jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (01/01/70)
The book "Advanced Legal Strategies for Software Protection" is a good
way to get an idea of how software patents work in practice. It is definitely
possible to patent an algorithm that can be expressed in custom hardware.
Patents are taken much more seriously today than a few years ago. One
reason is the Kodak-Polaroid legislation, where Kodak was held to be
infringing on Polaroid's instant color film patents. The judgement was
that Kodak was 1) ordered to get out of the instant photography
business within thirty days 2) ordered to offer to buy back every Kodak
instant camera ever sold 3) ordered to pay damages to Polaroid in the 8-figure
range. All these things were done. This shook up a lot of businesses that
assumed that if they were found to be in infringement they would just pay
some damages and be done with it. When you have to factor in the possibility
of being kicked out of a business and writing off a few hundred million in
now-useless manufacturing facilities, patent infringement looks very risky.
Being responsible for a debacle like that can result in a severe career
setback.
More recently, jurisdiction over patent, trademark, and copyright cases
has been centralized; all such cases now are heard by a Federal court
specializing in such matters, rather than by the regional district court.
Turnaround time has improved; the queue is separate from the general
docket of Federal civil cases. The new court is considered pro-patent-holder.
Being a free-lance inventor, I think that all this is just great.
John Nacs!ugwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (01/01/70)
In article <934@bakerst.UUCP> kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) writes: -In article <1329@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM> dennis@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM writes: ->In article <2411@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: ->>One, commonly used, method for "proving" the date of invention is to ->>document the invention and mail it to yourself (postmark). ->Gosh, I think I'll mail myself some envelopes (unsealed of course) to ->get them postmarked today. Then, when something comes along that I ->want to be the inventor of, I'll write a description of it and put it ->into one of the envelopes and seal it. -... The envelope would -have to have be sealed. And the mail has to be registered, and they -stamp the heck out of the envelope - including the seal, as proof that -the contents were in the envelope on the date the envelope was sealed, -registered, and mailed. During wartime (and perhaps at other times), censors regularly extract the contents of envelopes sealed like this, examine them, and reinsert them, without leaving noticeable evidence of their tampering. You could use similar techniques (which I won't describe, but they're simple) to fake time-stamped registry via postal means; just insert the document you want to be thought of as "old", like Dennis suggested. There are tests that could possibly detect the relative age of the paper and its contents, but it's unlikely anyone would go that far in a challenge. If there's a lot of money involved, and you can't trust a guy's word, why should you trust his evidence?
cs313s19@uhccux.UUCP (09/23/87)
Aside from the appropriateness of the RSA algorithm itself for patenting,
how about the manner in which it was distributed? In a paper distributed
by MIT and in Communications of the ACM, the authors described RSA without
any mention of a patent or pending patent.
Now, I know zero about patent law, but shouldn't this place the algorithm
in the public domain? Suppose, eg, that I hadn't read in BYTE or in this
newsgroup that it's patented, and built some large system based on RSA.
How can they claim I should have known it's theirs?
Anyone who knows more about patent law (ie, nearly everyone) care to comment?
-- Mike Morton // P.O. Box 11378, Honolulu, HI 96878
Local gurus assure me my addresses are:
INTERNET: cs313s19@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
UUCP: {ihnp4,uunet,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!uhccux!cs313s19
BITNET: cs313s19%uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu@rutgers.edukathy@bakerst.UUCP (09/23/87)
In article <17179@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: > > Patents are taken much more seriously today than a few years ago. One >reason is the Kodak-Polaroid legislation > > More recently, jurisdiction over patent, trademark, and copyright cases >has been centralized ... The new court is considered pro-patent-holder. > > Being a free-lance inventor, I think that all this is just great. > > John Nagle Seems to me the trick would be do you as an individual, free-lance inventor have the money and the time to go up against the battery of lawyers and words and funds that a corporation intent on "breaking" (not being a lawyer, I don't claim to be using the correct word here) your patent would bring to bear if it were really serious? Polaroid isn't exactly the guy next door with a lab in his garage and a computer in his attic and $150 in his savings account ... Kathy Vincent ------> Home: {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy ------> AT&T: {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy
perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (09/24/87)
In article <849@uhccux.UUCP>, cs313s19@uhccux.UUCP (Cs313s19) writes: > In a paper distributed > by MIT and in Communications of the ACM, the authors described RSA without > any mention of a patent or pending patent. > > Now, I know zero about patent law, but shouldn't this place the algorithm > in the public domain? Suppose, eg, that I hadn't read in BYTE or in this > newsgroup that it's patented, and built some large system based on RSA. > How can they claim I should have known it's theirs? Repeat after me: Algorithms aren't patentable; HARDWARE IMPLEMENTATIONS are. Ignorance of a prior patent is no excuse. Specific text (like a paper) or code is copyrightable, but that's not what we're discussing here. Algorithms are either known or not known, much like laws of science. Algorithms are neither patentable nor copyrightable. The only way to retain control of an algorithm is to keep it a secret; and even then you lose if someone discovers it independently. Patent rights are enforceable as long as the patent is valid. This means that if you want to market something, you're required to perform a patent search first. A patent search is an examination of all the existing patents related to your design. The onus is on you to look for existing patents, rather than on the patent holders to tell you in advance that they have a patent (which is obviously unworkable). Failure to perform a patent search is foolhardiness of the highest order, and you'd DESERVE to get sued. -- {hplabs,amdahl,ames}!bnrmtv!perkins --Henry Perkins It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck? One in a million, perhaps.
minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin Minow) (09/24/87)
Mike Morton noted that RSA was described in a published paper, and wonders whether it is thus in the public domain. (I'm not a lawyer, so don't trust this. My name is, however, on a patent.) In the United States, you have one year after "disclosure" to file for a patent. You must, however, be able to show the actual date of the invention. In general, a bound notebook with a dated page is sufficient. Having a couple of witnesses sign the page would be a good idea. (This isn't needed for the patent, but for the all-important defense against claims that someone else invented it first.) In other countries, you must file for the patent before disclosure. Disclosure generally means public knowledge of the patentable idea. You can tell others your idea if they have signed a "non-disclosure agreement" without comprimising your situation. Hope this helps ease the confusion. Martin Minow decvax!minow The above does not represent the position of Digital Equipment Corporation.
baum@apple.UUCP (Allen J. Baum) (09/24/87)
-------- [] >In article <849@uhccux.UUCP> cs313s19@uhccux.UUCP (Cs313s19) writes: >Aside from the appropriateness of the RSA algorithm itself for patenting, >how about the manner in which it was distributed? In a paper distributed >by MIT and in Communications of the ACM, the authors described RSA without >any mention of a patent or pending patent. > >Now, I know zero about patent law, but shouldn't this place the algorithm >in the public domain? Suppose, eg, that I hadn't read in BYTE or in this >newsgroup that it's patented, and built some large system based on RSA. >How can they claim I should have known it's theirs? As long as the patent is filed within one year of publication, its valid. There is no legal necessity for notification that a patent has been filed. -- {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!apple!baum (408)973-3385
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/25/87)
> Aside from the appropriateness of the RSA algorithm itself for patenting, > how about the manner in which it was distributed? In a paper distributed > by MIT and in Communications of the ACM, the authors described RSA without > any mention of a patent or pending patent. > > Now, I know zero about patent law, but shouldn't this place the algorithm > in the public domain? ... No. Whether the publication mentions intent to patent is entirely irrelevant. (A related issue: it is permissible for something like 18 months to elapse between publication and filing for a patent.) It would have been nice for them to have mentioned it, and perhaps wise, but it is not compulsory, as I understand it. Consider: Popular Science does an article about RSA, based on interviews etc. They decide not to mention the pending patent. Does this void the patent? Clearly not. Does saying "well, I read about it in Popular Science, and they didn't mention a patent, so I figured it must be public domain" constitute a valid defense in court? Obviously not. It's entirely possible that the original CACM paper, as *submitted*, mentioned the patent but the editors deleted it for some silly policy reason. Should this void the patent? Nonsense. > ... Suppose, eg, that I hadn't read in BYTE or in this > newsgroup that it's patented, and built some large system based on RSA. > How can they claim I should have known it's theirs? They don't; what they claim is that you are using their invention, which is all that matters. Whether you knew about it or not DOES NOT MATTER (although they might be more polite if your infringement did appear to be ignorance rather than malice). Even inventing it yourself, entirely independently and with no knowledge of their work, is not a defense. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) (09/25/87)
I am not a lawyer, so take this with the "standard grain of salt":
One, commonly used, method for "proving" the date of invention is to
document the invention and mail it to yourself (postmark). Leave the
envelope un-opened.
--
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.
