Bill Gates is the assignee of a patent issued Tuesday for a 'Method
and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices'
[1], which can be used to control lighting systems, heating systems,
elevators, and various electronic systems (e.g., monitors, cameras,
and CD players) in a large environment, such as a large building, a
factory, or a large house.

[1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,734,879

theodp wrote:

> Bill Gates is the assignee of a patent issued Tuesday for a 'Method
> and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices'
> [1], which can be used to control lighting systems, heating systems,
> elevators, and various electronic systems (e.g., monitors, cameras,
> and CD players) in a large environment, such as a large building, a
> factory, or a large house.
> 
> [1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,734,879

Even better is one of the patent references:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=
2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN
2F6434447

Which states in the Abstract:


An information processing system has an electronic device and a controller
for control of a functionality of the device. An abstract representation of
the functionality is provided to the controller. The abstract
representation exposes a modality of controlling the functionality. The
controller enables controlling the functionality through interaction with
the abstract representation. The modality controls associating the control
of the functionality with a modally compatible controlling capability of
the controller. The modality exposed can be, for example, "Boolean",
"float", "integer array". 

-- 
W '04 ! 

On 12 May 2004 23:03:21 -0700, theodp@aol.com (theodp) wrote:

>Bill Gates is the assignee of a patent issued Tuesday for a 'Method
>and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices'
>[1], which can be used to control lighting systems, heating systems,
>elevators, and various electronic systems (e.g., monitors, cameras,
>and CD players) in a large environment, such as a large building, a
>factory, or a large house.
>
>[1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,734,879


All I've got to say is... holy fucking shit.

theodp wrote:

> Bill Gates is the assignee of a patent issued Tuesday for a 'Method
> and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices'
> [1], which can be used to control lighting systems, heating systems,
> elevators, and various electronic systems (e.g., monitors, cameras,
> and CD players) in a large environment, such as a large building, a
> factory, or a large house.
> 
> [1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,734,879

www.x10.com has been building devices and interfaces since 1977.

In fact, they have a pop-up window that seems to hint at a hate of M$ too,
so I suspect there is a bit of "bad blood" involved there too.

If you search the internet for x10 software, there is software that runs
under DOS, OS/2, Windows and even Linux.

In terms of "large environments" such as building automation, there are
companies already geared towards that segment using several methods
(including the x10 protocol above) and other protocols varying from
hard-wired to signals over powerlines, coax, or several other RS232, RSxxx
methods.

"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:

> "T. Max Devlin" <tmax@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:o376a0lgmcseguoshlsnu43ksfupehpa1v@4ax.com...
>> On 12 May 2004 23:03:21 -0700, theodp@aol.com (theodp) wrote:
>>
>> >Bill Gates is the assignee of a patent issued Tuesday for a 'Method
>> >and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices'
>> >[1], which can be used to control lighting systems, heating systems,
>> >elevators, and various electronic systems (e.g., monitors, cameras,
>> >and CD players) in a large environment, such as a large building, a
>> >factory, or a large house.
>> >
>> >[1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,734,879
>>
>>
>> All I've got to say is... holy fucking shit.
>
> QED.
>
>

What is it that you think "QED" means?  What was to be demonstrated
here and how was it demonstrated?

-- 
"[N]ow for once I might actually have an audience that realizes that
[my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is correct], because you see,
they'll finally know what's in it for them--cold, hard cash."
 --James Harris embarks on a new mathematical strategy.

"T. Max Devlin" <tmax@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:o376a0lgmcseguoshlsnu43ksfupehpa1v@4ax.com...
> On 12 May 2004 23:03:21 -0700, theodp@aol.com (theodp) wrote:
>
> >Bill Gates is the assignee of a patent issued Tuesday for a 'Method
> >and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices'
> >[1], which can be used to control lighting systems, heating systems,
> >elevators, and various electronic systems (e.g., monitors, cameras,
> >and CD players) in a large environment, such as a large building, a
> >factory, or a large house.
> >
> >[1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,734,879
>
>
> All I've got to say is... holy fucking shit.

QED.

"Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message
news:8765b0ptdx.fsf@phiwumbda.org...
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > "T. Max Devlin" <tmax@localnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:o376a0lgmcseguoshlsnu43ksfupehpa1v@4ax.com...
> >> On 12 May 2004 23:03:21 -0700, theodp@aol.com (theodp) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bill Gates is the assignee of a patent issued Tuesday for a 'Method
> >> >and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices'
> >> >[1], which can be used to control lighting systems, heating systems,
> >> >elevators, and various electronic systems (e.g., monitors, cameras,
> >> >and CD players) in a large environment, such as a large building, a
> >> >factory, or a large house.
> >> >
> >> >[1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,734,879
> >>
> >>
> >> All I've got to say is... holy fucking shit.
> >
> > QED.
> >
> >
>
> What is it that you think "QED" means?  What was to be demonstrated
> here and how was it demonstrated?

Sorry that was referring to an argument me and Max had in
alt.destroy.microsoft a while ago regarding the validity of patents within
the software market and the ability of the patent office to recognise an
invention within this field.

Amused wrote:

> theodp wrote:
> 
>> Bill Gates is the assignee of a patent issued Tuesday for a 'Method
>> and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices'
>> [1], which can be used to control lighting systems, heating systems,
>> elevators, and various electronic systems (e.g., monitors, cameras,
>> and CD players) in a large environment, such as a large building, a
>> factory, or a large house.
>> 
>> [1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,734,879
> 
> www.x10.com has been building devices and interfaces since 1977.
> 
> In fact, they have a pop-up window that seems to hint at a hate of M$ too,
> so I suspect there is a bit of "bad blood" involved there too.
> 
> If you search the internet for x10 software, there is software that runs
> under DOS, OS/2, Windows and even Linux.
> 
> In terms of "large environments" such as building automation, there are
> companies already geared towards that segment using several methods
> (including the x10 protocol above) and other protocols varying from
> hard-wired to signals over powerlines, coax, or several other RS232, RSxxx
> methods.

It's bad enough that lots of building management software already runs on
top of ms-windows... but the prospect of Microsoft muscling in on the
BMS/home automation front must fill those companies already in this market
with despair as their market share will evaporate... cos dollars to
doughnuts, the basic software will be bundled in on Microsoft's media/home
automation platform... and like all Microsoft software that comes with the
default system, will be basic but just about do the job well enough so that
owners will not be tempted to go and actually find software that does the
job properly... witness the hordes of users still using outlook express and
internet explorer despite all their problems and the wealth of better
software out there to do the job.

if you're wondering why I'm in on this it's because I've actually got
experience of building services commissioning and have "driven" the systems
of a very large building from a win2000 PC in the control room whilst
taking them through their design envelope to get the building certified and
accepted by the customer.

