Your intent is good, but since it takes a few million dollars to overturn
a dud patent yet only a few thousand to apply for one, it's possible that
just shooting down bad patents may not be a viable long term strategy. ;)
However, shooting down this one specifically, might be a way to garner
It covers practically everything you do with data on a computer, right from
the earliest stored procedure Eniac/whathaveyou right up to the most minimal
CE or embedded piece of code that runs your morning wake up radio or beeps at
you from your wristwatch.
Do a google on (fraudulent
One problem is the junk patent which is far too vague and covers obvious
developments and covers prior art. Two perl modules come to mind right
off Storeable and Data::Dumper;, I'm sure there are other serialization
modules in C libraries or even Pascal if one wants examples going back to
the
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 20:12 -0700, Mike White wrote:
Probably, but you would have to challenge it in court to make it stick.
Which is a major problem because the expense of doing that eliminates
the majority of SMEs from ever even thinking about it. Even Local
Education Authorities with 100
I know most of you will think this idea is lame and far fetched and I'm
just a wishful thinker.
Would it be possible that we, as a group with all our collective
backgrounds in software development, could actually gather enough
irrefutable evidence so that it might be presented to a judge to
My bad - I misspelled his surname - it's Pearse.
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.html
http://www.nzedge.com/heroes/pearse.html
http://chrisbrady.itgo.com/pearse/pearse.htm
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/Gallery/Pearse/Pearse.html
http://www.destination.co.nz/temuka/pearse.htm
My patent attorney and I had a conversation about claims standing alone
recently and apparently if they can be infringed alone they can also be
awarded alone and alone prevent you from using what is claimed without
license. This I'm fairly sure of.
As to communication between computers,
Now having re-read the proper patent. I still don't see how they could
be awarded a patent on what appears to be nothing more that converting a
data structure defined in one file to a serial stream in another file.
Sounds like storing a record in a database to me. :-\ I think Borland
was
Probably, but you would have to challenge it in court to make it stick.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:05 PM
To: discuss@openoffice.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Now having re-read the proper
On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:38, M. Fioretti wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2005 20:23:13 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Chris BONDE wrote:
Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their
idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent).
That
--- Joseph Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What a joke the patent office is. I think I'll try for a patent that
covers when some object strikes another object causing signals to be
sent down a wire that produces an object on a screen.
Ha! then I'll own the keyboard! Pay up suckers!!
you
--- Joseph Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if it cost money to apply for patents?
yes, of course
What's frustrating is I've look at a couple of articles regarding this
and the general stance of the patent office is let the courts decide.
Total B.S. its their job to review the
--- Eric Hines [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05/30/05 10:57, you wrote:
Eric Hines wrote:
Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one
I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a
monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous.
Patent monopoly rights are very
--- Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of
communication between computers done by applications, connected by any
means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of
communicating on any form of communication
--- Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
M. Fioretti wrote:
Maybe you meant _software_ or _algorithm_ _only_ patents, not all
possible patents in every field, didn't you?
I used the word idea and idea is precisely what I mean. Ideas are
not constrained to software. If I draw a
--- Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel,
All I was pointing out was that MS didn't even do what you suggested.
You said since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of
old ones and that is true.
They did not invent anything, although there patent would lead you to
--- Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, very large particle accelerators are a lot more expensive than
cars and microprocessors and they don't use the restrictive model (some
new fuels are cheaper, others aren't). They still grow progress in
incremental steps. It's also
--- Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
x86 processor, solar cells, fusion technology, cars, fuel cells.
But Daniel, all of these are positively *BURIED* in patents.
The architecture of a new
microprocessor can be drawn on a piece of paper,
The issue is cost. That drawing
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 21:46 +0100, Sander Vesik wrote:
--- Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
x86 processor, solar cells, fusion technology, cars, fuel cells.
But Daniel, all of these are positively *BURIED* in patents.
