larry@belch.Berkeley.EDU (Larry Foard) (10/08/90)
It seems that recently the computer industry has been assaulted by a wave of frivolous patents. Many of these are trivially obvious things such as storing the data behind a window in a windowing system. If all trivial things are patented programming would be like trying to write a book if half of english words where copyrighted. The network provides an interesting way out of this problem, most trivial (and not so trivial) ideas have been discussed on technical news groups at one time. It would seem (lawyers correct me if I am wrong) that one could print out all newsgroups and have the contents notirized (sp?) to provide proof that an idea was already in existance before a given patent was applied for. A non profit organization could provide a tremendous service by maintaining these records and making them available to any one fighting a patent. Not only would this invalidate many patents that are granted but it would provide a deterent to prevent people from patenting everything and the kitchen sink. It would also help if a fund to help defeat patents was setup so that people who would normally have to submit to blackmail could have the patents thrown out instead. Assuming this idea would work are there any organizations willing to undertake this kind of effort? It could even be done by a number of individuals, each volunteering to keep records of a single news group. Now for something completely different: A previous message claimed that the FBI was tracing FTP uploads and downloads, fortunitly on the network it is possible to know when some one is "looking". A simple rewritting of the finger demon to record requests would detect a system like that described in the previous message. It might be worth while to check out all FTP sites for those that finger you in responce to an FTP connection. P.S. Would it be illegal to copy the entire X windows source into your .plan file and precede to download every program off an SS infested site? P.P.S. I'm not about to find out :)
asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) (10/16/90)
In article <1990Oct7.175737.12808@agate.berkeley.edu> larry@belch.Berkeley.EDU (Larry Foard) writes:
"It seems that recently the computer industry has been assaulted by a wave
"of frivolous patents.
Not true ... the whole nation has been assaulted with a wave of litigation
fever, not just the computer industry. You can be sued for wearing the
wrong color hat, and spend $6000 to prove your right to wear any silly hat
you want! The wave of frivolus patents is but a single symptom of that
disease.
" Many of these are trivially obvious things such as
"storing the data behind a window in a windowing system. If all trivial things
"are patented programming would be like trying to write a book if half
"of english words where copyrighted.
Hey, you can't say "English", that's belongs to the United Kingdom!! ;-)
"The network provides an interesting way out of this problem, most trivial
"(and not so trivial) ideas have been discussed on technical news groups
"at one time. It would seem (lawyers correct me if I am wrong) that one
"could print out all newsgroups and have the contents notirized (sp?) to
"provide proof that an idea was already in existance before a given patent
"was applied for.
[...]
I'm not a lawyer, but it is true that you can't patent an idea that's
been discussed before in a public forum (e.g, USENET). That is, to be
patent-able, it must have *never* been available in published form.
It reminds me of an anecdote I heard, where this fellow wanted to patent
an idea for raising sunken ships. He was going to pump them full of those
styrofoam "packing peanuts" you get in your TV box. Unfortunately, many years
prior to that, Scrooge McDuck and his nephews Hughie, Dewie and Louie had
raised a sunken ship by pumping it full of ping-pong balls. Yes, the judge
(or whoever decides these things) thought it was close enough. No patent.
Your problem here is that I doubt that most computer centers hang on to
the news for more than a limited time. If you see a patent, and say,
"Hey, I saw that on USENET three years ago!", well good luck locating it.
It's probably been in that Great Bit-Bucket in the Sky for a long time.
--
=============Opinions are Mine, typos belong to /bin/ucb/vi=============
"We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no | Alvin
longer in service. Please check the value of pi, | "the Chipmunk"
or pray to your local diety for assistance." | Sylvain
= = = = = =I haven't the smoggiest notion what my address is!= = = = = =bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (10/21/90)
>I'm not a lawyer, but it is true that you can't patent an idea that's >been discussed before in a public forum (e.g, USENET). That is, to be >patent-able, it must have *never* been available in published form. I believe that (at least) that last sentence is not true. Apparently you have up to a year after publication to file a patent. But, as you said, I'm not a lawyer. Several people who are usually reliable were citing this emphatically when the LZW patent was being discussed (it was published before the patent was applied for.) It sounds like a straight rule (as opposed to something derived from case law), so it would be nice if someone in the know could clarify. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/23/90)
In article <BZS.90Oct20184456@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > >I'm not a lawyer, but it is true that you can't patent an idea that's > >been discussed before in a public forum (e.g, USENET). That is, to be > >patent-able, it must have *never* been available in published form. > I believe that (at least) that last sentence is not true. Apparently > you have up to a year after publication to file a patent. You do---in the United States. No other country allows patents after publication, to my knowledge. So the Japanese can use compress. :-( In any case, the point that the first poster was trying to make is correct: once Joe Shmoe has published X, nobody can patent X---except maybe Joe, but only within a year, and only in the US. That doesn't mean you can assume that a published result is unpatented, since patents are kept secret during the several-year approval process. ---Dan
lwh@harmonica.cis.ohio-state.edu (Loyde W Hales) (10/23/90)
In article <26987:Oct2220:27:1490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >In article <BZS.90Oct20184456@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >You do---in the United States. No other country allows patents after >publication, to my knowledge. Question: what are the definitions of "patent" and "publication" in this sentence? Specifically, suppose I file for a patent under US law. According to treaty, as I understand it, once awarded the patent is recognized by "all" countries. (Is this accurate?) This being much like the Bourne (sp?) convention with copyrighting. If I file for a patent, though, it could take several years to be awarded. In fact, in the US this is not too unusual, I understand. Does this mean I can't use my product after filing for a patent until it is awarded without losing my international claims? Afterall, it would be used (published) before the patent was awarded. Somehow this sounds wrong. -- Department of Computer and Information Science Loyde W. Hales, II The Ohio State University lwh@cis.ohio-state.edu 2036 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, Ohio 43210
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (11/04/90)
In article <85118@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Loyde W Hales <lwh@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: > In article <26987:Oct2220:27:1490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> > brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > >You do---in the United States. No other country allows patents after > >publication, to my knowledge. > Question: what are the definitions of "patent" and "publication" in this > sentence? Submitting the patent application, and publishing in the sense of copyright. > Does this mean I can't use my product after filing for a patent until it is > awarded without losing my international claims? Once you've filed an application, you can do whatever you want. ---Dan
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/05/90)
[ I don't get trial.misc.legal.software, and inews barfs on such things ] In article <21791:Nov412:20:2190@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >In article <85118@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Loyde W Hales <lwh@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >> Does this mean I can't use my product after filing for a patent until it is >> awarded without losing my international claims? > >Once you've filed an application, you can do whatever you want. You make your little invention thingy and mark it "Patent Pending". In the meantime your competition is able to also manufacture that same gadget, since you've not been awarded the patent yet. This doesn't happen that often because the competition must stop making it once the patent is awarded, and they don't know when that will happen. I suspect it would be different with software since software manufacturing costs are so low. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson