US Software Patents

**Eric Sosman** · Nov 9 '08, 01:55 PM

Re: US Software Patents

CBFalconer wrote:

[... concerning tools to assist C programmers ...]
Look for a cross-reference tool that can scan a herd of files,
[...]
This is OT on c.l.c, and I don't know what group to recommend.

CBFalconer wrote:

Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.c omwrote in comp.risks:

>Subject: US court throws out most software patents, John Oram

[...]
I found the above in comp.risks today.

Which is the real Chuck Falconer, and which is the impostor?

--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

**Kenny McCormack** · Nov 9 '08, 05:25 PM

Re: US Software Patents

In article <gf6pmb$43e$1@r egistered.motza rella.org>,
Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrot e:

>CBFalconer wrote:

[... concerning tools to assist C programmers ...]
Look for a cross-reference tool that can scan a herd of files,
[...]
This is OT on c.l.c, and I don't know what group to recommend.

>
>CBFalconer wrote:

>Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.c omwrote in comp.risks:

>>Subject: US court throws out most software patents, John Oram

>[...]
>I found the above in comp.risks today.

>
Which is the real Chuck Falconer, and which is the impostor?

IDWIYO

But seriously, there has always been a different set of rules for the
regs than for the newbs (i.e., the ones the regs get their jollies from
beating up upon). If the regs want to talk about whatever they want to
talk about, we are all supposed to go along, because, well, they are
entitled. Of this, there is no doubt nor any question in any quarter.

The problem is that Chuck's reg-status has come under doubt as of late.
That's why people like Eric and Keith feel free to beat up on him.
It makes for interesting reading, for sure.

**David Brown** · Nov 11 '08, 07:55 AM

Re: US Software Patents

CBFalconer wrote:

Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.c omwrote in comp.risks:

>Subject: US court throws out most software patents, John Oram
>Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:29:43 -0400
>>
>John Oram, Microsoft has a problem, *IT Examiner*, 31 Oct 2008
>>
>Much of the patent portfolio of some of the world's biggest
>software companies has become worthless overnight, thanks to a
>ruling yesterday by the US patent court.
>>
>The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in
>Washington DC has decided that in the future, instead of
>automaticall y granting a patent for a business practice, there
>will be a specific testing procedure to determine how patentable
>is that process.
>>
>The decision is a nearly complete reversal of the court's
>controversia l State Street Bank judgment of 1998, which started
>the stampede for patenting business practices.
>>
>http://www.itexaminer.com/us-court-t...e-patents.aspx
>http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/07-1130.pdf

>
I found the above in comp.risks today.
>
F'ups set to comp.programmin g
>

(F'ups corrected - if a post is relevant to three groups, then the
followups are also relevant until you have meandering and off-topic
subthreads.)

This is good news for most software developers. Modern American use of
patents, especially software patents, is totally against the principles
for which the patent scheme was invented (it was to give small inventors
some protection against large competitors, so that the small inventor
could publish information without fear of competitors freely copying him
and undercutting his prices - they would have to pay a licence fee so
that the inventor gets his fair dues, while the invention can be quickly
mass produced).

It will hopefully put a quick end to some companies' practice of
patenting every little software idea. But will it lead to invalidation
of existing meritless patents?

I'm in two minds about Halliburton's latest patent application:

<http://www.theregister .co.uk/2008/11/10/halliburton_pat ent/>

If they use it to sue patent trolls out of business, then it would be a
good thing for the rest of us!

**Chris H** · Nov 11 '08, 11:25 AM

Re: US Software Patents

In message <49193834$0$254 01$8404b019@new s.wineasy.se>, David Brown
<david@westcont rol.removethisb it.comwrites

>CBFalconer wrote:

>Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.c omwrote in comp.risks:

>>Subject: US court throws out most software patents, John Oram
>>Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:29:43 -0400

Hopefully good news.

>I'm in two minds about Halliburton's latest patent application:
>
><http://www.theregister .co.uk/2008/11/10/halliburton_pat ent/>

There is a mistake in the piece.

"Halliburto n - the Texas-based company famous for pocketing billions
from the war in Iraq "

Actually as of last year Haliburton relocated to a Middle Eastern
country that does not have extradition to the USA... It still has the
Texas "joint HQ" office but all the money and power has transferred out
of the US to the new HQ in the ME . As have all their top people.

BTW apparently G W Bush bought a nice new ranch to retire to.... in
Paraguay another country that does not have extradition to the USA

Some people saw the writing on the wall and got out before the US
crash....