John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COMdennis@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM (Dennis Foster x5739) (09/28/87)
In article <2411@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: > >One, commonly used, method for "proving" the date of invention is to >document the invention and mail it to yourself (postmark). Leave the >envelope un-opened. > Gosh, I think I'll mail myself some envelopes (unsealed of course) to get them postmarked today. Then, when something comes along that I want to be the inventor of, I'll write a description of it and put it into one of the envelopes and seal it. Incontrovertible evidence that the invention was mine! :-) :-) :-)
krs@amdahl.amdahl.com (Kris Stephens) (09/28/87)
In article <1329@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM> dennis@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM writes: >In article <2411@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >>One, commonly used, method for "proving" the date of invention is to >>document the invention and mail it to yourself (postmark). Leave the >>envelope un-opened. >> >Gosh, I think I'll mail myself some envelopes (unsealed of course) to >get them postmarked today. Then, when something comes along that I >want to be the inventor of, I'll write a description of it and put it >into one of the envelopes and seal it. Incontrovertible evidence that >the invention was mine! :-) :-) :-) While "common", this method is not "incontrovertible" proof, and the courts know it. It's as true with copyright law as with patent law. Because copyright law requires registration with two copies when you publish <insert legal definition of public distribution>, the only time this trick is needed for copyrights is when an author delays publication for some reason (I've got a whole mess of brass quartets and quintets in the hopper, to be published "someday"). Here's a trick: put a one-cent stamp across each (sealed) seam of the envelope, wait in line at your local PO, and have them hand-cancel each stamp. -- As I think about this, though, the technical ways to break into the envelope exist and, I assume, one could reclose and reglue the stamps without it showing. What are the options? Have a couple of people review copies of your design papers and sign them as witnesses? Get the signatures notarized so there's a permanent record? ...Kris -- Kristopher Stephens, | (408-746-6047) | {whatever}!amdahl!krs Amdahl Corporation | | -or- krs@amdahl.amdahl.com [The opinions expressed above are mine, solely, and do not ] [necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of Amdahl Corp. ]
kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) (09/29/87)
In article <1329@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM> dennis@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM writes: >In article <2411@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >> >>One, commonly used, method for "proving" the date of invention is to >>document the invention and mail it to yourself (postmark). Leave the >>envelope un-opened. >> >Gosh, I think I'll mail myself some envelopes (unsealed of course) to >get them postmarked today. Then, when something comes along that I >want to be the inventor of, I'll write a description of it and put it >into one of the envelopes and seal it. Incontrovertible evidence that >the invention was mine! :-) :-) :-) I don't think so, guys. As I remember from having done this years ago in an effort to protect some songs I was writing ... The envelope would have to have be sealed. And the mail has to be registered, and they stamp the heck out of the envelope - including the seal, as proof that the contents were in the envelope on the date the envelope was sealed, registered, and mailed. Also, I was curious and asked a lawyer friend just how valid that was, and the whole thing is very iffy - might not, in fact, stand up in court. Oh. One small consolation. You don't actually have to MAIL the thing, if you decide to go this route anyway. Just go to the PO, get your enveloped stomped, pay your money - and walk back out with your envelopes. :-) Then take them to the bank and put them in your safety deposit box until time to open them in court. You DO have a safety deposit box for all these things, right? :-) Kathy Vincent ------> Home: {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy ------> AT&T: {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy
ba@pbhya.UUCP (Behzad Alavi) (09/30/87)
In article <849@uhccux.UUCP> cs313s19@uhccux.UUCP (Cs313s19) writes: >Aside from the appropriateness of the RSA algorithm itself for patenting, > ... >Now, I know zero about patent law, but shouldn't this place the algorithm >in the public domain? Suppose, eg, that I hadn't read in BYTE or in this >newsgroup that it's patented, and built some large system based on RSA. >How can they claim I should have known it's theirs? It is reasonable to believe that the "claim" would have to be through the court. If the result of your work, is close enough to what has been patented, to prove that it "could have" been a "copy", even though you "claim" you didn't "copy", the law would turn in favor of the patent holder. (please remember, I am not discussing the "fairness" of the deal, just how the patent rights can be interpreted). An example (although admittedly a crude one) may help clarify the point: If you build a structure on a land that you *THINK* is yours, in all