Software is different from other commodities. Patents on
On Tue, May 31, 2005 01:30:51 AM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The architecture of a new microprocessor can be drawn on a piece of
paper,
The issue is cost. That drawing (which would not fit on any piece of
paper I know of) is very expensive to do. The point is not
M. Fioretti wrote:
That's not the point I was making. I never said new = bad and I
don't know how you got that impression.
From your sentence above: The thing about using patents to protect
invention is actually a very recent aberration in a few fields.
Trust me, I didn't mean to imply new
Nicolas, I'm bringing the discussion back to the list, were I wanted
to keep it. It is only by mistake (damned webmail) that I replied to
you and not to OO.o in the message to which you answered below.
On Tue, May 31, 2005 12:10:04 PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mar
On Tue, May 31, 2005 21:46:03 PM +1200, Wesley Parish
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
One NZ inventor - Richard Pierce - who believed in this
working-in-secret has the distinction of never having his
inventions in the fields of aviation or anything else, actually get
taken up anywhere. So as an
On Tue, May 31, 2005 01:34:50 AM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
M. Fioretti wrote:
In Free Software, Free Society, R.M. Stallman talks about the
perversion of the original intent of patent and copyright law. For
those of us in the US, our constitution states clearly that
Sander Vesik wrote:
--- Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of
communication between computers done by applications, connected by any
means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of
communicating on any
Sander Vesik wrote:
--- Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel,
All I was pointing out was that MS didn't even do what you suggested.
You said since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of
old ones and that is true.
They did not invent anything, although there patent
M. Fioretti wrote:
Of course. But if they do it for profit, they will only shell the
money out if there is the possibility (through patents) to get more
back.
Look, I don't question that patents let companies make more money than
they would otherwise. What I'm saying is that (1) they can
M. Fioretti wrote:
In Free Software, Free Society, R.M. Stallman talks about the
perversion of the original intent of patent and copyright law. For
those of us in the US, our constitution states clearly that these are
granted for the benefit of society. Most other countries say something
--- Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:
--- Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel,
All I was pointing out was that MS didn't even do what you suggested.
You said since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of
old ones and that is true.
They did
Hey, guys should not we take this to social?
It is becoming less and less discussing.
Chris
M. Fioretti wrote:
You can do it with small material things which can be built with
*very* little space and money, or in environments where, again
unlike software, everybody plays by the same
On Mon, May 30, 2005 20:23:13 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Chris BONDE wrote:
Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their
idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent).
That is neither the intention, nor the effect
On Tue, May 31, 2005 21:23:23 PM -0700, Chris BONDE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
1) Please, NEVER retransmit pages and pages of text only to add a
couple of lines. Always trim as much as possible! Thanks
Hey, guys should not we take this to social?
No, why?
First of all I'm not on that list. I
Approved! Unbelievable!
http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,39024650,39190121,00.htm
8-(
--
Graham Lauder
OpenOffice.org MarCon New Zealand
INGOTs Certification Assessor Trainer
www.theingots.org
-
To
Graham Lauder wrote:
Approved! Unbelievable!
http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,39024650,39190121,00.htm
8-(
The original article in ZDNet
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020384,39200380,00.htm
--
Graham Lauder
OpenOffice.org MarCon New Zealand
I agree with you, Daniel, about improvements, but, this patent is try
to stake a claim on something that we have all been doing ever since we
created two applications on two networked computers that communicated
via some protocol. Read claim 1 and think about how broad it is.
Alex Janssen
At 05/30/05 10:57, you wrote:
Eric Hines wrote:
Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one
I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a
monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous.
Patent monopoly rights are very similar to copyright monopoly rights--just
At 05/30/05 11:21, you wrote:
I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of
communication between computers done by applications, connected by any
means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of
communicating on any form of communication means
On Mon, May 30, 2005 11:57:50 AM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric Hines wrote:
Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one
I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a
monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous.
Maybe you meant
Eric Hines wrote:
I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a
monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous.
