hs@RELAY.PROTEON.COM (05/18/89)
Unfortunately, I know quite a bit about the Soderblom
patent. It was first issued in the fall of 1981 after much
consideration at the Patent Office. The senior patent in
this area is Farmer and Newhall (AT&T). During the '70's,
there were several interferences between the claims of
Soderblom and those of Farmer and Newhall. The Farmer and
Newhall design, patented in 1971, was used by Dave Farber to
help in the creation of the UC Irvine Ring (If I'm wrong,
Dave, Please correct me). Then, Jerry Saltzer, Dave Clark,
Ken Pogren and a bunch of people here at Proteon used the UC
Irvine Ring to help in the creation of ProNET-10.
Proteon never expected patent problems. In fact, in 1982, I
presented details of our design at IEEE Headquarters in NYC
to many AT&T employees including Bob Lucky. We joked about
the fact that I was using BSTJ figures for my presentation,
thus bringing new meaning to the phrase "not invented here".
The Soderblom patent applied to systems which consisted of a
master and a plurality of terminals. Farmer and Newhall was
the senior patent when it came to closed loop operations.
In 1983 or maybe 84, Soderblom presented at IEEE802.5. We
were well aware of the Soderblom position. IEEE staff were
also involved. We went ahead on the basis that Soderblom
would provide licenses in a nondiscriminatory way. We also
had a good idea of the probable terms for such a license.
Since that time, the Patent Office has allowed a reissue of
the Soderblom patent. The reissue has much more general
claims. Many organizations filed objections which were
brushed aside by the patent Office. That's why he has
general coverage of a 1967 idea until 1998. His patents have
run out elsewhere in the world. Don't blame Olaf.
Many of us object to the whole procedure. That is, Was the
token ring a new concept or an" old combination" in 1967?
Many of us object to the details of the legal rangling.
Nonetheless many of us have signed up simply because the
patent office has spoken. In all cases, the exact terms of
the license are covered by a non disclosure clause.
It is also clear that some have chosen not to sign a
license with Soberblom. It is expected that someone will
take this to court for resolution. Time will tell.
Howard Salwen, Chairman-Founder
Proteon, Inc.
hs@relay.proteon.comfarber@pcpond.UUCP (David J. Farber) (05/19/89)
Howard, I just wanted to elaborate a bit on the early days of ring technology. The Newhall/Farmer Ring developed at Bell Labs was a central station ring where the control station generated a bipolar violation to act as a control token. When we realized (at Irvine during the DCS Project) that rings were the thing, we did not like either the control station or the hack of using bipolor violations. We thus developed the notion of the fully distributed ring control which has been the feature of all modern token rings as well as the message format that is essentially that used in current rings. I should add that we actually used the "destination" address as a process name of processes that should receive the message. That is why we decided to allow the message to be removed by only the source ring interface (in retrospect that was a great idea for high speed ). We did the original token ring for dcs at 2.7 megabits per second and the received a contract from Darpa to design a modernized version -- called the LNI. We did a prototype that almost worked (it was big!!) and then passed it on to MIT. MIT hired you guys to continue the development and thus the Proteon token ring was born. (You did a lot more that just finish the testing -- you redesigned a lot of it -- wish you had left the process name structure in though). Big credit is owed to proteon for keeping the faith about rings before IBM "discovered the token ring". Dave
dcrocker@AHWAHNEE.STANFORD.EDU (Dave Crocker) (05/19/89)
What goes around, comes around. It was interesting to note that while the MIT-derived work on the ring went from distribute processing, with process names, over to more independent networking, with host names, the folks at Sytek, developing NetBios for IBM, put process names back in. Dave
martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) (06/23/89)
I saw the following article a few weeks ago in comp.protocols.tcp-ip. > Unfortunately, I know quite a bit about the Soderblom > patent. It was first issued in the fall of 1981 after much > consideration at the Patent Office. The senior patent in > this area is Farmer and Newhall (AT&T). During the '70's, > there were several interferences between the claims of > Soderblom and those of Farmer and Newhall. The Farmer and > Newhall design, patented in 1971, was used by Dave Farber to > help in the creation of the UC Irvine Ring (If I'm wrong, > Dave, Please correct me). Then, Jerry Saltzer, Dave Clark, > Ken Pogren and a bunch of people here at Proteon used the UC > Irvine Ring to help in the creation of ProNET-10. > Proteon never expected patent problems. In fact, in 1982, I > presented details of our design at IEEE Headquarters in NYC > to many AT&T employees including Bob Lucky. We joked about > the fact that I was using BSTJ figures for my presentation, > thus bringing new meaning to the phrase "not invented here". > The Soderblom patent applied to systems which