Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • AES/newspost

    #31
    Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

    In article <c9bc36ff.04050 72105.fb11d44@p osting.google.c om>,
    ramon@conexus.n et (Ramon F Herrera) wrote:
    [color=blue]
    > Another tactic that an indicted illegal monopolist would do
    > is to grease the wheels of bureaucracy at the Patent Office,
    > i.e. bribing federal employees to fast track patent applications
    > that come from Seattle, Washington, in order to process them
    > without much delay or scrutiny.[/color]

    1) I suppose it's always possible that MS is patenting this not because
    they genuinely believe it merits patenting, and not with any intentions
    of enforcing the patent, but simply as a protective measure against
    someone else patenting something similar and coming after them. I
    believe Jeff Bezos has indicated that he follows more or less the same
    tactic with amazon.com business patents.

    2) We all know that a sizable fraction of currently issued patents --
    most likely a large majority of them -- are somewhere between dubious
    and total garbage, on grounds of any reasonable interpretations of
    obviousness, prior art, and nontriviality. Devising a realistic system
    that would do substantially better in judging patent applications is,
    however, really hard.

    3) My bottom line continues to be that there needs to be some kind of
    very substantial potential *downside* for an applicant who applies for
    and is granted a (subsequently shown to be) undeserved patent, such that
    potential patent applicants will think much harder about the balance of
    benefits, the balance between potential upsides and potential downsides,
    before seeking a patent rather than protecting their "invention" in some
    other fashion.

    In applying for a patent an inventor is asking society (in the form of
    the Federal government, with all its legal powers) to give him/her a
    license which will potentially damage other innocent third parties (and
    in practice without these parties having much if any opportunity to
    protest against this before the patent is issued). .

    The initial investment required of the applicant in obtaining this
    license is quite small, whereas the costs to the damaged innocent third
    parties to try to regain their lost rights are very much larger. And,
    these costs to said third parties are all "downside": even if they win
    (i.e., manage to get the garbage patent declared invalid), at best they
    are simply back where they should have been so far as rights are
    concerned, and are out the large amounts of legal costs they will have
    to have invested.

    The balance of upsides and downsides in the whole system needs to be
    radically altered.

    Comment

    • Barry Pearson

      #32
      Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

      AES/newspost wrote:
      [snip][color=blue]
      > 1) I suppose it's always possible that MS is patenting this not
      > because they genuinely believe it merits patenting, and not with any
      > intentions of enforcing the patent, but simply as a protective
      > measure against someone else patenting something similar and coming
      > after them. I believe Jeff Bezos has indicated that he follows more
      > or less the same tactic with amazon.com business patents.[/color]
      [snip]

      What used to happen, and perhaps still does, is that companies would use
      patents as bargaining chips. "We have these patents, and they will screw you
      up for years. You have those, and they will screw us up for years. Let's come
      to a mutual agreement not to fight about this. Then we can both screw up all
      the others for years".

      Does this still happen?

      --
      Barry Pearson





      Comment

      • John

        #33
        Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

        Dan Ganek wrote:
        [color=blue]
        > Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
        >[color=green][color=darkred]
        >>>>>>>On Sat, 08 May 2004 03:21:58 GMT, Dan Ganek ("Dan") writes:[/color]
        >>
        >> Dan> The first commercial system was the PERQ circa 1978.
        >>
        >> Are you sure about that date?
        >> I think you might be off by 4 or 5 years.[/color]
        >
        > Hmm I did more googling and you may be right.
        > (One should always double check their facts :-)
        >
        > I was doing R&D in GUI's and graphic workstations
        > at DEC during that time (78-84) and it's all a big
        > a blur now. It was a very exciting time - Smalltalk,
        > Star, Perq, Lisa, Apollo, the Mac, etc.
        >
        > /dan[/color]

        It definitely was, Dan. Ah, the good old days! Hey, didn't the Pro have a
        GUI? I recall seeing it run something like VisiOn, which it booted into.