honesty, and another person happens to have the title, legal papers, etc. to that land, then who do you think *OWNS* the structure that you innocently built on somebody else's land? If your answer is the "legal owner" of the land, you are right! The law is very clear about that. The only exception is homesteading, in which case you could have owned the land and the building when certain conditions are met. In dealing with the *LAW*, ignorance is **NOT** a bliss. > >Anyone who knows more about patent law (ie, nearly everyone) care to comment? > > -- Mike Morton // P.O. Box 11378, Honolulu, HI 96878 > Local gurus assure me my addresses are: > INTERNET: cs313s19@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu > UUCP: {ihnp4,uunet,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!uhccux!cs313s19 > BITNET: cs313s19%uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu@rutgers.edu
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/01/87)
> One, commonly used, method for "proving" the date of invention is to > document the invention and mail it to yourself (postmark). Leave the > envelope un-opened. If one looks into the matter, one quickly finds that this is valueless. The preferred technique is to have someone else read and *understand* the material and sign and date each page indicating this. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (10/01/87)
In article <2411@calmasd.GE.COM>, John Pantone (jnp@calmasd.GE.COM) writes: > I am not a lawyer, so take this with the "standard grain of salt": > > One, commonly used, method for "proving" the date of invention is to > document the invention and mail it to yourself (postmark). Leave the > envelope un-opened. I am not a lawyer either. However, I have been told by lawyers whose specialty is patent law that the "letter" method is not acceptable. Many years ago, when Varian (I think. . .) was in the process of developing the klystron, they kept engineering notebooks in which each page was two (or three) pages separated by carbons. At the end of each day, each page that had been written in was witnessed and then one copy taken to the company's lawyer, who dated them independently and stored them in a safe deposit box. In later legal battles, Varian prevailed. For proper protection of inventions, it is my understanding (again, from lawyers whose specialty is patent law) that a carefully-kept, properly witnessed engineering notebook is sufficient to support your claims. Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever
jmm@thoth12.berkeley.edu.UUCP (10/01/87)
I would think that several witnesses signing in the presence of a notary public would be the best way to do something like this. James Moore
rbl@nitrex.UUCP (10/02/87)
In article <4862@pbhya.UUCP> ba@pbhya.UUCP (Behzad Alavi) writes: >In article <849@uhccux.UUCP> cs313s19@uhccux.UUCP (Cs313s19) writes: > ... > An example (although admittedly a crude one) may help clarify > the point: > > If you build a structure on a land that you *THINK* is yours, > in all honesty, and another person happens to have the > title, legal papers, etc. to that land, then who do > you think *OWNS* the structure that you innocently > built on somebody else's land? > > If your answer is the "legal owner" of the land, you > are right! The law is very clear about that. The only > exception is homesteading, in which case you could have > owned the land and the building when certain conditions are > met. There is the concept of "flagrant and adverse possession" in which you can claim the land after 20 years of being on it in a flagrant manner without being asked to leave by the owner. I'm certainly NOT an attorney, but sat in on one day of Law School and enjoy this opportunity (and that of the Bork hearings) to preach what I can not practice. :-) I might even be wrong! -- Rob Lake {decvax,ihnp4!cbosgd}!mandrill!nitrex!rbl
dougf@lcuxlm.UUCP (10/02/87)
In article <1329@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM>, dennis@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM (Dennis Foster x5739) writes: ]In article <2411@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: ]> ]>One, commonly used, method for "proving" the date of invention is to ]>document the invention and mail it to yourself (postmark). Leave the ]>envelope un-opened. ]> ]Gosh, I think I'll mail myself some envelopes (unsealed of course) to ]get them postmarked today. Then, when something comes along that I ]want to be the inventor of, I'll write a description of it and put it ]into one of the envelopes and seal it. Incontrovertible evidence that ]the invention was mine! :-) :-) :-) I think that the idea is to write the address on the *back* of the envelope and put the stamp so that it covers the seal. -- doug foxvog ...allegra!lcuxlj!dougf [Please use lcuxlj not lcuxlm] If only Bell Labs agreed with my opinion... NSA: names of CIA agents in NRO working on TEMPEST encrypted above. Drug dealing terrorists assassinated for planned hijacking.
lewisd@homxc.UUCP (David Lewis) (10/06/87)
> ]In article <2411@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: > ]> > ]>One, commonly used, method for "proving" the date of invention is to > ]>document the invention and mail it to yourself (postmark). Leave the > ]>envelope un-opened. > ]> I had heard that this was the way to COPYRIGHT an item. For some reason, the date of first appearance seems to be important. -- David B. Lewis {ihnp4,allegra,ulysses}!homxc!lewisd 201-615-5306 EDT