That building has got to last thirty years minimum in service and is running
win2K.

At least the source code for the Building Management Software was part of
the deliverables so the owners of the building can get it patched if
necessary if the company that wrote the BMS go belly up... just hope
Microsoft are going to keep win2k supported for that long...

-- 
Use Linux - Computer power for the people: Down with cybercrud...

"theodp" <theodp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e7946e7b.0405122203.1df00f5d@posting.google.com...
| Bill Gates is the assignee of a patent issued Tuesday for a 'Method
| and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices'
| [1], which can be used to control lighting systems, heating systems,
| elevators, and various electronic systems (e.g., monitors, cameras,
| and CD players) in a large environment, such as a large building, a
| factory, or a large house.
|
| [1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,734,879


The 1st claim says


1. A user interface system, comprising:

at least one space object including a list of spatial services corresponding
to the space represented by the at least one space object;

at least one spatial service object representing at least one behavior
associated with the space represented by the at least one space object; and

a user control point (UCP) object including a space resource user control
(RUC) object for the space having at least one spatial service resource user
control (RUC) object, wherein the UCP object refers to a space object of
said at least one space object and instantiates a spatial service RUC object
for each of said at least one spatial service object, and wherein each
spatial service RUC object refers to a corresponding at least one spatial
service object, and wherein at least said space object or one of the spatial
service objects receives an indication of the type of the UCP device.


So its nothing as simple as flipping a light switch

I think the tone of the above thread respresents a serious distraction
from what is actually happening here.  Maybe Microsoft and the Patent
Office are doing things that look silly.  But!  These things are being
done by very able people who look very far forward.  Somewhere in
there is a policy and a strategy, and those very able people think
*it's going to work.*

So I think a *much* better slant to this thread would be, what are
they working toward and how do they expect to achieve it?

For my part, I think I see in current news, an expectation the coming
November elections aren't going to make a practical difference to
Microsoft and their 3-letter friends in Washington, whoever moves in
or out.  Like a metasizing cancer, Microsoft philosophy and money has
reached too deep, too far: the cure could prove to be not mere
correction but rather, collapse and reconstruction.  Of our society,
of our economy, of our culture.

I don't like that picture.  The alternative is early light into what
is going on.  Find it out and hold it up to public view.  I believe
the knowhow, perspective and brainpower are here in cyberspace to do
that.  And while I generally agree with what's up this thread, I think
it's really not relevant much at all.  It's a distraction.

Cheers, sort of.  -- Martha Adams

"Wally" <where'swally@world.co> wrote:

>a user control point (UCP) object including a space resource user control
>(RUC) object for the space having at least one spatial service resource user
>control (RUC) object, wherein the UCP object refers to a space object of
>said at least one space object and instantiates a spatial service RUC object
>for each of said at least one spatial service object, and wherein each
>spatial service RUC object refers to a corresponding at least one spatial
>service object, and wherein at least said space object or one of the spatial
>service objects receives an indication of the type of the UCP device.
>
>
>So its nothing as simple as flipping a light switch

Sounds like bullshit, to me.

In article <2278899.skYBDp9u54@big-box.madhouse>,
 paul cooke <paul_cooke@linuxNOSPAMmail.org> wrote:

> It's bad enough that lots of building management software already runs on
> top of ms-windows... but the prospect of Microsoft muscling in on the
> BMS/home automation front must fill those companies already in this market
> with despair as their market share will evaporate... cos dollars to
> doughnuts, the basic software will be bundled in on Microsoft's media/home
> automation platform... and like all Microsoft software that comes with the
> default system, will be basic but just about do the job well enough so that
> owners will not be tempted to go and actually find software that does the
> job properly... witness the hordes of users still using outlook express and

Not to mention that ultimately we'll all have to buy all our 
applicances, radios, TVs, lamps, heating systems, thermostats, garage 
door openers, etc, etc, from MS or they won't work properly in an 
MS-controlled home.

And of course the amount of data  that MS will be able to upload about 
nearly every aspect of our daily lives.

Not to mention the vulnerabilities to hackers and other intruders that 
will come from massive numbers of deliberate or accidental trap doors 
and open access capabilities in the MS software.

In article <c7vvpt$j8t$1@pcls4.std.com>,
 mha@TheWorld.com (Martha H Adams) wrote:

> I think the tone of the above thread respresents a serious distraction
> from what is actually happening here.  Maybe Microsoft and the Patent
> Office are doing things that look silly.  But!  These things are being
> done by very able people who look very far forward.  Somewhere in
> there is a policy and a strategy, and those very able people think
> *it's going to work.*
> 
> So I think a *much* better slant to this thread would be, what are
> they working toward and how do they expect to achieve it?
> 
> For my part, I think I see in current news, an expectation the coming
> November elections aren't going to make a practical difference to
> Microsoft and their 3-letter friends in Washington, whoever moves in
> or out.  Like a metasizing cancer, Microsoft philosophy and money has
> reached too deep, too far: the cure could prove to be not mere
> correction but rather, collapse and reconstruction.  Of our society,
> of our economy, of our culture.
> 
> I don't like that picture.  The alternative is early light into what
> is going on.  Find it out and hold it up to public view.  I believe
> the knowhow, perspective and brainpower are here in cyberspace to do
> that.  And while I generally agree with what's up this thread, I think
> it's really not relevant much at all.  It's a distraction.
> 
> Cheers, sort of.  -- Martha Adams
> 

Excellent post!

>chrisv
> Sounds like bullshit, to me.

The ambiguity of your post renders it meaningless.

--

James E. White
Inventor, Marketer, and Author of "Will It Sell?
How to Determine If Your Invention Is Profitably Marketable
(Before Wasting Money on a Patent)"      www.willitsell.com
Also: www.booksforinventors.com and www.idearights.com
[Follow sig link for email addr.Replies go to spam bit-bucket]

"James White" <useSig4email@willitsell.com> wrote:

>>chrisv
>> Sounds like bullshit, to me.
>
>The ambiguity of your post renders it meaningless.

The lack of meaning of your post renders it ambiguous.

chrisv wrote:

> "James White" <useSig4email@willitsell.com> wrote:
> 
>>>chrisv
>>> Sounds like bullshit, to me.
>>
>>The ambiguity of your post renders it meaningless.
> 
> The lack of meaning of your post renders it ambiguous.

Mean amphibeans.

-- 
W '04 ! 

On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:43:44 +1000
"Wally" <where'swally@world.co> wrote:

> So its nothing as simple as flipping a light switch

No, it's about an intelligent lamp providing a non-dedicated
control device with the user interface allowing it to be
switched on or off, or dimmed. 