consisted of a > master and a plurality of terminals. Farmer and Newhall was > the senior patent when it came to closed loop operations. > In 1983 or maybe 84, Soderblom presented at IEEE802.5. We > were well aware of the Soderblom position. IEEE staff were > also involved. We went ahead on the basis that Soderblom > would provide licenses in a nondiscriminatory way. We also > had a good idea of the probable terms for such a license. > Since that time, the Patent Office has allowed a reissue of > the Soderblom patent. The reissue has much more general > claims. Many organizations filed objections which were > brushed aside by the patent Office. That's why he has > general coverage of a 1967 idea until 1998. His patents have > run out elsewhere in the world. Don't blame Olaf. > Many of us object to the whole procedure. That is, Was the > token ring a new concept or an" old combination" in 1967? > Many of us object to the details of the legal rangling. > Nonetheless many of us have signed up simply because the > patent office has spoken. In all cases, the exact terms of > the license are covered by a non disclosure clause. > It is also clear that some have chosen not to sign a > license with Soberblom. It is expected that someone will > take this to court for resolution. Time will tell. > Howard Salwen, Chairman-Founder > Proteon, Inc. > hs@relay.proteon.com I looked up the patent abstract in the Patent Office Official Gazette of October 6, 1981. The engineering library at MIT has a subscription. On page 420 is found patent number 4,293,948, Data Transmission System, whose abstract follows. 1. Apparatus for the transmission of data characters in pulse form from a plurality of terminal units to a master unit comprising in combination: pulse input and pulse output means for each said terminal unit and for said master unit, a single series loop connecting said terminal units in series along said loop between the pulse output means and pulse input means of said master unit and over which pulses originating either with said master unit or any terminal unit are transmitted always in the same predetermined direction, each said terminal unit including: (a) pulse responsive means connected to said pulse input means for receiving pulses appearing at said pulse input means, (b) decoding means distinctively responsive to pulses received by said pulse responsive means, (c) and logic means responsive to said decoding means for normally interconnecting said pulse input and pulse output means to thereby complete the loop at said terminal, unit, (d) said logic means in response to a distinctive pattern of said pulses appearing at the associated pulse input means interrupting the loop between said pulse input and pulse output means of stored data of arbitrary variable length as required by said terminal unit for transmission over the loop to said master unit, (e) said logic means being effective upon the opening of said at the first upstream terminal unit having data to send for inhibiting the receipt at any downstream terminal unit of pulses otherwise effective to control said downstream terminal unit to transmit data. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. I wrote away for the complete patent (it only costs a $1.50) but if this abstract contains the key elements of the patent, the issue of whether the token ring was a new concept or an old combination in 1967 seems totally irrelevant. From the abstract, Soderblum seems to have patented a circuit which is an intelligent unidirectional digital repeater/transceiver. The intelligence involves the ability to become a transmitter of queued data upon reception of signals (a packet) on the receive input. Clearly, the 802.5 MAU is such an intelligent unidirectional digital repeater/transceiver. Likewise, the FDDI MAU contains two intelligent unidirectional digital repeater/transceivers. However, I doubt either MAU has any circuits borrowed from the Soderblom circuit. 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. After I start selling my electric stove, other people begin selling electric stoves. However, their heating elements, control elements and insulation are completely different. In fact, other manufacturers begin manufacturing toasters and perculators and other devices which cook or prepare food using heat generated by electricity. I then go off and accuse all of these other manufacturers of patent infringement. I would hope that the court would find my claims gratuitous except in the case of a stove manufacturer who had copied my original electric stove down to the nuts and bolts. In other words, I would have rights to my own design and that's all. Purporting to owning the concept of cooking with electrically-generated heat would seem a bit presumptuous. The Soderblum patent is equally presumptuous. Unidirectional digital repeaters have been around since the 50s. Adding a circuit so that a digital repeater receiving a signal from the receive input could become a transmitter is a nice little modification, and it might even have been slightly difficult using 1967 hardware logic and it may even be reasonable to give Soderblum a patent for that specific 1967 circuit which no one in their right mind would ever use today. However, the trend to make relative dumb repeating, amplifying and filtering devices ever more intelligent through the addition of interpretive or program-type logic has existed in electronics since the first electronics engineers began working at the job and certainly has increased with the availability of microcontroller chips, PLAs and PLDs. 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 to enable some interpretation of incoming data with the result that the behavior of the circuits might be altered on the basis of interpretation. Joachim Martillo
martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) (07/04/89)
In article <2377@cpoint.UUCP> martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) writes: I saw the following article a few weeks ago in comp.protocols.tcp-ip. > Unfortunately, I know quite a bit about the Soderblom > patent. It was first issued in the fall of 1981 after much > consideration at the Patent Office. The senior patent in > this area is Farmer and Newhall (AT&T). During the '70's, > there were several interferences between the claims of > Soderblom and those of Farmer and Newhall. The Farmer and > Newhall design, patented in 1971, was used by Dave Farber to > help in the creation of the UC Irvine Ring (If I'm wrong, > Dave, Please correct me). Then, Jerry Saltzer, Dave Clark, > Ken Pogren and a bunch of people here at Proteon used the UC > Irvine Ring to help in the creation of ProNET-10. > Proteon never expected patent problems. In fact, in 1982, I > presented details of our design at IEEE Headquarters in NYC > to many AT&T employees including Bob Lucky. We joked about > the fact that I was using BSTJ figures for my presentation, > thus bringing new meaning to the phrase "not invented here". > The Soderblom patent applied to systems which consisted of a > master and a plurality of terminals. Farmer and Newhall was > the senior patent when it came to closed loop operations. > In 1983 or maybe 84, Soderblom presented at IEEE802.5. We > were well aware of the Soderblom position. IEEE staff were > also involved. We went ahead on the basis that Soderblom > would provide licenses in a nondiscriminatory way. We also > had a good idea of the probable terms for such a license. > Since that time, the Patent Office has allowed a reissue of > the Soderblom patent. The reissue has much more general > claims. Many organizations filed objections which were > brushed aside by the patent Office. That's why he has > general coverage of a 1967 idea until 1998. His patents have > run out elsewhere in the world. Don't blame Olaf. > Many of us object to the whole procedure. That is, Was the > token ring a new concept or an" old combination" in 1967? > Many of us object to the details of the legal rangling. > Nonetheless many of us have signed up simply because the > patent office has spoken. In all cases, the exact terms of > the license are covered by a non disclosure clause. > It is also clear that some have chosen not to sign a > license with Soberblom. It is expected that someone will > take this to court for resolution. Time will tell. > Howard Salwen, Chairman-Founder > Proteon, Inc. > hs@relay.proteon.com I looked up the patent abstract in the Patent Office Official Gazette of October 6, 1981. The engineering library at MIT has a subscription. On page 420 is found patent number 4,293,948, Data Transmission System, whose abstract follows. 1. Apparatus for the transmission of data characters in pulse form from a plurality of terminal units to a master unit comprising in combination: pulse input and pulse output means for each said terminal unit and for said master unit, a single series loop connecting said terminal units in series along said loop between the pulse output means and pulse input means of said master unit and over which pulses originating either with said master unit or any terminal unit are transmitted always in the same predetermined direction, each said terminal unit including: (a) pulse responsive means connected to said pulse input means for receiving pulses appearing at said pulse input means, (b) decoding means distinctively responsive to pulses received by said pulse responsive means, (c) and logic means responsive to said decoding means for normally interconnecting said pulse input and pulse output means to thereby complete the loop at said terminal, unit, (d) said logic means in response to a distinctive pattern of said pulses appearing at the associated pulse input means interrupting the loop between said pulse input and pulse output means of stored data of arbitrary variable length as required by said terminal unit for transmission over the loop to said master unit, (e) said logic means being effective upon the opening of said at the first upstream terminal unit having data to send for inhibiting the receipt at any downstream terminal unit of pulses otherwise effective to control said downstream terminal unit to transmit data. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. I wrote away for the complete patent (it only costs a $1.50) but if this abstract contains the key elements of the patent, the issue of whether the token ring was a new concept or an old combination in 1967 seems totally irrelevant. From the abstract, Soderblum seems to have patented a circuit which is an intelligent unidirectional digital repeater/transceiver. The intelligence involves the ability to become a transmitter of queued data upon reception of signals (a packet) on the receive input. Clearly, the 802.5 MAU is such an intelligent unidirectional digital repeater/transceiver. Likewise, the FDDI MAU contains two intelligent unidirectional digital repeater/transceivers. However, I doubt either MAU has any circuits borrowed from the Soderblom circuit. 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. After I start selling my electric stove, other people begin selling electric stoves. However, their heating elements, control elements and insulation are completely different. In fact, other manufacturers begin manufacturing toasters and perculators and other devices which cook or prepare food using heat generated by electricity. I then go off and accuse all of these other manufacturers of patent infringement. I would hope that the court would find my claims gratuitous except in the case of a stove manufacturer who had copied my original electric stove down to the nuts and bolts. In other words, I would have rights to my own design and that's all. Purporting to owning the concept of cooking with electrically-generated heat would seem a bit presumptuous. The Soderblum patent is equally presumptuous. Unidirectional digital repeaters have been around since the 50s. Adding a circuit so that a digital repeater receiving a signal from the receive input could become a transmitter is a nice little modification, and it might even have been slightly difficult using 1967 hardware logic and it may even be reasonable to give Soderblum a patent for that specific 1967 circuit which no one in their right mind would ever use today. However, the trend to make relative dumb repeating, amplifying and filtering devices ever more intelligent through the addition of interpretive or program-type logic has existed in electronics since the first electronics engineers began working at the job and certainly has increased with the availability of microcontroller chips, PLAs and PLDs. 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 to enable some interpretation of incoming data with the result that the behavior of the circuits might be altered on the basis of interpretation. Joachim Martillo
martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) (07/04/89)
In article <2413@cpoint.UUCP> martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) writes: >In article <2377@cpoint.UUCP> martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) writes: > >I saw the following article a few weeks ago in comp.protocols.tcp-ip. > >> Unfortunately, I know quite a bit about the Soderblom >> patent. It was first issued in the fall of 1981 after much >> consideration at the Patent Office. The senior patent in >> this area is Farmer and Newhall (AT&T). During the '70's, >> there were several interferences between the claims of >> Soderblom and those of Farmer and Newhall. The Farmer and >> Newhall design, patented in 1971, was used by Dave Farber to >> help in the creation of the UC Irvine Ring (If I'm wrong, >> Dave, Please correct me). Then, Jerry Saltzer, Dave Clark, >> Ken Pogren and a bunch of people here at Proteon used the UC >> Irvine Ring to help in the creation of ProNET-10. > >> Proteon never expected patent problems. In fact, in 1982, I >> presented details of our design at IEEE Headquarters in NYC >> to many AT&T employees including Bob Lucky. We joked about >> the fact that I was using BSTJ figures for my presentation, >> thus bringing new meaning to the phrase "not invented here". >> The Soderblom patent applied to systems which consisted of a >> master and a plurality of terminals. Farmer and Newhall was >> the senior patent when it came to closed loop operations. > >> In 1983 or maybe 84, Soderblom presented at IEEE802.5. We >> were well aware of the Soderblom position. IEEE staff were >> also involved. We went ahead on the basis that Soderblom >> would provide licenses in a nondiscriminatory way. We also >> had a good idea of the probable terms for such a license. > >> Since that time, the Patent Office has allowed a reissue of >> the Soderblom patent. The reissue has much more general >> claims. Many organizations filed objections which were >> brushed aside by the patent Office. That's why he has >> general coverage of a 1967 idea until 1998. His patents have >> run out elsewhere in the world. Don't blame Olaf. > >> Many of us object to the whole procedure. That is, Was the >> token ring a new concept or an" old combination" in 1967? >> Many of us object to the details of the legal rangling. >> Nonetheless many of us have signed up simply because the >> patent office has spoken. In all cases, the exact terms of >> the license are covered by a non disclosure clause. > >> It is also clear that some have chosen not to sign a >> license with Soberblom. It is expected that someone will >> take this to court for resolution. Time will tell. > >> Howard Salwen, Chairman-Founder >> Proteon, Inc. >> hs@relay.proteon.com > > >I looked up the patent abstract in the Patent Office Official Gazette >of October 6, 1981. The engineering library at MIT has a >subscription. On page 420 is found patent number 4,293,948, Data >Transmission System, whose abstract follows. > >1. Apparatus for the