        Comment

        • Alun

          #34
          Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

          "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote in
          news:Lx8nc.306$ Nc3.192@newsfe3-win.server.ntli .net:
          [color=blue]
          > AES/newspost wrote:
          > [snip][color=green]
          >> 1) I suppose it's always possible that MS is patenting this not
          >> because they genuinely believe it merits patenting, and not with any
          >> intentions of enforcing the patent, but simply as a protective
          >> measure against someone else patenting something similar and coming
          >> after them. I believe Jeff Bezos has indicated that he follows more
          >> or less the same tactic with amazon.com business patents.[/color]
          > [snip]
          >
          > What used to happen, and perhaps still does, is that companies would
          > use patents as bargaining chips. "We have these patents, and they will
          > screw you up for years. You have those, and they will screw us up for
          > years. Let's come to a mutual agreement not to fight about this. Then
          > we can both screw up all the others for years".
          >
          > Does this still happen?
          >[/color]

          Yes, it's called cross-licencing

          Comment

          • Barry Pearson

            #35
            Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

            Alun wrote:[color=blue]
            > "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote in
            > news:Lx8nc.306$ Nc3.192@newsfe3-win.server.ntli .net:[/color]
            [snip][color=blue][color=green]
            >> What used to happen, and perhaps still does, is that companies would
            >> use patents as bargaining chips. "We have these patents, and they
            >> will screw you up for years. You have those, and they will screw us
            >> up for years. Let's come to a mutual agreement not to fight about
            >> this. Then we can both screw up all the others for years".
            >>
            >> Does this still happen?[/color]
            >
            > Yes, it's called cross-licencing[/color]

            Ouch! I should have remembered that term!

            Is this possibly behind some of these rather strange patent application
            attempts - they are there to increase the company's cross-licensing power?

            --
            Barry Pearson





            Comment

            • Henry E Schaffer

              #36
              Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

              In article <barmar-9E589C.17450607 052004@comcast. ash.giganews.co m>,
              Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> wrote:[color=blue]
              > ...
              >In any case, a patent doesn't just cover the end result, it covers the
              >*method* used to obtain that result.[/color]

              I've read a number of patents which claimed the end result, and then
              included any method of accomplishing it giving one method as an example,
              and then saying that this was only an example and that there could be
              other methods.
              [color=blue]
              >So unless the techniques used in Linux or MacOS render the technique
              >used in Windows obvious, the patent may indeed be reasonable. ...[/color]

              For the method, but IMHO not for the end result. I agree that one
              would have to carefully review the claims to determine whether or not
              the previously-achieved end result was being claimed.
              --
              --henry schaffer
              hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu

              Comment

              • Barry Margolin

                #37
                Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

                In article <c7midj$2o6$1@h es01.unity.ncsu .edu>,
                hes@unity.ncsu. edu (Henry E Schaffer) wrote:
                [color=blue]
                > In article <barmar-9E589C.17450607 052004@comcast. ash.giganews.co m>,
                > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> wrote:[color=green]
                > > ...
                > >In any case, a patent doesn't just cover the end result, it covers the
                > >*method* used to obtain that result.[/color]
                >
                > I've read a number of patents which claimed the end result, and then
                > included any method of accomplishing it giving one method as an example,
                > and then saying that this was only an example and that there could be
                > other methods.[/color]

                Is that really a valid patent? Can an IP professional comment on this?
                I didn't think you could patent a general idea, it has to be a
                particular method or device.