It's actually quite interesting as it might cover all the
devices that provide browser style interfaces (which are
"requested by" the browser, after all). 

-- 
Stefaan
-- 
"What is stated clearly conceives easily."  -- Inspired sales droid

On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:58:28 +0100, "Phil Da Lick!"
<phil_the_lick@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message
>news:8765b0ptdx.fsf@phiwumbda.org...
>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > "T. Max Devlin" <tmax@localnet.com> wrote in message
>> > news:o376a0lgmcseguoshlsnu43ksfupehpa1v@4ax.com...
>> >> On 12 May 2004 23:03:21 -0700, theodp@aol.com (theodp) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Bill Gates is the assignee of a patent issued Tuesday for a 'Method
>> >> >and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices'
>> >> >[1], which can be used to control lighting systems, heating systems,
>> >> >elevators, and various electronic systems (e.g., monitors, cameras,
>> >> >and CD players) in a large environment, such as a large building, a
>> >> >factory, or a large house.
>> >> >
>> >> >[1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,734,879
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> All I've got to say is... holy fucking shit.
>> >
>> > QED.
>>
>> What is it that you think "QED" means?  What was to be demonstrated
>> here and how was it demonstrated?

I was wondering that, too.  ;-)

>Sorry that was referring to an argument me and Max had in
>alt.destroy.microsoft a while ago regarding the validity of patents within
>the software market and the ability of the patent office to recognise an
>invention within this field.

I'm very glad to see you noticed, Phil.  I did think of you.  Yes, it
is a very strong argument for your point, I'd have to agree.  Yet,
ironically, it is again even stronger point for mine, because this is
/Microsoft/ trying to patent this (or, rather,
if-the-god-of-irony-exists-he-is-laughing-silently, Bill Gates is
trying to patent this.)

It is not a failure of the patent system; it is not the patent
system's job to prevent monopolization.  It is, as I've repeatedly
pointed out to you, an anti-trust issue.

But, yeah, boy, I sure see your point.  Holy fucking shit.  If a
regular person had that patent, I'd think it would encourage
development and competition in local control systems.  But Bill Gates
has billions of dollars to spend preventing anyone from developing any
local control systems on the prima facia idea that it infringes his
patent, even if this patent is as bogus as it appears on first glance.
And local control systems is something that needs to be developed in
the next few years, I imagine.  It sure would be nice if it were
developed by a free market instead of one that only has to compete
with itself to keep sucking resources out of the industry at a record
pace.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:43:44 +1000, "Wally" <where'swally@world.co>
wrote:

>
>"theodp" <theodp@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:e7946e7b.0405122203.1df00f5d@posting.google.com...
>| Bill Gates is the assignee of a patent issued Tuesday for a 'Method
>| and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices'
>| [1], which can be used to control lighting systems, heating systems,
>| elevators, and various electronic systems (e.g., monitors, cameras,
>| and CD players) in a large environment, such as a large building, a
>| factory, or a large house.
>|
>| [1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,734,879
>
>
>The 1st claim says
>
>
>1. A user interface system, comprising:
>
>at least one space object including a list of spatial services corresponding
>to the space represented by the at least one space object;
>
>at least one spatial service object representing at least one behavior
>associated with the space represented by the at least one space object; and
>
>a user control point (UCP) object including a space resource user control
>(RUC) object for the space having at least one spatial service resource user
>control (RUC) object, wherein the UCP object refers to a space object of
>said at least one space object and instantiates a spatial service RUC object
>for each of said at least one spatial service object, and wherein each
>spatial service RUC object refers to a corresponding at least one spatial
>service object, and wherein at least said space object or one of the spatial
>service objects receives an indication of the type of the UCP device.
>
>
>So its nothing as simple as flipping a light switch

Well, yeah, it is, it is just broken down into very obscure language.
One is tempted to say obfuscated.  In truth it is just specifically
broad.  "If you show a window here, which connects to a piece of
software here, and shows these things as they are shown, you are in
violation of our patent."  And for that they may not patent something
as simple as flipping a light switch, but you may have to somehow pay
him just a little bit of money every time you turn on your lights.
Granted, it isn't conceivable that might happen, but it is possible.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 14:13:17 +0000 (UTC), mha@TheWorld.com (Martha H
Adams) wrote:

>I think the tone of the above thread respresents a serious distraction
>from what is actually happening here.  Maybe Microsoft and the Patent
>Office are doing things that look silly.  But!  These things are being
>done by very able people who look very far forward.  Somewhere in
>there is a policy and a strategy, and those very able people think
>*it's going to work.*

Yes, so?  We're talking about what it is, not whether it might work.

>So I think a *much* better slant to this thread would be, what are
>they working toward and how do they expect to achieve it?

They (excuse me, I must correct myself, he) is working towards the
only way he knows how to make money; monopoly.  How he expects to
achieve should be obvious; by embedding local control systems based on
his patent into Windows and using Microsoft's monopoly power to
prevent alternatives from being developed, just as he used his DOS
monopoly to prevent competing PC OSes from being developed.

>For my part, I think I see in current news, an expectation the coming
>November elections aren't going to make a practical difference to
>Microsoft and their 3-letter friends in Washington, whoever moves in
>or out.  Like a metasizing cancer, Microsoft philosophy and money has
>reached too deep, too far: the cure could prove to be not mere
>correction but rather, collapse and reconstruction.  Of our society,
>of our economy, of our culture.

I know where you're coming from.

But you know, I don't think Bill Gates is evil.  Yes, he's broken the
law, but it is the least violent violation imaginable.  I'm sure he is
himself convinced that he's done nothing but successfully develop PC
OSes, not necessarily unaware that he hasn't done it by competing but
by monopolizing, but not believing that's a real argument against his
goodness.  He's claimed he does not plan to will his money to his
children, the foundation he's already created might be doing great
work for centuries.  He knows how to take advantage of property rights
to control a market, if it is important enough.  Define it as vaguely
as you can, but hold on to that essential component that makes market
power become monopoly power; the ability to control how much benefit
your customers can gain by controlling how your product is sold to
them.  It is taking advantage of his insight, to him, not violating
section two of the Sherman Act.

>I don't like that picture.  The alternative is early light into what
>is going on.  Find it out and hold it up to public view.

Nobody will care.  And worse yet, nobody will be able to do anything
aobut it.  It takes a government to stop monopolization.  The public,
the free market, is helpless.  Agents in a market /must/ look after
their own self-interest, not some greater good.

> I believe
>the knowhow, perspective and brainpower are here in cyberspace to do
>that.

Been there, done that, it's called Linux.

