for the privilege. In return, he makes the invention public and relinquishes all control of the invention at the end of the patent's lifetime. If there were no patents, the only protection people would have is to keep everything secret (so-called "trade secrets"). This would impede the flow of information much more than not being able to use an invention without compensation to the inventor! Steve Rice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever