Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On Friday 19 October 2007 10:26, Bill McGonigle wrote: > > Sometimes it seems people get the patent for asking the question that > nobody ever thought to ask before. Once you come up with the > question, the answer is often trivial. A physics professor once forcefully insisted that physics was about asking the best question - little else. After the question is formulated, you can get any one of many grad students to solve the equations. If you look at the experiments with the greatest effect on science, that is certainly a reasonable generalization. So asking the right question is easy? A price conscious admirer asked an artist how many hours is took to make the painting. Knowing the classic reply, the artist said, "Oh, about 6 hours of painting - and 20 years of practice." The same is true about asking the best technical questions. > > Having people taking the time to ask these questions is certainly > useful in promoting science and the useful arts - whether the patent > is the right mechanism to reward this kind of activity, I'm not sure > about. I am an unenthusiastic participant in the patent system. (No, none of the companies I have worked for were able to force me to give them my patent rights. I got all the patents myself. And made money on all of them.) One of the reasons I reluctantly patent when I have a basic technical advance is to make sure it is recorded for posterity. If a non-academic like myself asks a good question that leads to a valuable advance, how is he to spread that knowledge in a world with so many voices screaming at the top of their lungs? The patent serves a purpose there. Only one patent in 600 earns back the cost of patenting. Most of them are junk or just held to prevent anyone from using the idea. But the thread has already done a good job critiquing that, so I will stifle my rant. Jim Kuzdrall P.S. If you are interested, look up patents 4,401,104; 5,574,287; and 6,190,377. My latest (and most significant) is still being evaluated for a Secrecy Order prior to publication. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On Oct 19, 2007, at 00:59, Greg Rundlett wrote: > I'm just pointing out how ridiculously broken the system is, > to the point where it doesn't even benefit the biggest and most > powerful companies commensurate with the money and resources put into > the system. That you can patent a canister with a molded-in handle > when there is a century of prior art, and it's a natural and obvious > consequence of building canisters with plastic instead of metal is > just one example. Ah, yes, that one is the hardest nut to crack. Sometimes it seems people get the patent for asking the question that nobody ever thought to ask before. Once you come up with the question, the answer is often trivial. Having people taking the time to ask these questions is certainly useful in promoting science and the useful arts - whether the patent is the right mechanism to reward this kind of activity, I'm not sure about. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On 10/19/07, Greg Rundlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against people or companies with > patents. I'm just pointing out how ridiculously broken the system is, > to the point where it doesn't even benefit the biggest and most > powerful companies commensurate with the money and resources put into > the system. That you can patent a canister with a molded-in handle > when there is a century of prior art, and it's a natural and obvious We're not the only country with issues. In the 80's when Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki and Yamaha made 3 wheel ATVs, they all varied the position of the engine relative to the front wheel. Honda had a patent in Japan on it. Yamaha had to place the engine much further back & it tended to wheely much more. Only Honda had the ideal position. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On 10/18/07, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 17, 2007, at 22:47, Greg Rundlett wrote: > > > Due to the patent system, the world is limited to basically two large > > consumer products companies that sell coffee. Why? because canisters > > come in round or square shapes (triangular being rather impractical -- > > although maybe there is an idea I should patent). Those shapes are > > patented and so nobody else can package coffee in a canister without > > violating a patent. Proctor and Gamble (or Procter & Gamble depending > > on how they want to hide similar patents) has the patent on round [1] > > (think Folgers coffee.), and Kraft has the patent on square (think > > Maxwell House coffee). Why does society need to increase the cost of > > innovation and discovery so that there can be monopolies on the shape > > of a coffee canister? Actually, they own the design of the container > > for any purpose -- not just coffee. This is just a simple example; > > you could get a lot more serious on the topic. > > > > [1] http://www.google.com/patents?id=N3QOEBAJ&dq=patent:D480312 > > Is this the patent you meant to link to? Because: > > * it's from 2003, > * it's for a round plastic container with a molded-in handle > * I'm unaware of any coffee companies that have gone out of business > since 2003 because of it > * I buy coffee from other companies that use round metal containers > (aka coffee cans) > * there's a century or more of prior art on 'food in cans' > * the minced garlic I buy comes in a square plastic container with > molded-in handle > > Either I'm misunderstanding or your example is completely invalid. :) > Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against people or companies with patents. I'm just pointing out how ridiculously broken the system is, to the point where it doesn't even benefit the biggest and most powerful companies commensurate with the money and resources put into the system. That you can patent a canister with a molded-in handle when there is a century of prior art, and it's a natural