ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (05/13/89)
I recall that there was a discussion of software patents a few weeks ago. Some people argued that algorithms could be patented; some said they couldn't. Well the truth is: they can be, and are -- in ever increasing numbers. Check out today's New York Times: there's a front page article on the rising trend in software patenting. Apparently some firm is claiming that Hypercard is infringing on its patents (they're not going after Apple; instead they're trying to get $100 out of each HyperCard developer, or something like that). Another firm filed a patent on some part of windows (not "Windows", like from Microsoft; but "windows", the generic concept!). On this last one, the NYT wasn't too clear what the firm claimed to be patenting, and seemed skeptical about it's importance. I believe in protection of innovation, and to some extent "look and feel" (I'm one of those seemingly few people who side with Apple in the Apple/Microsoft case), but some of this stuff in the article is pretty scary. One person suggested there might even have to be a clearinghouse for patents, where programmers could check out whether a concept was patented or not. Sheesh! Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine ------ MOFO knows!
briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (05/16/89)
>I believe in protection of innovation, and to some extent "look and feel" (I'm >one of those seemingly few people who side with Apple in the Apple/Microsoft >case), but some of this stuff in the article is pretty scary. One person >suggested there might even have to be a clearinghouse for patents, where >programmers could check out whether a concept was patented or not. Sheesh! As a recent grantee of a software patent, I feel somewhat qualified to put my oar in (OK, so I'm bragging). BTW, to a large degree, I also side with Apple over Microsoft. In my case, I work for a large corporation. They filed "my" patent for me, they also claimed the rights by being the "assignee." This is a result of my having legally agreed that any patents that developed as a result of work assignments would be "owned" by Tektronix. If you work for a large place, you probably did this too; the courts upheld the process several years ago. The result is that my total benefit for my patents is a steak dinner, a plaque, and a warm hand- shake from the president. Patents, as used by the big boys, is a far cry from the idea of "protecting the innovator." Companies regularly and as standard practice seem to knowingly violate patents (though I have never seen this at Tektronix!). The idea seems to be to collect patents more as a self-defense measure. If some guy comes for you about violating his patent, you then examine his instruments carefully. Chances are, "he" (being a big corporation) will be in violation of several of your patents. You then come back defensively and say "if you sue me over this patent, I'll sue you over this, and this, and this, and THAT!" You wouldn't care about his violating your patents until he decides to get offensive. The "his" and "you" above refer to large corporations. About 20 years ago, Tektronix went through the hassle of proving patent viola- tion. The US Air Force contracted with some companies to make exact copies of a certain model of Tek oscilloscope. They copied it, right down to some extra chassis holes that were left in the design but no longer used. I mean, the copying was blatant. It took Tektronix 18 years, millions of lawyer dollars, and enormous angst to finish this out. Had the company been a little less naive, it would never have started, and I doubt it would today, at least on that scale. (Disclaimer: I am NOT in the Patents department here, and there has been some wind of their being less tolerant of violations in the future nowadays.) The point of it all? While patents are supposedly protection for the little guy, the little guy is all but left out in the cold. Unless you can spend a lot to protect yourself, you're out of luck. "Just how much justice can you AFFORD, Mr. Inventor?" -- -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc. (503) 627-3437 briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM P.O. Box 500, M/S 39-383 Beaverton, OR 97077 (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)
kmarko@hpbsla.HP.COM (Kurt_Marko) (05/17/89)