>  And while I generally agree with what's up this thread, I think
>it's really not relevant much at all.  It's a distraction.
>
>Cheers, sort of.  -- Martha Adams

I agree.  Sort of.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:20:19 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>"Wally" <where'swally@world.co> wrote:
>
>>a user control point (UCP) object including a space resource user control
>>(RUC) object for the space having at least one spatial service resource user
>>control (RUC) object, wherein the UCP object refers to a space object of
>>said at least one space object and instantiates a spatial service RUC object
>>for each of said at least one spatial service object, and wherein each
>>spatial service RUC object refers to a corresponding at least one spatial
>>service object, and wherein at least said space object or one of the spatial
>>service objects receives an indication of the type of the UCP device.
>>
>>
>>So its nothing as simple as flipping a light switch
>
>Sounds like bullshit, to me.

A control panel that tells the thing controlling the 'spatial service'
(heating, lighting, etc.) what kind of device it is running on, I
think.

"T. Max Devlin" <tmax@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:far7a097n96cc2vsubslsd6saive1h30bu@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:58:28 +0100, "Phil Da Lick!"

> It is not a failure of the patent system; it is not the patent
> system's job to prevent monopolization.

It is the patent system's job to approve or deny patents.


>  It is, as I've repeatedly
> pointed out to you, an anti-trust issue.

You're blurring the lines. Anti trust is another point entirely. Abuse of
patents is just one weapon in billy-boy's arsenal.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:12:35 UTC, T. Max Devlin <tmax@localnet.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:43:44 +1000, "Wally" <where'swally@world.co>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >"theodp" <theodp@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:e7946e7b.0405122203.1df00f5d@posting.google.com...
> >| Bill Gates is the assignee of a patent issued Tuesday for a 'Method
> >| and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices'
> >| [1], which can be used to control lighting systems, heating systems,
> >| elevators, and various electronic systems (e.g., monitors, cameras,
> >| and CD players) in a large environment, such as a large building, a
> >| factory, or a large house.
> >|
> >| [1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,734,879
> >
> >
> >The 1st claim says
> >
> >
> >1. A user interface system, comprising:
> >
> >at least one space object including a list of spatial services corresponding
> >to the space represented by the at least one space object;
> >
> >at least one spatial service object representing at least one behavior
> >associated with the space represented by the at least one space object; and
> >
> >a user control point (UCP) object including a space resource user control
> >(RUC) object for the space having at least one spatial service resource user
> >control (RUC) object, wherein the UCP object refers to a space object of
> >said at least one space object and instantiates a spatial service RUC object
> >for each of said at least one spatial service object, and wherein each
> >spatial service RUC object refers to a corresponding at least one spatial
> >service object, and wherein at least said space object or one of the spatial
> >service objects receives an indication of the type of the UCP device.
> >
> >
> >So its nothing as simple as flipping a light switch
> 
> Well, yeah, it is, it is just broken down into very obscure language.
> One is tempted to say obfuscated.  In truth it is just specifically
> broad.  "If you show a window here, which connects to a piece of
> software here, and shows these things as they are shown, you are in
> violation of our patent."  And for that they may not patent something
> as simple as flipping a light switch, but you may have to somehow pay
> him just a little bit of money every time you turn on your lights.
> Granted, it isn't conceivable that might happen, but it is possible.

  I've seen several patents granted to companies in specific industries
that basically patent ideas in standards.  For instance, I had to
explain to management why a competitors patent was so broad it was
meaningless.  Basically it described a patent on method of a database
that was already described by a telecom standard.  Further, they
patented the concept that they had a database on their side and thus
anyone who created a product for the original telecom standard would
have been in violation of the patent.  That violated the principle
of the standard and thus was eventually rendered moot since it was
described as part of the standard.

  David

More truth up this thread.  Yes, a patent can be bad because prior art
got there first.  Or because it's so broad it's meaningless.  However.
Imagine you're an independent programmer or the owner and operator of
a small business that does $100K or $1 megabuck business per year.
(Side point: most innovation comes from such small people and
businesses.)

Now imagine Microsoft with all its Washington connections not to
mention a $50 billion warchest and a bevy of experienced committed
lawyers sends you a nastygram.  

Now you tell me, however right your position might be, does a little
detail like in-the-right make any difference at all who wins?
Assuming anyone can sort it out from the expectable mountain of
verbage? 

Cheers -- Martha Adams

Martha H Adams wrote:

> More truth up this thread.  Yes, a patent can be bad because prior art
> got there first.  Or because it's so broad it's meaningless.  However.
> Imagine you're an independent programmer or the owner and operator of
> a small business that does $100K or $1 megabuck business per year.

patents were designed to encourage innovation by protecting the inventor.

now they have been subverted by entrenched powers to block invention by
letting them put a claim to everything under god's green earth.

> (Side point: most innovation comes from such small people and
> businesses.)

So dwarves are responsible for advanced technology?  I always knew!

> Now imagine Microsoft with all its Washington connections not to
> mention a $50 billion warchest and a bevy of experienced committed
> lawyers sends you a nastygram.

How about a bevy of sexy barber chics at Super Cuts ?

> Now you tell me, however right your position might be, does a little
> detail like in-the-right make any difference at all who wins

Might makes right!  Semolina makes pasta!  It's all a vast conspiracy!

> Assuming anyone can sort it out from the expectable mountain of
> verbage?

I think we need to move ahead on that waste dump in Nevada so we have
someplace to put our verbage in the years ahead.

> 
> Cheers -- Martha Adams

-- 
Linux linux 2.4.21-215-athlon #1 Tue Apr 27 00:53:38 UTC 2004 i686 athlon
i386 GNU/Linux

In article <c82gs7$tsi$1@pcls4.std.com>,
 mha@TheWorld.com (Martha H Adams) wrote:

> Now imagine Microsoft with all its Washington connections not to
> mention a $50 billion warchest and a bevy of experienced committed
> lawyers sends you a nastygram.  
> 
> Now you tell me, however right your position might be, does a little
> detail like in-the-right make any difference at all who wins?
> Assuming anyone can sort it out from the expectable mountain of
> verbage? 

From <http://www.base.com/software-patents/articles/stac.html>:

****************

 Associated Press, February 23, 1994. 

 Microsoft Loses Patent Suit

 LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Microsoft Corp. was found guilty of patent 
infringement and ordered to pay $120 million in damages to a tiny 
California firm in a rare setback for the giant computer software 
company.

 However, the federal jury on Wednesday also ruled that the violation 
was not willful and awarded Microsoft $13.6 million on a counterclaim 
against Stac Electronics, which makes a data-compression program called 
Stacker.

****************

Now tell me: if there wasn't a patent system, what do you think would 
have happened to Stac?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:43:28 -0400, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
 :  Now tell me: if there wasn't a patent system, what do you think would 
 :  have happened to Stac?