transmission of data characters in pulse form >from a plurality of terminal units to a master unit comprising in >combination: > > pulse input and pulse output means for each said terminal > unit and for said master unit, > > a single series loop connecting said terminal units in > series along said loop between the pulse output means > and pulse input means of said master unit and over which > pulses originating either with said master unit or any > terminal unit are transmitted always in the same > predetermined direction, > > each said terminal unit including: > > (a) pulse responsive means connected to said pulse input means > for receiving pulses appearing at said pulse input means, > > (b) decoding means distinctively responsive to pulses > received by said pulse responsive means, > > (c) and logic means responsive to said decoding means for > normally interconnecting said pulse input and pulse output > means to thereby complete the loop at said terminal, unit, > > (d) said logic means in response to a distinctive pattern > of said pulses appearing at the associated pulse input > means interrupting the loop between said pulse input and > pulse output means of stored data of arbitrary variable > length as required by said terminal unit for transmission > over the loop to said master unit, > > (e) said logic means being effective upon the opening of > said at the first upstream terminal unit having data to > send for inhibiting the receipt at any downstream terminal > unit of pulses otherwise effective to control said downstream > terminal unit to transmit data. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >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. I wrote away for the complete patent (it only costs a $1.50) >but if this abstract contains the key elements of the patent, the >issue of whether the token ring was a new concept or an old >combination in 1967 seems totally irrelevant. > >From the abstract, Soderblum seems to have patented a circuit which >is an intelligent unidirectional digital repeater/transceiver. The >intelligence involves the ability to become a transmitter of queued >data upon reception of signals (a packet) on the receive input. >Clearly, the 802.5 MAU is such an intelligent unidirectional digital >repeater/transceiver. Likewise, the FDDI MAU contains two >intelligent unidirectional digital repeater/transceivers. However, I >doubt either MAU has any circuits borrowed from the Soderblom >circuit. > >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. >After I start selling my electric stove, other people begin selling >electric stoves. However, their heating elements, control elements >and insulation are completely different. In fact, other >manufacturers begin manufacturing toasters and perculators and other >devices which cook or prepare food using heat generated by >electricity. > >I then go off and accuse all of these other manufacturers of patent >infringement. I would hope that the court would find my claims >gratuitous except in the case of a stove manufacturer who had copied >my original electric stove down to the nuts and bolts. > >In other words, I would have rights to my own design and that's all. >Purporting to owning the concept of cooking with >electrically-generated heat would seem a bit presumptuous. > >The Soderblum patent is equally presumptuous. Unidirectional digital >repeaters have been around since the 50s. Adding a circuit so that a >digital repeater receiving a signal from the receive input could >become a transmitter is a nice little modification, and it might even >have been slightly difficult using 1967 hardware logic and it may >even be reasonable to give Soderblum a patent for that specific 1967 >circuit which no one in their right mind would ever use today. >However, the trend to make relative dumb repeating, amplifying and >filtering devices ever more intelligent through the addition of >interpretive or program-type logic has existed in electronics since >the first electronics engineers began working at the job and >certainly has increased with the availability of microcontroller >chips, PLAs and PLDs. > >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 to enable some >interpretation of incoming data with the result that the behavior of >the circuits might be altered on the basis of interpretation. > >Joachim Martillo > > > > > >
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 !!
pvo3366@OCE.ORST.EDU (Paul O'Neill) (07/04/89)
Thanks for tracing these details down. However, your conclutions are all wrong. > Purporting to owning the concept of cooking with > electrically-generated heat would seem a bit presumptuous. No, you're presuming it to be presumptuous. :-) It's actually the makings of a good patent. That's what the good ones are all about. Nailing down a concept. Take, for instance, Texaco's patent on the use of vacuum tubes in geophysical prospecting. It didn't matter *what* circuit you invented, or used. If it had a vacuum tube in it and you used it for geophysics, you had to get Texaco's permission! Great patent! Remember this next time you have a good idea. Patent the concept. Paul O'Neill pvo@oce.orst.edu Coastal Imaging Lab OSU--Oceanography Corvallis, OR 97331 503-754-3251
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 !!