/ hpbsla:comp.sys.mac / briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) / 12:33 pm May 15, 1989 / >>I believe in protection of innovation, and to some extent "look and feel" (I'm >>one of those seemingly few people who side with Apple in the Apple/Microsoft >>case), but some of this stuff in the article is pretty scary. One person >>suggested there might even have to be a clearinghouse for patents, where >>programmers could check out whether a concept was patented or not. Sheesh! ...proverbial 'stuff deleted' >innovator." Companies regularly and as standard practice seem to knowingly >violate patents (though I have never seen this at Tektronix!). The idea seems >to be to collect patents more as a self-defense measure. If some guy comes for >you about violating his patent, you then examine his instruments carefully. >Chances are, "he" (being a big corporation) will be in violation of several of >your patents. You then come back defensively and say "if you sue me over this >patent, I'll sue you over this, and this, and this, and THAT!" You wouldn't >care about his violating your patents until he decides to get offensive. >-Brian Diehm >Tektronix, Inc. (503) 627-3437 briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM >P.O. Box 500, M/S 39-383 >Beaverton, OR 97077 (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply) I don't believe this is entirely correct, at least in my experience with large corporations. Most large companies have "cross-licensing" aggreements with many (or most) of their competitors which allows the use of each other's patents (I'm obviously no lawyer, so pardon my vagueness). These aggreements are made to head off just the sort of threats that Brian refers to above. Now, when some smaller (or foreign) company tries to use ideas patented by one of the big boys, he usally gets stepped on (witness TI's recent "settlements" with Micron and several Japanese companies regarding patents on DRAM technology). Kurt Marko H-P kmarko@hpbsla.hp.com
drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (06/27/90)
In <12863@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1990Jun19.184347.11429@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >>There are indeed patents on some of the material in the Mac ROM. The only one >>I know about specifically is "Regions". I remember there was some talk of Apple trying to patent the region implementation, but I never heard that it worked. Does anyone actually know the patent number? (Lots of times the trade press will talk about patents, but *very* seldom list the number. The inclusion of those numbers would actually allow people to go look up the patent and see the real truth instead of some vague notions passed along by the writers.) A patent I know Apple *does* have is 4,464,652: for their mouse and the way of using it for pull-down menus. David Dick Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company(sm)]
north@Apple.COM (Don North) (06/30/90)
In article <1990Jun27.135727.17779@siia.mv.com> drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) writes: >In <12863@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > >>In article <1990Jun19.184347.11429@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >>>There are indeed patents on some of the material in the Mac ROM. The only one >>>I know about specifically is "Regions". > >I remember there was some talk of Apple trying to patent the region >implementation, but I never heard that it worked. Does anyone actually >know the patent number? (Lots of times the trade press will talk about >patents, but *very* seldom list the number. The inclusion of those >numbers would actually allow people to go look up the patent and >see the real truth instead of some vague notions passed along by the >writers.) Here's a short list of some of Apple's H/W and S/W related patents: 4,136,359, Jan 23, 1979, Microcomputer For Use With Video Display (Apple ][) 4,210,959, Jul 1, 1980, Controller For Magnetic Disc, Recorder, or the like 4,278,972, Jul 14, 1981, Digitally-Controlled Color Signal Generation Means for Use With Display (Apple ][ color) 4,464,652, Aug 7, 1984, Cursor Control Device For Use With Display Systems 4,466,033, Aug 14, 1984, Disk Drive With Automatic Disc Clamping And Ejecting 4,622,545, Nov 11, 1986, Method And Apparatus For Image Compression And Manipulation (ie, Regions) 4,661,902, Apr 28, 1987, Local Area Network With Carrier Sense Collision Avoidance (Appletalk/Localtalk) 4,689,786, Aug 25, 1987, Local Area Network With Self Assigned Address Method 4,742,448, May 3, 1988, Integrated Floppy Disk Drive Controller 4,884,069, Nov 28, 1989, Video Apparatus Employing VRAMS (MacII video card) 4,910,670, Mar 20, 1990, Sound Generation and Disk Speed Control Apparatus for use with Computer Systems (original Mac sound) 4,916,556, Apr 10, 1990, Disk Drive Controller (SWIM floppy controller) 4,931,783, Jun 5, 1990, Method and Apparatus for Removable Menu Window -- Don North ----- Apple Computer, Inc. ----- Advanced Technology Group UUCP: ...!{voder,nsc,decwrl,sun}!apple!north CSNET: north@Apple.COM {{ Facts are facts, but any opinions expressed are my own, and *do not* }} {{ represent any viewpoint, official or otherwise, of Apple Computer, Inc.}}
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (06/30/90)
In article <42490@apple.Apple.COM> north@Apple.COM (Don North) writes: > >Here's a short list of some of Apple's H/W and S/W related patents: > >4,910,670, Mar 20, 1990, Sound Generation and Disk Speed Control Apparatus > for use with Computer Systems (original Mac sound) Er, the title looks right, but the date looks wrong-- what happened to the Apple Sound Chip, which should have been patented about this time. And why wasn't this patent done earlier? -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions? George: Read your OWN lips