I agree, and the OMG has some boiler plate that typically removes them from any patent liability leaving it up to the implementor of the technology. What I have a problem is properly identifying "prior art". The background papers clearly cover these issues long before these patents were submitted, but only in a general way by describing the general problem that the patent is dealing with in the specific. There are some more papers that are relevant at: http://cadse.cs.fiu.edu/research_projects/RAD/publications/
I've not checked it out, but the book by Bob Blakley on CORBA Security could have a discussion and early reference, too. I ran into a patent from H&R Block wHich basically patented distributed object-based computing in 1995. The fact that this was awarded a patent is a travesty of our patent system. Dave > ------------Original Message------------ > From: Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "David Forslund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Vincent > McCauley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, Nov-23-2004 2:55 PM > Subject: Re: A patent application covering EHRs > > David Forslund wrote: > > Thus the patent you describe would make the RAD OMG specification a > violation of your patent, > > since it provides a mechanism to specifically what you say plus a lot > more? > > If the patent application in question is approved in the US and the > patent issues (yes, they have filed a US patent application as well as > Australian, UK and Canadian applications) then anyone distributing or > using the RAD OMG specification in the US may have to defend themselves > > against royalty claims in the courts. That's why it is important to > oppose such patents to prevent them from issuing. > > > Note that the > > RFP for this was issued in February, 1998: > http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?corbamed/98-02-23. > > The result is a specific way to provide the capability you describe > in your patent in a scalable, > > implementable way over a distributed network. > > Yes, definitley more relevant prior art. > > Tim C >