                --
                Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit .edu
                Arlington, MA

                Comment

                • Alun

                  #38
                  Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

                  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> wrote in news:barmar-
                  4F1EBA.21270509 052004@comcast. ash.giganews.co m:
                  [color=blue]
                  > In article <c7midj$2o6$1@h es01.unity.ncsu .edu>,
                  > hes@unity.ncsu. edu (Henry E Schaffer) wrote:
                  >[color=green]
                  >> In article <barmar-9E589C.17450607 052004@comcast. ash.giganews.co m>,
                  >> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> wrote:[color=darkred]
                  >> > ...
                  >> >In any case, a patent doesn't just cover the end result, it covers the
                  >> >*method* used to obtain that result.[/color]
                  >>
                  >> I've read a number of patents which claimed the end result, and then
                  >> included any method of accomplishing it giving one method as an example,
                  >> and then saying that this was only an example and that there could be
                  >> other methods.[/color]
                  >
                  > Is that really a valid patent? Can an IP professional comment on this?
                  > I didn't think you could patent a general idea, it has to be a
                  > particular method or device.
                  >[/color]

                  Certainly. You can do this provided you give the best mode of practicing
                  the invention.

                  Alun Palmer, US Patent Agent, Registration No. 47,838

                  Comment

                  • AES/newspost

                    #39
                    The patent process [Was Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending]

                    A patent is a government action -- certainly not a law or an agency
                    regulation in the usual sense, but a government action with the force of
                    law and enforceable through the judicial system, that grants rights to
                    some, takes away rights from others. Each issued patent is, in effect
                    and to most intents and purposes, a mini piece of legislation, or a mini
                    regulation.

                    Can anyone think of any other legislative or regulatory processes in
                    which a law or government regulation is issued at the request of and for
                    the benefit of an interested individual and:

                    * The content of the proposed legislation or regulation is kept more or
                    less absolutely secret from all other potentially interested parties for
                    as much as the first18 months of its consideration; and

                    * Other interested parties are not allowed to comment at all on the
                    proposed legislation in any event until after it has issued and taken on
                    the force of law (no public hearings, no requests for public comment of
                    any kind); and

                    * The issuing agency will not consider any comments or relevant
                    information that any other interested party may try to supply before
                    issuance; and

                    * Even after issuance any interested party has to pay a substantial fee
                    ($8000) just to offer comment or information regarding the already
                    issued law or regulation; and

                    * Doing so may have significant negative impact on the judicial rights
                    of any individual who offers such comment and is subsequently accused of
                    infringing the same law or regulation?


                    --------------
                    [Off-topic postscript: I suppose many of the Bush administration' s
                    energy, environmental, defense and other legislative and regulatory
                    policies fall under the first and third of the items above, but not the
                    others.]

                    Comment

                    • Just Another Alias

                      #40
                      Re: The patent process [Was Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending]

                      AES/newspost <siegman@stanfo rd.edu> wrote:
                      [color=blue]
                      >Can anyone think of any other legislative or regulatory processes in
                      >which a law or government regulation is issued at the request of and for
                      >the benefit of an interested individual and:
                      >
                      >* The content of the proposed legislation or regulation is kept more or
                      >less absolutely secret from all other potentially interested parties for
                      >as much as the first18 months of its consideration; and
                      >
                      >* Other interested parties are not allowed to comment at all on the
                      >proposed legislation in any event until after it has issued and taken on
                      >the force of law (no public hearings, no requests for public comment of
                      >any kind); and[/color]

                      You may comment after publication.
                      [color=blue]
                      >* The issuing agency will not consider any comments or relevant
                      >information that any other interested party may try to supply before
                      >issuance; and
                      >
                      >* Even after issuance any interested party has to pay a substantial fee
                      >($8000) just to offer comment or information regarding the already
                      >issued law or regulation; and[/color]

                      You should have commented after publication.
                      [color=blue]
                      >* Doing so may have significant negative impact on the judicial rights
                      >of any individual who offers such comment and is subsequently accused of
                      >infringing the same law or regulation?[/color]

                      Not if you're not an infringer.

                      Can you think of any other process in which private entities are
                      enticed to give up their secret technology, and have it published for
                      all the world to copy, starting only 20 years after they gave up the
                      secret?

                      Can you think of any other instance in which the term "right" or
                      "rights" is used in the Original US Constitution as ratified, other
                      than protecting IP rights?