Patent monopoly rights are very similar to copyright monopoly
rights
No, they are *very* different. Copyright covers works, patents cover
ideas. The things you listed
On Mon, May 30, 2005 13:43:46 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If you invent a new light bulb or an antigravity engine I should be able
to use the ideas behind them to make my own bulb and antigravity
engine.
Absolutely yes, that's why patents have limited duration.
On Mon, May 30, 2005 10:57:42 AM -0700, OldSarge
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[two screenfuls of text snipped]
To All: Does anybody know what the Linux industry's take on this
patent is? Are they going to challenge it?
To all: may we all avoid to retransmit every time a lot of text that
every
The most critical function of a patent or a copyright is that it allows the
owner (I'll call this person, for now) of the thing--the invention, the
implementation of an idea, etc--to assert ownership of that thing. With
that ownership comes the ability to mandate, for the duration of that
M. Fioretti wrote:
I can accept a copyright-style protection for your actual work.
Stallman teaches us that copyright and patents are deeply different
beasts, so we shouldn't mix them, but, in the interest of a
stimulating and friendly discussion, I'll byte.
Yes, indeed. I should have
Daniel,
All I was pointing out was that MS didn't even do what you suggested.
You said since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of
old ones and that is true.
They did not invent anything, although there patent would lead you to
believe otherwise. *grin*
Cheers back at
If this bothers you then write your EU representative or that of the EU
country you have business or project partners in:
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps2.repartition?ilg=EN
Otherwise, the situations is likely to get worse. As monopoly rents go
away, look for more things
Eric Hines wrote:
Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one
I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a
monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous.
--it compensates the inventor(s) for their efforts, and so spurs
innovation
I've never seen any
On Mon, May 30, 2005 13:43:46 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Absolutely yes. That's copyright realm. But inventions and patents are
different. If you come to my home, see my half dome photograph, and
inspired by that go to Yosemite to make much better ones, none of us
Chris BONDE wrote:
Both copyrights and patents are monopolies on ideas, just a different way of
expressing the idea.
In which way is a copyright a monopoly over an idea?
I believe that an expression of an idea and an idea are very
different. I accept that the former should be protected, but
Chris BONDE wrote:
I like the last sentence LOL, also the reference of 'That's FOTFL
FOTFL? I'm not familiar with that acronym.
Cheers,
Daniel.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 20:24 -0400, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Chris BONDE wrote:
I like the last sentence LOL, also the reference of 'That's FOTFL
FOTFL? I'm not familiar with that acronym.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Falling On The Floor Laughing.
Dave
On Mon, May 30, 2005 16:39:12 PM -0700, Chris BONDE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2005 13:43:46 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Absolutely yes. That's copyright realm. But inventions and patents are
different. If you come to my home, see my half
On Mon, May 30, 2005 16:30:36 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
What? Is Daniel crazy? Did he just say not to reward hard work?
I'm not crazy yet :-) and I do see where you're comming from. But I
think I have an interesting, and outside-the-box thought here:
What you just
On Mon, May 30, 2005 20:23:13 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Chris BONDE wrote:
Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their
idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent).
That is neither the intention, nor the effect of patents.
On Tue, May 31, 2005 05:27:04 AM +0200, io ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I believe that this development model should be discouraged in
favour of the small step model. Similar to the FOSS mantra
release early, and release often.
Your thesis is interesting indeed and it would be a wonderful
M. Fioretti wrote:
You can do it with small material things which can be built with
*very* little space and money, or in environments where, again
unlike software, everybody plays by the same rules. But you can't
release early and often new fuels, cars, microprocessors, or the
extremely complex
M. Fioretti wrote:
Another example: google for synthetic diamonds which have a lot of
useful industrial applications,
Indeed, and this link suggests that the existence of patents did not
accelerate the creation of synthetic diamonds at any point, but at
several points did slow it down:
M. Fioretti wrote:
Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their
idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent).
That is neither the intention, nor the effect of patents.
As far as I know, it indeed *is*. I (government):
1) make sure that everybody can
57 matches
Mail list logo