Speaking which what ever did happen to Stac?  In their 1993 patent
infringement complaint (found dejagooing) they claimed to be a 200 employee
company with $150M of market cap.  Today it's

cally:~$ host www.stac.com
Host not found, try again.
cally:~$

-- 
Florida Bankruptcy
http://www.goldstein-pa.com

In article <1084555385.86532@news.queue.to>,
 howard@goldstein-pa.com (Howard Goldstein) wrote:

> On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:43:28 -0400, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> 
> wrote:
>  :  Now tell me: if there wasn't a patent system, what do you think would 
>  :  have happened to Stac?
> 
> Speaking which what ever did happen to Stac?  In their 1993 patent
> infringement complaint (found dejagooing) they claimed to be a 200 employee
> company with $150M of market cap.  Today it's
> 
> cally:~$ host www.stac.com
> Host not found, try again.
> cally:~$

I did a little googling and discovered that Stac Electronics changed 
their name to Previo.  When you go to www.previo.com you end up at 
www.altiris.com.  Their history page says that they acquired Previo's 
backup and recovery technology in 2002.

As disk space has gotten so cheap, it looks like the market for 
automatic filesystem compression has dried up.  Where compression is 
still useful, it's often performed by applications on a file-by-file 
basis, or incorporated directly into the file format (e.g. MP3 and JPEG).

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> Microsoft Loses Patent Suit
....
>Now tell me: if there wasn't a patent system, what do you think would 
>have happened to Stac?

Does anybody really care?  Stac's patents were of dubious innovative
value to begin with.

The point that is repeatedly lost on those who defend the current patent
system is:  Nobody reads patents for the purpose of learning new things.
-- 
Rahul

In article <c82gs7$tsi$1@pcls4.std.com>,
 mha@TheWorld.com (Martha H Adams) wrote:

> Now you tell me, however right your position might be, does a little
> detail like being-in-the-right make any difference at all who wins?
> Assuming anyone can sort it out from the expectable mountain of
> verbage? 

You got it!  (And it's one of the major reasons why the patent system 
needs serious reform.)

In article <barmar-334A30.12432814052004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Microsoft Corp. was found guilty of patent 
> infringement and ordered to pay $120 million in damages to a tiny 
> California firm in a rare setback for the giant computer software 
> company.
> 
>  However, the federal jury on Wednesday also ruled that the violation 
> was not willful and awarded Microsoft $13.6 million on a counterclaim 
> against Stac Electronics, which makes a data-compression program called 
> Stacker.
> 
> ****************
> 
> Now tell me: if there wasn't a patent system, what do you think would 
> have happened to Stac?
> 

You overlook the *key* word in the news item:  "a *rare* setback".

It reveals to us what, in the current patent system, happened to a bunch 
of other Stacs.

In article <c833ju$e4b$1@blue.rahul.net>,
 c.c.eiftj@GatesXPate.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:

> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> 
> > Microsoft Loses Patent Suit
> ...
> >Now tell me: if there wasn't a patent system, what do you think would 
> >have happened to Stac?
> 
> Does anybody really care?  Stac's patents were of dubious innovative
> value to begin with.
> 
> The point that is repeatedly lost on those who defend the current patent
> system is:  Nobody reads patents for the purpose of learning new things.

So?  Patents are not supposed to be a replacement for technical 
journals.  Patent protection allows the inventor to publish details in a 
journal without having to worry about a competitor using this against 
them.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

In article <siegman-A603A4.11512514052004@news.stanford.edu>,
 AES/newspost <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

> In article <barmar-334A30.12432814052004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Microsoft Corp. was found guilty of patent 
> > infringement and ordered to pay $120 million in damages to a tiny 
> > California firm in a rare setback for the giant computer software 
> > company.
> > 
> >  However, the federal jury on Wednesday also ruled that the violation 
> > was not willful and awarded Microsoft $13.6 million on a counterclaim 
> > against Stac Electronics, which makes a data-compression program called 
> > Stacker.
> > 
> > ****************
> > 
> > Now tell me: if there wasn't a patent system, what do you think would 
> > have happened to Stac?
> > 
> 
> You overlook the *key* word in the news item:  "a *rare* setback".
> 
> It reveals to us what, in the current patent system, happened to a bunch 
> of other Stacs.

No, I didn't overlook it.  My point is that without patents, even these 
rare wins would be virtually impossible.  Patents are one of the few 
weapons a small player can wield against a behemoth like Microsoft.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:58:08 +0100, "Phil Da Lick!"
<phil_the_lick@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>"T. Max Devlin" <tmax@localnet.com> wrote in message
>news:far7a097n96cc2vsubslsd6saive1h30bu@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:58:28 +0100, "Phil Da Lick!"
>
>> It is not a failure of the patent system; it is not the patent
>> system's job to prevent monopolization.
>
>It is the patent system's job to approve or deny patents.

And it is only in your imagination that they are capable of
distinguishing between genius and predatory conduct.  If you are too
sure that you yourself can do so, then you are delusional.

For all I know for certain there is something about the way this was
designed which is innovative and productive to the point where
rewarding whoever instigated its creation should be rewarded with
exclusive rights to it.  It is published.  Unless Gates puts serious
money into lobbying for an extension of patent duration, it will
expire, and this particular method of how to put together this kind of
system will be public domain.  The legitimacy of the patent can be
challenged in court, whether it might be expensive to do so or not.

Except possibly the legitimacy of a patent used in a monopoly, since
economically a monopoly can make things too expensive for all agents
to benefit from self-interest.

>>  It is, as I've repeatedly
>> pointed out to you, an anti-trust issue.
>
>You're blurring the lines.

I'm pointing them out; they are not really that blurry.  

>Anti trust is another point entirely.

But patent isn't a point at all.  Even if the patent is legal, it
cannot be used to monopolize.  The patent systems job is to register
patents; if they deny them, it shouldn't be because the examiner knows
better than a jury of peers.

>Abuse of
>patents is just one weapon in billy-boy's arsenal.

Use of patents is a bow in my quiver, as well.  If there is a problem
with abuse, it is a violation of anti-trust law, not a problem with
the patent system.

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:

>No, I didn't overlook it.  My point is that without patents, even these 
>rare wins would be virtually impossible.  Patents are one of the few 
>weapons a small player can wield against a behemoth like Microsoft.

Microsoft now owns the Stac patents.  Is that good for the rest of us?
-- 
Rahul

In article <c83dqk$h2i$1@blue.rahul.net>,
 c.c.eiftj@GatesXPate.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:

> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> 
> >No, I didn't overlook it.  My point is that without patents, even these 
> >rare wins would be virtually impossible.  Patents are one of the few 
> >weapons a small player can wield against a behemoth like Microsoft.
> 
> Microsoft now owns the Stac patents.  Is that good for the rest of us?

They're pretty worthless now -- other technologies have made that stuff 
obsolete.  So Stac probably made money when they sold them to Microsoft.  
Any time the 800 lb gorilla has to pay out to the little guys, it's a 
good thing.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:36:46 +0000 (UTC), Rahul Dhesi <c.c.eiftj@GatesXPate.usenet.us.com> wrote:
>
>The point that is repeatedly lost on those who defend the current patent
>system is:  Nobody reads patents for the purpose of learning new things.

This is absolutely true.

-- 
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than 
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)  

On Fri, 14 May 2004 15:27:59 -0400, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <c833ju$e4b$1@blue.rahul.net>,
> c.c.eiftj@GatesXPate.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
>
>> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>> 
>> > Microsoft Loses Patent Suit
>> ...
>> >Now tell me: if there wasn't a patent system, what do you think would 
>> >have happened to Stac?
>> 
>> Does anybody really care?  Stac's patents were of dubious innovative
>> value to begin with.
>> 
>> The point that is repeatedly lost on those who defend the current patent
>> system is:  Nobody reads patents for the purpose of learning new things.
>
>So? 

I would have thought it was obvious.

The patent bargain is to get a public good (that is, information 
about new inventions becoming publicly available, instead of being 
kept secret, and possibly forgotten about), in exchange for a public 
bad (giving someone a temporary monopoly on an invention).

Patents (and other laws!) only make sense if the good outweighs the 
bad.

If patents are hard for someone skilled in the art to read and 
understand (which computer-related ones most certainly are) this 
reduces the good of the patent system, and makes it more likely that 
the bad they do outweighs the good they do.

-- 
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than 
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)  

On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:45:21 -0400, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>No, I didn't overlook it.  My point is that without patents, even these 
>rare wins would be virtually impossible.  Patents are one of the few 
>weapons a small player can wield against a behemoth like Microsoft.

On the contrary, patents help microsoft in their fight against pesky 
competition, especially that of the open source variety. MS *loves* 
patents, because it gives them the chance to make it a crime for 
anyone to compete with them.

For the same reason, MS loves laws that seek to make it 
illegal to read a data format, such as the DMCA and EUCD.

-- 
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than 
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)  

In article <slrncac935.m82.zen19725@cabalamat.cabalamat.org>,
 zen19725@zen.co.uk (phil hunt) wrote:

> On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:45:21 -0400, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> 
> wrote:
> >
> >No, I didn't overlook it.  My point is that without patents, even these 
> >rare wins would be virtually impossible.  Patents are one of the few 
> >weapons a small player can wield against a behemoth like Microsoft.
> 
> On the contrary, patents help microsoft in their fight against pesky 
> competition, especially that of the open source variety. MS *loves* 
> patents, because it gives them the chance to make it a crime for 
> anyone to compete with them.

Of course it helps Microsoft.  It helps *everyone* -- big guys and 
little guys.

In a capitalist system, rich guys are always going to be able to take 
better advantage of whatever capabilities society provides.

But even without patents, Microsoft could afford to pay off their 
competitors.  Little guys can't do that.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:

>In article <slrncac935.m82.zen19725@cabalamat.cabalamat.org>,
> zen19725@zen.co.uk (phil hunt) wrote:

>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:45:21 -0400, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >No, I didn't overlook it.  My point is that without patents, even these 
>> >rare wins would be virtually impossible.  Patents are one of the few 
>> >weapons a small player can wield against a behemoth like Microsoft.
....
>Of course it helps Microsoft.  It helps *everyone* -- big guys and 
>little guys.

First it's a weapon that Stac wields against Microsoft.  Then, a couple
of sentences later, the lawsuit helped Microsoft.  Then, in the next
sentence, it helped everyone.

And all these inconsistent and random assertions are offered without any
proof whatsoever.
-- 
Rahul

On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:13:11 -0400, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <slrncac935.m82.zen19725@cabalamat.cabalamat.org>,
> zen19725@zen.co.uk (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:45:21 -0400, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >No, I didn't overlook it.  My point is that without patents, even these 
>> >rare wins would be virtually impossible.  Patents are one of the few 
>> >weapons a small player can wield against a behemoth like Microsoft.
>> 
>> On the contrary, patents help microsoft in their fight against pesky 
>> competition, especially that of the open source variety. MS *loves* 
>> patents, because it gives them the chance to make it a crime for 
>> anyone to compete with them.
>
>Of course it helps Microsoft.  It helps *everyone* -- big guys and 
>little guys.

So, IYO, criminalising open source software helps people who use 
open source software.

You're an idiot, aren't you?

-- 
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than 
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)  

In article <c85t6j$j2v$1@blue.rahul.net>,
 c.c.eiftj@GatesXPate.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:

> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> 
> >In article <slrncac935.m82.zen19725@cabalamat.cabalamat.org>,
> > zen19725@zen.co.uk (phil hunt) wrote:
> 
> >> On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:45:21 -0400, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >No, I didn't overlook it.  My point is that without patents, even these 
> >> >rare wins would be virtually impossible.  Patents are one of the few 
> >> >weapons a small player can wield against a behemoth like Microsoft.
> ...
> >Of course it helps Microsoft.  It helps *everyone* -- big guys and 
> >little guys.
> 
> First it's a weapon that Stac wields against Microsoft.  Then, a couple
> of sentences later, the lawsuit helped Microsoft.  Then, in the next
> sentence, it helped everyone.
> 
> And all these inconsistent and random assertions are offered without any
> proof whatsoever.

I didn't say *that* lawsuit helped Microsoft.  I said that the patent 
system helps Microsoft, but it also helps the little guys so they can 
sue Microsoft.

Are you expecting the laws to be applied differently for different 
companies?  Patents are something that anyone can take advantage of.  
Little guys can use them to keep big guys from walking all over them.  
Big guys use them as a way to stay big.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

On Sat, 15 May 2004 16:59:08 -0400
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Are you expecting the laws to be applied differently for different 
> companies?  Patents are something that anyone can take advantage of.  
> Little guys can use them to keep big guys from walking all over them.  
> Big guys use them as a way to stay big.

Little guys might not be able to afford patents. 
Does anyone have an idea how much it costs to get
a software invention patented?

-- 
Stefaan
-- 
"What is stated clearly conceives easily."  -- Inspired sales droid

According to Stefaan A Eeckels  <tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu>:
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 16:59:08 -0400
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Are you expecting the laws to be applied differently for different 
> > companies?  Patents are something that anyone can take advantage of.  
> > Little guys can use them to keep big guys from walking all over them.  
> > Big guys use them as a way to stay big.
> 
> Little guys might not be able to afford patents. 
> Does anyone have an idea how much it costs to get
> a software invention patented?