                      Comment

                      • Al Dente

                        #41
                        Re: The patent process [Was Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending]

                        AES/newspost wrote:

                        [color=blue]
                        > Can anyone think of any other legislative or regulatory processes in
                        > which a law or government regulation is issued at the request of and for
                        > the benefit of an interested individual and:[/color]

                        Farming Subsidies
                        Government Small Business Contracts
                        Welfare
                        Social Security
                        Aid to Dependent Children
                        ....

                        The rest of your points are spurious because they rest on your assertion
                        that a Patent is a 'law' therefore you re-iterate statements about
                        'legislation' in order to effect a comparison. But a Patent is not a
                        Law -- it is more what would be called an Entitlement. The items listed
                        above are Entitlement -- and the law that *entitles* the recipient is
                        always subject to debate and revocation -- however, the process of
                        /entitling/ someone is usually always left to an empowered body and
                        therefore not subject to detailed public scrutity.

                        That is -- you can vote for Congressment who may be anti-farming
                        subsidies, but you can't personally interfere with the awarding of
                        subsidies to Con-Agra. You have to fight the process in toto -- the
                        whole idea of Farming subsidies ( or Patents ).

                        Again, Patents are not *laws*, they are entitlements.

                        [color=blue]
                        > * The content of the proposed legislation or regulation is kept more or
                        > less absolutely secret from all other potentially interested parties for
                        > as much as the first18 months of its consideration; and[/color]



                        [color=blue]
                        >
                        > * Other interested parties are not allowed to comment at all on the
                        > proposed legislation in any event until after it has issued and taken on
                        > the force of law (no public hearings, no requests for public comment of
                        > any kind); and
                        >
                        > * The issuing agency will not consider any comments or relevant
                        > information that any other interested party may try to supply before
                        > issuance; and
                        >
                        > * Even after issuance any interested party has to pay a substantial fee
                        > ($8000) just to offer comment or information regarding the already
                        > issued law or regulation; and
                        >
                        > * Doing so may have significant negative impact on the judicial rights
                        > of any individual who offers such comment and is subsequently accused of
                        > infringing the same law or regulation?
                        >
                        >
                        > --------------
                        > [Off-topic postscript: I suppose many of the Bush administration' s
                        > energy, environmental, defense and other legislative and regulatory
                        > policies fall under the first and third of the items above, but not the
                        > others.][/color]

                        Comment

                        • Rahul Dhesi

                          #42
                          Re: The patent process [Was Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending]

                          Al Dente <jabailo@earthl ink.net> writes:
                          [color=blue]
                          >The rest of your points are spurious because they rest on your assertion
                          >that a Patent is a 'law' therefore you re-iterate statements about
                          >'legislation ' in order to effect a comparison. But a Patent is not a
                          >Law -- it is more what would be called an Entitlement.[/color]

                          The above is a pretty stupid comment, given that the original poster was
                          quite careful and precise in his wording:

                          A patent is a government action -- certainly not a law or an agency
                          regulation in the usual sense, but a government action with the force
                          of law and enforceable through the judicial system, that grants rights
                          to some, takes away rights from others.
                          --
                          Rahul

                          Comment

                          • A Waterfall That Barks

                            #43
                            Re: The patent process [Was Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending]

                            Rahul Dhesi wrote:
                            [color=blue]
                            > Al Dente <jabailo@earthl ink.net> writes:
                            >
                            >[color=green]
                            >>The rest of your points are spurious because they rest on your assertion
                            >>that a Patent is a 'law' therefore you re-iterate statements about
                            >>'legislatio n' in order to effect a comparison. But a Patent is not a
                            >>Law -- it is more what would be called an Entitlement.[/color]
                            >
                            >
                            > The above is a pretty stupid comment, given that the original poster was
                            > quite careful and precise in his wording:
                            >
                            > A patent is a government action -- certainly not a law or an agency
                            > regulation in the usual sense, but a government action with the force
                            > of law and enforceable through the judicial system, that grants rights
                            > to some, takes away rights from others.[/color]


                            My point stands. The patent is not the 'law' or an 'action' -- the law
                            is the intellectual structure that makes the patent possible. Patent
                            is a property 'right', yes. But the original poster was saying
                            something like 'my acre of land is a *law*'

                            To phrase it in computer terms, the Patent is a program in which certain
                            rules are codified.