and obvious consequence of building canisters with plastic instead of metal is just one example. I don't know either if some company has 'gone out of business because of the patent' but the whole system has a chilling effect when they could sue you out of business if you needed to offer your product in an ergonomic container. The latest story to chronicle how broken the system is from the Washington Post / Slashdot http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701199_pf.html The good news is that large companies such as IBM, Eli LIlly, and Proctor and Gamble are now recognizing that the tremendous money that they pour into IP portfolios, R&D, Patent litigation etc. is better spent on opening their organizational borders and forming 'ideagoras' (from Wikinomics [1]) where they can collaborate and innovate together. I think this is a great development and signals that the marketplace is reshaping into one where smaller companies can effectively participate and prosper. As the liquidity of ideas and technologies improves, the volume and participation by 'investors' goes up -- just like in the stock market. [On topic] This is a good thing for Linux, Open Source and Free Software companies who tend to be agile, intelligent and well-connected to the information economy. [1] http://wikinomics.com/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On 10/18/07, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I buy my coffee in either: > - a foil lined bag > - a cardboard coffee cup OK, I do the cup thing all the time, but I would think it would be hard to drink it out of a bag... -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * I buy coffee from other companies that use round metal containers > (aka coffee cans) I buy my coffee in either: - a foil lined bag - a cardboard coffee cup The latter of which usually comes with some sort of completely inadequate plastic lid, the former is usually labelled 'Easy Open' and is anything buy. -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On 10/18/07, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 17, 2007, at 22:47, Greg Rundlett wrote: > > Due to the patent system, the world is limited to basically two large > > consumer products companies that sell coffee. Why? because canisters > > come in round or square shapes (triangular being rather impractical -- > > although maybe there is an idea I should patent). Those shapes are > > patented and so nobody else can package coffee in a canister without > > violating a patent. Proctor and Gamble (or Procter & Gamble depending > > on how they want to hide similar patents) has the patent on round [1] > > (think Folgers coffee.), and Kraft has the patent on square (think > > Maxwell House coffee). Why does society need to increase the cost of > > innovation and discovery so that there can be monopolies on the shape > > of a coffee canister? Actually, they own the design of the container > > for any purpose -- not just coffee. This is just a simple example; > > you could get a lot more serious on the topic. > > [1] http://www.google.com/patents?id=N3QOEBAJ&dq=patent:D480312 > Is this the patent you meant to link to? Because: > * it's from 2003, > * it's for a round plastic container with a molded-in handle > * I'm unaware of any coffee companies that have gone out of business > since 2003 because of it > * I buy coffee from other companies that use round metal containers > (aka coffee cans) > * there's a century or more of prior art on 'food in cans' > * the minced garlic I buy comes in a square plastic container with > molded-in handle > Either I'm misunderstanding or your example is completely invalid. :) I think people are missing the point. The company that owns that patent can do whatever they like as far as suing whomever they choose. The patent is valid until it is declared by the patent office to NOT be valid. Regardless of how inane or idiotic it IS for someone to have a patent, as long as they have it, and the patent office says they do, people WILL get screwed. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On Oct 17, 2007, at 22:47, Greg Rundlett wrote: > Due to the patent system, the world is limited to basically two large > consumer products companies that sell coffee. Why? because canisters > come in round or square shapes (triangular being rather impractical -- > although maybe there is an idea I should patent). Those shapes are > patented and so nobody else can package coffee in a canister without > violating a patent. Proctor and Gamble (or Procter & Gamble depending > on how they want to hide similar patents) has the patent on round [1] > (think Folgers coffee.), and Kraft has the patent on square (think > Maxwell House coffee). Why does society need to increase the cost of > innovation and discovery so that there can be monopolies on the shape > of a coffee canister? Actually, they own the design of the container > for any purpose -- not just coffee. This is just a simple example; > you could get a lot more serious on the topic. > > [1] http://www.google.com/patents?id=N3QOEBAJ&dq=patent:D480312 Is this the patent you meant to link to? Because: * it's from 2003, * it's for a round plastic container with a molded-in handle * I'm unaware of any coffee companies that have gone out of business since 2003 because of it * I buy coffee from other companies that use round metal containers (aka coffee cans) * there's a century or more of prior art on 'food in cans' * the minced garlic I buy comes in a square plastic container with molded-in handle Either I'm misunderstanding or your example is completely invalid. :) -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On 10/17/07, Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:53:59 -0400 > Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is there something inherently wrong with the business model of a > > small inventor who licenses his inventions but outsources protection > > prosecution? > > > > I recognize many patent trolls don't resemble this