I think most of the top people in Bush's war on terror and Iraq and Iran
and Syria and Afghanistan and N-Korea and Russia and.... can get out of
the US with 90% of their very large assets in less than 6 hours.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

**CBFalconer** · Nov 11 '08, 09:05 PM

Re: US Software Patents

Chris H wrote:

David Brown <david@westcont rol.removethisb it.comwrites

>CBFalconer wrote:

>>Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.c omwrote in comp.risks:
>>>
>>>Subject: US court throws out most software patents, John Oram
>>>Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:29:43 -0400

>
Hopefully good news.
>

>I'm in two minds about Halliburton's latest patent application:
>>
><http://www.theregister .co.uk/2008/11/10/halliburton_pat ent/>

>
There is a mistake in the piece.
>
"Halliburto n - the Texas-based company famous for pocketing billions
from the war in Iraq "
>
Actually as of last year Haliburton relocated to a Middle Eastern
country that does not have extradition to the USA... It still has the
Texas "joint HQ" office but all the money and power has transferred
out of the US to the new HQ in the ME . As have all their top people.
>
BTW apparently G W Bush bought a nice new ranch to retire to.... in
Paraguay another country that does not have extradition to the USA
>
Some people saw the writing on the wall and got out before the US
crash....
>
I think most of the top people in Bush's war on terror and Iraq and
Iran and Syria and Afghanistan and N-Korea and Russia and.... can get
out of the US with 90% of their very large assets in less than 6 hours.

This is the sort of off-topic (and probable nonsense) that I wanted
to avoid by setting follow-ups on the original.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.

**Flash Gordon** · Nov 11 '08, 10:05 PM

Re: US Software Patents

CBFalconer wrote, On 11/11/08 21:02:

<snip>

This is the sort of off-topic (and probable nonsense) that I wanted
to avoid by setting follow-ups on the original.

It would have been far simpler and better for you to have NOT
cross-posted it to comp.lang.c. This would have avoided the original
off-topic post as well as the off-topic follow-ups.
--
Flash Gordon
If spamming me sent it to smap@spam.cause way.com
If emailing me use my reply-to address
See the comp.lang.c Wiki hosted by me at http://clc-wiki.net/

**CBFalconer** · Nov 12 '08, 12:55 AM

Re: US Software Patents

Flash Gordon wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:
>
<snip>
>

>This is the sort of off-topic (and probable nonsense) that I
>wanted to avoid by setting follow-ups on the original.

>
It would have been far simpler and better for you to have NOT
cross-posted it to comp.lang.c. This would have avoided the
original off-topic post as well as the off-topic follow-ups.

I gather you do not think C programmers are interested in the
status of US software patents?

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.

**Keith Thompson** · Nov 12 '08, 05:35 AM

Re: US Software Patents

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.comwrites:

Flash Gordon wrote:

>CBFalconer wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>

>>This is the sort of off-topic (and probable nonsense) that I
>>wanted to avoid by setting follow-ups on the original.

>>
>It would have been far simpler and better for you to have NOT
>cross-posted it to comp.lang.c. This would have avoided the
>original off-topic post as well as the off-topic follow-ups.

>
I gather you do not think C programmers are interested in the
status of US software patents?

C programmers are interested in a lot of things that are not C.

How many times have you made that point yourself? Sheesh.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

**Richard Heathfield** · Nov 12 '08, 06:05 AM

Re: US Software Patents

CBFalconer said:

Flash Gordon wrote:

>CBFalconer wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>

>>This is the sort of off-topic (and probable nonsense) that I
>>wanted to avoid by setting follow-ups on the original.

>>
>It would have been far simpler and better for you to have NOT
>cross-posted it to comp.lang.c. This would have avoided the
>original off-topic post as well as the off-topic follow-ups.

>
I gather you do not think C programmers are interested in the
status of US software patents?

I'm a C programmer, and I'm interested in Win32 API programming. Does that
mean you now accept that Win32 API programming is topical here?

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

**Chris H** · Nov 12 '08, 10:35 AM

Re: US Software Patents

In message <491A2766.2308B 571@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cbfalconer@yah oo.comwrites

>Flash Gordon wrote:

>CBFalconer wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>

>>This is the sort of off-topic (and probable nonsense) that I
>>wanted to avoid by setting follow-ups on the original.

>>
>It would have been far simpler and better for you to have NOT
>cross-posted it to comp.lang.c. This would have avoided the
>original off-topic post as well as the off-topic follow-ups.

>
>I gather you do not think C programmers are interested in the
>status of US software patents?

To be honest they are irrelevant outside the USA and most of the world
is outside the USA

However it does have an effect on the global SW patents scene

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

**Flash Gordon** · Nov 12 '08, 07:05 PM

Re: US Software Patents

Keith Thompson wrote, On 12/11/08 05:33:

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.comwrites:

>Flash Gordon wrote:

>>CBFalconer wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>This is the sort of off-topic (and probable nonsense) that I
>>>wanted to avoid by setting follow-ups on the original.
>>It would have been far simpler and better for you to have NOT
>>cross-posted it to comp.lang.c. This would have avoided the
>>original off-topic post as well as the off-topic follow-ups.

>I gather you do not think C programmers are interested in the
>status of US software patents?

>
C programmers are interested in a lot of things that are not C.

Also I suspect that most people who read comp.lang.c also obtain
information from other places. I know that I read groups where the
original post would have been entirely acceptable and could have
generated an interesting and topical discussion.

In any case, the SW company I work for does not deal with the US so no,
it does not have any impact on me as a C programmer.

How many times have you made that point yourself? Sheesh.

Agreed.
--
Flash Gordon
If spamming me sent it to smap@spam.cause way.com
If emailing me use my reply-to address
See the comp.lang.c Wiki hosted by me at http://clc-wiki.net/

US Software Patents

US Software Patents

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment