lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) (07/04/89)
In article <2414@cpoint.UUCP> and <2413@cpoint.UUCP> and <2377@cpoint.UUCP>, martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) writes: >>As usual, the language is totally obscure, and if the actual patent >>is similarly written, I would feel that the patent officer would have >>been negligent not to have rejected the application on those grounds >>alone. The abstract quoted seems unusually clear. This covers the idea of a token ring. >>However, I doubt either MAU has any circuits borrowed from the >>Soderblom circuit. The patent does not appear to cover a specific circuit implementation, but rather, it covers the abstract notion of a token ring. >>Now, I would consider the following scenario analogous to what >>Soderblom has achieved at the patent office. >> >>It is 1890 and I build the first electric stove which I patent. >>... >>Purporting to owning the concept of cooking with >>electrically-generated heat would seem a bit presumptuous. This is what the patent process is supposed to do !! >>There is no obvious justification in granting patent rights over all >>circuits which constitute a class distinguished from a pre-existing >>class of circuits simply through minor extensions The idea of patents is to encourage inventions by allowing the inventor sole rights to a new idea for a limited time, provided he publishes the idea, so (a) everybody can use it now if they pay the inventor, and (b) everybody can use it later, and can build on it. The best patents are always sweeping ideas with many applications. If yoiu can't come up with any such, you may be able to invent process improvements or applications. ---- Oh, there I did it; I let myself get baited into an argument with Martillo (:-(. At least I've redirected followups. / Lars Poulsen <lars@salt.acc.com> (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!
martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) (07/05/89)
In article <874@anise.acc.com> lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes: >In article <2414@cpoint.UUCP> and <2413@cpoint.UUCP> and <2377@cpoint.UUCP>, >martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) writes: >>As usual, the language is totally obscure, and if the actual patent >>is similarly written, I would feel that the patent officer would have >>been negligent not to have rejected the application on those grounds >>alone. >The abstract quoted seems unusually clear. This covers the idea of a >token ring. Really! Soderblom patented a unidirectional digital repeater/transceiver and nowhere mentioned repeater. That is real clarity. Now it is possible that the complete patent mentions that the circuit is a digital repeater, but I doubt it for the very good reason that the concept of a digital repeater is not patentable in 1967. >>However, I doubt either MAU has any circuits borrowed from the >>Soderblom circuit. >The patent does not appear to cover a specific circuit implementation, >but rather, it covers the abstract notion of a token ring. No, it covers a much larger class of digital repeaters against which Soderblom is making no claims because the bogosity of this patent would be obvious. >>Now, I would consider the following scenario analogous to what >>Soderblom has achieved at the patent office. >>It is 1890 and I build the first electric stove which I patent. >>... >>Purporting to owning the concept of cooking with >>electrically-generated heat would seem a bit presumptuous. >This is what the patent process is supposed to do !! Wrongo! You can patent non-obvious extensions to existing ideas. In 1890 the concept of cooking with heat was well-known and the concept of generating heat via electricity was well-known. The concept of cooking with electrically-generated heat would have been practically self-evident to any engineer working in the field especially since chemists were already using electrically generated heat to stimulate chemical reactions (sounds like cooking to me) at this time period. >>There is no obvious justification in granting patent rights over all >>circuits which constitute a class distinguished from a pre-existing >>class of circuits simply through minor extensions >The idea of patents is to encourage inventions by allowing the inventor >sole rights to a new idea for a limited time, provided he publishes the >idea, so (a) everybody can use it now if they pay the inventor, and (b) >everybody can use it later, and can build on it. But that is it exactly. There is nothing at all new in a slightly intelligent unidirectional digital repeater in 1967. Giving a old device a new name to obscure what it really is does not a new idea make. There may be something new and clever in the specific circuit Soderblom invented, and I have no problem with the Soderblom patent covering the specific circuit. >The best patents are always sweeping ideas with many applications. If >you can't come up with any such, you may be able to invent process >improvements or applications. Yes, the digital repeater in the 1950's was a sweeping idea with many applications, but Soderblom did not invent it. >---- >Oh, there I did it; I let myself get baited into an argument with Martillo >(:-(. At least I've redirected followups. >/ Lars Poulsen <lars@salt.acc.com> (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 > ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only > My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!