                            The Law is a compiler that allows the executable to be created.

                            The program is not the compiler.




                            <quote
                            source="U.S. Patent Office">

                            Some people confuse patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Although there
                            may be some similarities among these kinds of intellectual property
                            protection, they are different and serve different purposes.

                            What Is a Patent?
                            A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the
                            inventor, issued by the Patent and Trademark Office. The term of a new
                            patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent
                            was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an
                            earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of
                            maintenance fees. US patent grants are effective only within the US, US
                            territories, and US possessions.

                            The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the
                            statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from
                            making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the
                            United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What
                            is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or
                            import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for
                            sale, selling or importing the invention.

                            What Is a Trademark or Servicemark?
                            A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade
                            with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them
                            from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark
                            except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service
                            rather than a product. The terms "trademark" and "mark" are commonly
                            used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks.

                            Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly
                            similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or
                            from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark.
                            Trademarks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be
                            registered with the Patent and Trademark Office. The registration
                            procedure for trademarks and general information concerning trademarks
                            is described in a separate pamphlet entitled "Basic Facts about Trademarks".

                            What Is a Copyright?
                            Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original
                            works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic,
                            and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished.
                            The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the
                            exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative
                            works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to
                            perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted
                            work publicly.

                            The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject
                            matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be
                            copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the
                            description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of
                            their own or from making and using the machine. Copyrights are
                            registered by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress.
                            </quote>

                            Comment

                            • AES/newspost

                              #44
                              Re: The patent process [Was Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending]

                              In article <jb40a09i6a3e3g bkaoenrgqlkoldk hidf1@4ax.com>,
                              Just Another Alias <startle348@com cast.net> wrote:
                              [color=blue][color=green]
                              > >* Doing so may have significant negative impact on the judicial rights
                              > >of any individual who offers such comment and is subsequently accused of
                              > >infringing the same law or regulation?[/color]
                              >
                              > Not if you're not an infringer.[/color]

                              An ALLEGED infringer, of an possibly -- if not probably -- invalid
                              patent (keeping in mind that roughly HALF of all litigated patents are
                              found to be, in fact, invalid).

                              It's when you're an alleged infringer that you NEED the maximum possible
                              judicial rights -- and it's when you're having to resort to litigation
                              to get back rights you should possibly (or again, probably) never have
                              lost that you *deserve* the maximum judicial rights.


                              [color=blue]
                              > Can you think of any other instance in which the term "right" or
                              > "rights" is used in the Original US Constitution as ratified, other
                              > than protecting IP rights?[/color]

                              I read Art. 1, Sect. 8, as *granting* a special and temporary right, for
                              a public purpose -- not as protecting a pre-existing or in any way
                              "unalienabl e right", as that term is used in the Declaration of
                              Independence.

                              Moreover, the essence of a patent is not to give the inventor the right
                              to use his idea; he already has that. It's to *take away* the right of
                              anyone else who independently comes up with the same idea to use that
                              idea.

                              And in any event, it's the *process* involved in judging patent
                              applications and granting the patents that I'm severely criticizing, not
                              necessarily the valid patents that might still be granted with a better,
                              fairer, more useful process.

                              Comment

                              • John Bailo

                                #45
                                Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

                                Rahul Dhesi wrote:
                                [color=blue]
                                > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> writes:
                                >[color=green]
                                >>As an analogy, the existence of staplers would not prevent someone from
                                >>patenting other ways of fastening papers together.[/color]
                                >
                                > And also, the existence of staplers would not prevent someone from
                                > patenting the use of staplers for stapling Microsoft stuff together.[/color]

                                But if a bird were drawn to a firefly,
                                is that not the same as Percival Lovell ?

                                --
                                W '04 <:> Open

                                Comment

                                Working...