jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) (02/09/91)
This started in gnu.misc.discuss. This is also going to comp.org.usenix; you'll see why below. If your followup is appropriate to only one group, please edit the Newsgroups line. In article <3735:Feb822:24:5991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: |> In article <b0hp2o.e8d@wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes: |> > (1) Challenge the patents or copyrights. This probably should be open |> > to all, not just those with the deepest pockets, but is it? |> |> There are two basic ways to challenge a patent. |> |> 1. Send $2000 to the Office of Patents and Trademarks with a challenge. |> The challenge typically goes through each claim of the patent and points |> out where that claim appeared in the prior art. Occasionally a claim may |> be declared invalid for other reasons (such as ``it describes a |> mathematical algorithm,'' not that I know of this ever succeeding). I hadn't known about way #1. I was just thinking this morning about the problems certain software patents pose and the need for overturning some of them, and decided that we (the software communitity) need something in addition to the LPF approach of lobbying against software patents and user interface copyrights. Even if this succeeds, we need to overturn certain patents already on the books. Perhaps a foundation can be founded to fight patents that are generally recognized to be evil. Example #1, the recently granted include-file patent, which puts every C, C++, and Fortran compiler in violation. Possibly Usenix can get into the act. I have a mailing from them in front of me that says the following (as part of a membership survey): Software Patents The US Patent Office has recently issued patents on some disturbing things -- like the concept of an include file. Originally they ruled that a mathematical theorem could not be patented. In the transition from theorem to algorithm to implementation, the ruling was reversed. The patent on an include file, applied for over 15 years ago, was just recently issued. 11. Please check all the roles, if any, that you feel USENIX should play in software patent issues. [ They list four alternatives ] Pro-active: help contest software patent applications Informative: produce patent "snitch" reports No software patent activities Do not care. I checked "pro-active". If Usenix doesn't want to take this job on, it seems to me that it's time to form a foundation to collect the $2000, get a good writeup on the prior art on include files which goes back a lot longer than 15 years, and blow this idiot patent away. Then we can take on Hayes' "+++" patent. Seems those guys have gotten rid of their good engineers (they recently hired a consultant to teach Hayes employees how modems are designed, and I'm not kidding) and decided to hire good lawyers instead. -- Joe Buck jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (02/09/91)
In article <10957@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes: [ quoting a Usenix mailing ] > Originally they ruled that a mathematical > theorem could not be patented. In the transition from theorem to algorithm > to implementation, the ruling was reversed. Uh, no. To my knowledge the original precedents are still going strong. The problem is that the Patent Office folks don't seem to be able to recognize mathematics when it's shoved in their face. > I checked "pro-active". If Usenix doesn't want to take this job on, it > seems to me that it's time to form a foundation to collect the $2000, > get a good writeup on the prior art on include files which goes back > a lot longer than 15 years, and blow this idiot patent away. On the other hand, once you have a good enough writeup, you can just distribute that and save the $2000. Something based on the prior art doesn't infringe a patent: if you get sued, you just show the court the references to prior art and they won't even take a second glance at the patent. It would be much more interesting to challenge the compression patents, on several grounds: they describe purely mathematical inventions; they claim all implementations of the methods; and, of course, they are obvious from the prior art. To convince a court of these things would take a lot of work but would be well worth it. The best solution would be for the LPF to push through legislation eliminating these patents permanently. ---Dan
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/10/91)
In article <7802:Feb910:14:3891@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >The best solution would be for the LPF to push through legislation >eliminating these patents permanently. I'd rather see a shortening of patent length and a loosening of terms than a complete ban. The alternative to patents, all too often, is secrecy. -- "Maybe we should tell the truth?" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Surely we aren't that desperate yet." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
fouts@bozeman.ingr.com (Martin Fouts) (02/14/91)
>>>>> On 9 Feb 91 23:11:11 GMT, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) said: Henry> In article <7802:Feb910:14:3891@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >The best solution would be for the LPF to push through legislation >eliminating these patents permanently. Henry> I'd rather see a shortening of patent length and a loosening of Henry> terms than a complete ban. The alternative to patents, all too Henry> often, is secrecy. I think you are addressing a different issue. The original posting was in response to attempts to patent mathematical algorithms or prior art. It really doesn't matter if I keep secret my use of prior art, since you can use the art yourself. The issue are are starting to address is a little more difficult, but not as much as you might think. There really are very few effective trade secrets, (Coke, McDonald's Secret Sauce, How NeXT stays in business ;-) and most of those are countered competitively by doing the same thing a different way, which is key. If there is enough need for an algorithm, then it will be independently discovered by enough people that at least one of them will make it widely known. This has been true since Leibnitz beat whats-his-name to The Calculus ;-) -- Martin Fouts Software Craftsman EMAIL: fouts@apd.ingr.com PHONE: (415) 852-2310 FAX: (415) 856-9224 MAIL: 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94303 Moving to Montana; Goin' to be a Dental Floss Tycoon. - Frank Zappa
smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (02/16/91)
In article <10957@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes: } Possibly Usenix can get into the act. I have a mailing from them in } front of me that says the following (as part of a membership survey): } } Software Patents } } The US Patent Office has recently issued patents on some disturbing things -- } like the concept of an include file. Speaking of which -- does anyone have the patent number for this patent? I'd like to see for myself what it really says.
waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com (Mike Waters) (02/16/91)
In article <14323@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: >In article <10957@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes: >} Possibly Usenix can get into the act. I have a mailing from them in >} front of me that says the following (as part of a membership survey): >} >} Software Patents >} >} The US Patent Office has recently issued patents on some disturbing things -- >} like the concept of an include file. > >Speaking of which -- does anyone have the patent number for this patent? >I'd like to see for myself what it really says. How about a synopsis, title or even some keywords for a search? A date of issue would even narrow it down. Typically these patents are issued with a title that doesn't give a lot of clues about the terms coined (later) which describe their use. For example the (in)famous "spreadsheet patent" #4,398,249, issued Aug. 12 1970 is titled "Process and Apparatus for Converting a Source Program into an Object Program". Basically a compiler for a program written as interacting cells - we now call it a spreadsheet. I would be willing to do a reasonable amount of work to track this down, but not to search almost a million patents by hand! -- *Mike Waters AA4MW/7 waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com * Chemicals, n.: Noxious substances from which modern foods are made.
jim@melmac.umd.edu (Elie W. Mansour) (02/16/91)
In article <14323@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: > >Speaking of which -- does anyone have the patent number for this patent? >I'd like to see for myself what it really says. I can get you the full text of the patent if you or someone can give me names of any of the parties, or any other more tangible info. Thanks, Elie -- ---|-----------------|--- ---------------------------------- Elie Mansour | | George Washington University | Internet:jim@melmac.umd.edu | National Law Center | Bitnet:chandler@gwuvm | (202) 994-4943 | | ---|-----------------|--- ---------------------------------