arrangement, but > > it would be easy to squish the former in an attempt to squash the > > latter. > > This is a very difficult question. I think the problem is how do you > write a law that both enables the inventor to assign (or outsource > patents) but at the same time outlaws patent trolling. Take a case > where a company invents and patents a widget. That company at some > future time, decides to sell the patent because they may no longer be > receiving revenue from that product. They sell it to a patent troll > whose business is to buy and enforce patents. The problem here is that > by legislating restrictions to outlaw patent trolling would also be > preventing a company from selling an asset. > > In the case of the 3 patents in the Red Hat/Novell case, we are talking > about Xerox, not a small inventor. But, you certainly have a very valid > case. I don't believe patents have a place in modern society. I'm speaking of all patents, not just the most obviously insane extension of patents to 'business processes and software'. The current system is completely stacked against any such notion as a 'small inventor'. And what's the point anyway? The patent system is supposed to entice innovation and discovery (by providing monopoly) so that invention is not hoarded as a trade secret. But that rationale was born in an era framed by travel, communication and technology that were completely different from today. Today there is so much innovation and discovery that there is no way to keep up with it. There is surely no way (for any 'small' inventor) to keep up with patent filings (that would 'prevent' the small inventor from inventing something). There are better ways to entice innovation and discovery. Take http://innocentive.com/ as an example. They match 'seekers' and 'solvers' with cash bounties for up to $100,000. Due to the patent system, the world is limited to basically two large consumer products companies that sell coffee. Why? because canisters come in round or square shapes (triangular being rather impractical -- although maybe there is an idea I should patent). Those shapes are patented and so nobody else can package coffee in a canister without violating a patent. Proctor and Gamble (or Procter & Gamble depending on how they want to hide similar patents) has the patent on round [1] (think Folgers coffee.), and Kraft has the patent on square (think Maxwell House coffee). Why does society need to increase the cost of innovation and discovery so that there can be monopolies on the shape of a coffee canister? Actually, they own the design of the container for any purpose -- not just coffee. This is just a simple example; you could get a lot more serious on the topic. [1] http://www.google.com/patents?id=N3QOEBAJ&dq=patent:D480312 We'd all be better off with patents (like slavery) abolished. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On Oct 17, 2007, at 16:01, Jerry Feldman wrote: > That company at some > future time, decides to sell the patent because they may no longer be > receiving revenue from that product. Even worse - I've licensed the patent to four companies who are using it, and a fifth is infringing. I don't have a legal team to do enforcement, and the first four are getting grumpy about #5. > Additionally please send email either to the listserv or to the poster > you are replying to, but not both. Au contraire, please send messages to both me and the mailing list. I would have responded earlier but my gnhlug-only mail is filtered (if I'm in the header it goes right to my inbox), so I didn't see it until I checked the box again, which can sometimes be days, which kills a thread's momentum. Use duplicate message suppression on your end if you don't want both - there's not a way (that I know of) to do the opposite. Cyrus, dovecot, (and courier, I think), at least, have this built in. procmailex(5) also has a simple recipe. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:53:59 -0400 Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there something inherently wrong with the business model of a > small inventor who licenses his inventions but outsources protection > prosecution? > > I recognize many patent trolls don't resemble this arrangement, but > it would be easy to squish the former in an attempt to squash the > latter. This is a very difficult question. I think the problem is how do you write a law that both enables the inventor to assign (or outsource patents) but at the same time outlaws patent trolling. Take a case where a company invents and patents a widget. That company at some future time, decides to sell the patent because they may no longer be receiving revenue from that product. They sell it to a patent troll whose business is to buy and enforce patents. The problem here is that by legislating restrictions to outlaw patent trolling would also be preventing a company from selling an asset. In the case of the 3 patents in the Red Hat/Novell case, we are talking about Xerox, not a small inventor. But, you certainly have a very valid case. Additionally please send email either to the listserv or to the poster you are replying to, but not both. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:40, Jerry Feldman wrote: > The issue of "patent trolls" is a troubling issue because there are > companies, such as IP Innovation LLC that exist simply to enforce > patents that were filed by others. I think that it may require some > patent reform legislation to fix this. Is there something inherently wrong with the business model of a small inventor who licenses his inventions but outsources protection prosecution? I recognize many patent trolls don't resemble this arrangement, but it would be easy to squish the former in an attempt to squash the latter. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:38:24 -0400 Alex Hewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One thing that annoyed me is that the lawsuit was claiming "economic > damages" and you find yourself wondering how much money could they be > talking about when they didn't do any of the work that led to the patent > in the first place. This would be a good situation for a court ruling > that in effect punishes the party that brings the lawsuit for making > false claims. The economic damages will ultimately be how much money the > lawyers were paid to pursue the claim rather than costs of marketing a > patented product (which they plainly haven't done). The issue of "patent trolls" is a troubling issue because there are companies, such as IP Innovation LLC that exist simply to enforce patents that were filed by others. I think that it may require some patent reform legislation to fix this. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 08:41 -0400, Jerry Feldman wrote: > I just wanted to add a followup here on this. > First note that the patents involved should expire in December, 2008. > But there is a more in-depth discussion that PJ had with a retired > patent attorney. Basically, I think that the reason for filing this > suit now is that, assuming the patents are about to expire, it is just > another battle launched to damage FOSS. Those companies who view FOSS > and Linux as the enemy are just using this as another tool in their > chest. Again, the company who launched the suit is a patent troll, a > company that acquires old patents and makes money by enforcing them or > receives money from other sources. > > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071016234739918 > > One thing that annoyed me is that the lawsuit was claiming "economic damages" and you find yourself wondering how much money could they be talking about when they didn't do any of the work that led to the patent in the first place. This would be a good situation for a court ruling that in effect punishes the party that brings the lawsuit for making false claims. The economic damages will ultimately be how much money the lawyers were paid to pursue the claim rather than costs of marketing a patented product (which they plainly haven't done). -Alex > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
I just wanted to add a followup here on this. First note that the patents involved should expire in December, 2008. But there is a more in-depth discussion that PJ had with a retired patent attorney. Basically, I think that the reason for filing this suit now is that, assuming the patents are about to expire, it is just another battle launched to damage FOSS. Those companies who view FOSS and Linux as the enemy are just using this as another tool in their chest. Again, the company who launched the suit is a patent troll, a company that acquires old patents and makes money by enforcing them or receives money from other sources. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071016234739918 -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
Jerry, > It is curious that only Red Hat and Novell > are the plaintiffs. Why not FSF (GNOME), of X.ORG, or TrollTech (KDE > and QT). > I think you meant that Red Hat and Novell are the defendants, not the plaintiffs, in this suit. Having a few defendants at one time is a normal thing. You only have to prove the patent against one or two. If the patent is upheld against Red Hat and Novell, then they can go after other companies, and those companies will probably simply settle out of court. It is simply less expensive to have the court case this way. The real issue is that most typical patent settlements would adversely affect the way that free software works and is distributed. This is similar to the recent Alcatel/Lucent suit against Microsoft. Now that Alcatel/Lucent has won against Microsoft, there is nothing to stop Alacatel/Lucent to now go after others using mp3 (such as Intel, etc., etc.) http://www.betanews.com/article/AlcatelLucent_Victory_in_MP3_Dispute_Signals_Trouble_for_Digital_Audio/1172184439 md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:12:47 -0400 Bruce Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Charron wrote: > > So, now that http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141 > > is out there.. > > > > What are peoples thoughts on the patent in question? > > > > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=5072412.PN.&OS=PN/5072412&RS=PN/5072412 > > > I think there's prior art. I seem to remember seeing something like this > back in the days of X10 (the predecessor to X11). A little white box > with crosshairs in the lower right of the screen. It screwed up my > display whenever I clicked on it. Back then I didn't know about window > managers, let alone workspaces - I just knew about point and click. I > think they used the term "panel" (in what passed as documentation in > those days). This is probably true. The patent goes back to 1987 and was issued in 1991 and was filed by Xerox. It is curious that only Red Hat and Novell are the plaintiffs. Why not FSF (GNOME), of X.ORG, or TrollTech (KDE and QT). Why not some commercial Unix systems that use KDE or GNOME, or even the ancient CDE. Additionally, Groklaw lists a couple of executives of the plaintiff's parent company has 2 former Microsoft senior executives at the helm. Additionally, the plaintiff appears to be nothing but a patent troll. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....
Thomas Charron wrote: > So, now that http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141 > is out there.. > > What are peoples thoughts on the patent in question? > > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=5072412.PN.&OS=PN/5072412&RS=PN/5072412 > I think there's prior art. I seem to remember seeing something like this back in the days of X10 (the predecessor to X11). A little white box with crosshairs in the lower right of the screen. It screwed up my display whenever I clicked on it. Back then I didn't know about window managers, let alone workspaces - I just knew about point and click. I think they used the term "panel" (in what passed as documentation in those days). ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