I attended a talk the other day on patents by the former
corporate counsel of a software company.  He mentioned
a range of $7K-$60K to get each patent, but noted that
it was probably going to cost at least $500K to fight or
defend a patent in court.  That's the more significant
obstacle, but it also works both ways.  While it's a
significant obstacle for the little guy trying to defend
against a charge of infringement, even Bill Gates can't
afford to spend $500K swatting every fly that comes along.

So a lot of innocent non-willful infringement is likely
to slip by under the radar.  People are only likely
to go to court over a patent if one side or the other
thinks they have millions at stake.

-- 
Dave Wallace		(Remove NOSPAM from my address to email me)
It is quite humbling to realize that the storage occupied by the longest
line from a typical Usenet posting is sufficient to provide a state space
so vast that all the computation power in the world can not conquer it.

In article <ca95kp$if5$1@reader2.panix.com>, NOSPAMdave@sebastian9.com 
wrote:

> > Little guys might not be able to afford patents. 
> > Does anyone have an idea how much it costs to get
> > a software invention patented?
> 
> I attended a talk the other day on patents by the former
> corporate counsel of a software company.  He mentioned
> a range of $7K-$60K to get each patent, but noted that
> it was probably going to cost at least $500K to fight or
> defend a patent in court.  That's the more significant


I believe the Natl Academies are about to publish a report on needed 
improvements (aka reforms) in the patent system that will cite similar 
data -- from $10K to a few times $10K total costs to get a typical 
patent, compared with at least $100K and normally many multiples of that 
to fight or defend against a patent after issue.

I'll say once again that I find this situation really indefensible.  For 
on the order of $10K, and with no other real or potential downside to 
you, you can get the government to issue you a license (meaning, in 
effect, to write a kind of private law on your behalf) which 

*   gives you *no* new rights to use your own invention that you would 
not already have had simply by publishing your idea;

*   given the competence of the PTO, has a very substantial probability 
of being an unjustified or invalid right;

*   but which nonetheless, once issued, *takes away* from everyone else 
the right to have or use the same idea, unless they're willing and able 
to invest $100K and up -- potentially way up -- in an expensive and 
highly uncertain fight just to try to get themselves back to the same 
state they would have been in before your patent issued.

It's claimed this benefits society.  I don't believe that as a matter of 
fact it really does; the claimed "proofs" that it provides major 
benefits  to society are very dubious and undocumented; and even if it 
does in some (a few?) cases provide some benefits, the costs and damages 
to others in many other cases are highly indefensible.

AES/newspost <siegman@stanford.edu> writes:

> I believe the Natl Academies are about to publish a report on needed
> improvements (aka reforms) in the patent system that will cite
> similar data -- from $10K to a few times $10K total costs to get a
> typical patent, compared with at least $100K and normally many
> multiples of that to fight or defend against a patent after issue.
> 
> I'll say once again that I find this situation really indefensible.
> For on the order of $10K, and with no other real or potential
> downside to you, you can get the government to issue you a license
> (meaning, in effect, to write a kind of private law on your behalf)
> which
> 
> * gives you *no* new rights to use your own invention that you would
> not already have had simply by publishing your idea;
> 
> * given the competence of the PTO, has a very substantial
> probability of being an unjustified or invalid right;
> 
> * but which nonetheless, once issued, *takes away* from everyone
> else the right to have or use the same idea, unless they're willing
> and able to invest $100K and up -- potentially way up -- in an
> expensive and highly uncertain fight just to try to get themselves
> back to the same state they would have been in before your patent
> issued.

Uh, you are forgetting one thing: everyone else has the option of
buying a licence from you.  That's the whole point in the first place.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

In article <x5wu2fe2u5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> 
wrote:

> Uh, you are forgetting one thing: everyone else has the option of
> buying a licence from you.  That's the whole point in the first place.

a)  Buying a license is NOT an option that's necessarily available to 
everyone else -- only if the patent holder chooses to offer a license, 
at whatever price he sets.  Other than a few exceptional situations, 
there's no general requirement that a patent holder offer licenses; he 
can just bar everyone else from using the idea at all.

b)  And in any case allowing the patent holder to make a profit on the 
patent is not at all "the whole point in the first place".  Read the 
Constitution; the (alleged) purpose is "to promote progress" of the 
broader community.

AES/newspost <siegman@stanford.edu> writes:

> In article <x5wu2fe2u5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup
> <dak@gnu.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > Uh, you are forgetting one thing: everyone else has the option of
> > buying a licence from you.  That's the whole point in the first place.
> 
> a) Buying a license is NOT an option that's necessarily available to
> everyone else -- only if the patent holder chooses to offer a
> license, at whatever price he sets.  Other than a few exceptional
> situations, there's no general requirement that a patent holder
> offer licenses; he can just bar everyone else from using the idea at
> all.

Well in Germany, if you don't licence your patent, it doubles the
patent fees.

But I agree that I was of the impression that you _had_ to offer
licences at "reasonable rates" and was surprised that by doubling
your fees, you could refuse to do so.

There are cases were forced licence grants happen, but they are
probably not done too often.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:20:41 +0000 (UTC), NOSPAMdave@sebastian9.com
wrote:

>According to Stefaan A Eeckels  <tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu>:
>> On Sat, 15 May 2004 16:59:08 -0400
>> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> > Are you expecting the laws to be applied differently for different 
>> > companies?  Patents are something that anyone can take advantage of.  
>> > Little guys can use them to keep big guys from walking all over them.  
>> > Big guys use them as a way to stay big.
>> 
>> Little guys might not be able to afford patents. 
>> Does anyone have an idea how much it costs to get
>> a software invention patented?
>
>I attended a talk the other day on patents by the former
>corporate counsel of a software company.  He mentioned
>a range of $7K-$60K to get each patent, but noted that
>it was probably going to cost at least $500K to fight or
>defend a patent in court.  That's the more significant
>obstacle, but it also works both ways.  While it's a
>significant obstacle for the little guy trying to defend
>against a charge of infringement, even Bill Gates can't
>afford to spend $500K swatting every fly that comes along.
>
>So a lot of innocent non-willful infringement is likely
>to slip by under the radar.  People are only likely
>to go to court over a patent if one side or the other
>thinks they have millions at stake.
>
>-- 
>Dave Wallace		(Remove NOSPAM from my address to email me)
>It is quite humbling to realize that the storage occupied by the longest
>line from a typical Usenet posting is sufficient to provide a state space
>so vast that all the computation power in the world can not conquer it.

Is your sig a quote, and if so, who is it?

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:05:59 -0700, AES/newspost
<siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

>In article <ca95kp$if5$1@reader2.panix.com>, NOSPAMdave@sebastian9.com 
>wrote:
>
>> > Little guys might not be able to afford patents. 
>> > Does anyone have an idea how much it costs to get
>> > a software invention patented?
>> 
>> I attended a talk the other day on patents by the former
>> corporate counsel of a software company.  He mentioned
>> a range of $7K-$60K to get each patent, but noted that
>> it was probably going to cost at least $500K to fight or
>> defend a patent in court.  That's the more significant
>
>I believe the Natl Academies are about to publish a report on needed 
>improvements (aka reforms) in the patent system that will cite similar 
>data -- from $10K to a few times $10K total costs to get a typical 
>patent, compared with at least $100K and normally many multiples of that 
>to fight or defend against a patent after issue.
>
>I'll say once again that I find this situation really indefensible.

My, that's odd.  

>For 
>on the order of $10K, and with no other real or potential downside to 
>you, 

Other than the $10K?

>you can get the government to issue you a license (meaning, in 
>effect, to write a kind of private law on your behalf) which 

No, the law is the same for everyone.

>*   gives you *no* new rights to use your own invention that you would 
>not already have had simply by publishing your idea;

Well, actually, it does.  That's the whole point!  It gives you the
right to use your invention publicly, and take to court anyone else
who uses it.

It doesn't, of course, guarantee you'll win.

>*   given the competence of the PTO, has a very substantial probability 
>of being an unjustified or invalid right;

Well, no.  It has some chance of being unjustified, obviously; the PTO
effectively just registers inventions.  Given that, all it means is
they must be defended in court.

>*   but which nonetheless, once issued, *takes away* from everyone else 
>the right to have or use the same idea,

No, no, sorry; you can have ALL the ideas you want, and more.  You
can't use his invention, for a limited time, with the understanding
that he has supposedly made public all information needed to duplicate
his invention once that time expires.  Ends up being a win-win all
around, really.  But when markets are getting increasingly
disfunctional people get all sorts of ideas and compete in all sorts
of soundly nefarious ways.

>unless they're willing and able 
>to invest $100K and up -- potentially way up -- in an expensive and 
>highly uncertain fight just to try to get themselves back to the same 
>state they would have been in before your patent issued.

Or you could negotiate royalties.  Which makes more sense for both of
you, or should.

>It's claimed this benefits society.

In order to promote developments in the useful arts and sciences
inventors and authors are given exclusive rights to their work for a
limited time, yes.

>I don't believe that as a matter of 
>fact it really does; the claimed "proofs" that it provides major 
>benefits  to society are very dubious and undocumented;

It's actually the kind of "look around there is proof all around you"
thing.  The protection of intellectual property is responsible in
several ways for the wealth of both intellectual and real property you
have access to.

>and even if it 
>does in some (a few?) cases provide some benefits, the costs and damages 
>to others in many other cases are highly indefensible.

Even if it does cause damange in some (a few?) cases, the benefits it
provides are highly defensible.  But when there is any company that
successfully manipulates the market, all other companies can only try
to compete by being more or less successful at manipulating the
market.  

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:13:14 -0700, AES/newspost
<siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

>In article <x5wu2fe2u5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> 
>wrote:
>
>> Uh, you are forgetting one thing: everyone else has the option of
>> buying a licence from you.  That's the whole point in the first place.
>
>a)  Buying a license is NOT an option that's necessarily available to 
>everyone else -- only if the patent holder chooses to offer a license, 
>at whatever price he sets.

Indeed, it is not an option available to anyone else unless the patent
holder wants to make money for something he's already done.

>Other than a few exceptional situations, 
>there's no general requirement that a patent holder offer licenses; he 
>can just bar everyone else from using the idea at all.

Other than a very few specific situations, there's no reason at all
why a patent holder wouldn't offer licenses.  Those situations are
generally covered by anti-trust law.

>b)  And in any case allowing the patent holder to make a profit on the 
>patent is not at all "the whole point in the first place".

Well, yeah, it kinda is.  In order to encourage them, we make it so
they can make money by selling/renting/licensing their otherwise
exclusive rights.

>Read the 
>Constitution; the (alleged) purpose is "to promote progress" of the 
>broader community.

And how is that done?  We promote progress by giving them the right to
sell their intellectual property.  It's all there.

According to T. Max Devlin  <tmax@localnet.com>:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:20:41 +0000 (UTC), NOSPAMdave@sebastian9.com
> wrote:

> >It is quite humbling to realize that the storage occupied by the longest
> >line from a typical Usenet posting is sufficient to provide a state space
> >so vast that all the computation power in the world can not conquer it.
> 
> Is your sig a quote, and if so, who is it?

I'm quoting myself there - something I wrote in an article long ago
that really gripped my imagination.  I wrote an explanation about it
for the lay person back in 1998 in rec.gambling.poker:

http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:rec.gambling.poker+author:wallace%40netcom.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2003&selm=wallaceF21t8r.B84%40netcom.com&rnum=29

(if that URL is too long for you, go to Google groups advanced search and
search rec.gambling.poker for the title "Reply to Mavrick" in
November 1998).  The explanation is down a few paragraphs, after
I indulged in the said reply to a self-appointed "expert on
everything," who had gone just a little bit too far.

-- 
Dave Wallace		(Remove NOSPAM from my address to email me)
It is quite humbling to realize that the storage occupied by the longest
line from a typical Usenet posting is sufficient to provide a state space
so vast that all the computation power in the world can not conquer it.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:19:10 +0000 (UTC), NOSPAMdave@sebastian9.com
wrote:

>According to T. Max Devlin  <tmax@localnet.com>:
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:20:41 +0000 (UTC), NOSPAMdave@sebastian9.com
>> wrote:
>
>> >It is quite humbling to realize that the storage occupied by the longest
>> >line from a typical Usenet posting is sufficient to provide a state space
>> >so vast that all the computation power in the world can not conquer it.
>> 
>> Is your sig a quote, and if so, who is it?
>
>I'm quoting myself there - something I wrote in an article long ago
>that really gripped my imagination.

I think it's great.  Thanks.

   [...]

begin  In <x5wu2fe2u5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, on 06/10/2004
   at 07:32 PM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said:

>Uh, you are forgetting one thing: everyone else has the option of
>buying a licence from you.  That's the whole point in the first
>place.

In what country? Certainly in the USA the Constitution has a *VERY*
different point for copyrights and patents. A point that is trampled
roughshod when patents are granted for things that are obvious to
practitioners and that are prior art. To say nothing of thumbing noses
at the word "limited".

-- 
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action.  I reserve
the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.

Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do
not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org