network devices are assigned IP addresses, DNS names. Network devices may
have memory, disks, cache, and CPU/s.
>-Original Message-
>From: Jon Crowcroft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 10:24 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: A though
Salvador;
Yes, they are individuals, not companies. Individuals can not be
effectively controlled with patent or copyright.
> With the general crash of protection systems I think that the copyrights
> will be mainly driven in indirect way, by charging copyrights royaltties =
> to
> hardware prod
as ye sow, so shall ye weep...in reading this thread i guess i saw
several problems:
oxymoron alert
"thought...patent"
tautology alert
"sufficiently expensive...lawyer"
internet bogon alert
"find the server"
is a server where the ip address, DNS name, lat/long of the CPU,
memory, disk, or cac
Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > Even if it's not true in the general case, a sufficiently expensive lawyer
> > might be able to convince the court that, since the Internet makes location
> > irrelevant, the location of the infringement is irrelevant.
>
> that US patents are applicable even if both serve
Hi folks and all,
At 10:04 06/04/00 JST, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>Online business patents are, at large, ineffective and harmless.
>
>We can have servers outside of US and there is no legislation (even
>under US laws. note that the servers can serve yet another countries)
>to make the servers illeg
John;
> > We can have servers outside of US and there is no legislation (even
> > under US laws. note that the servers can serve yet another countries)
> > to make the servers illegal.
>
> Mmm...that sounds like a grey area. A company using patented tech to do
> business in the US may be subjec
Masataka Ohta wrote:
> We can have servers outside of US and there is no legislation (even
> under US laws. note that the servers can serve yet another countries)
> to make the servers illegal.
Mmm...that sounds like a grey area. A company using patented tech to do
business in the US may be sub
Brijesh Kumar wrote:
> Granting of patents only means that a person grated a particular patent
> was first to make "a claim" about the novelty of an idea or technique
> as far as the patent office knows on the basis of "previous claims submitted
> to it.".
At least in the US, at least sometimes,
Check with the lawyers, but I think that you will find that this
is strictly a US view of patents. In every other country any public
disclosure anywhere immediately voids the right to patent. Even
NDA disclosure can be tricky, because an offer for sale counts
as a disclosure.
Stewart
Doug Ro
Graham;
> The recent announcement from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office about
> overhauling their scrutiny of applications for online business patents
> seems to imply a tacit acknowledgement that their is a problem with the
> review process with respect to discovery or prior art or determ
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
>
> After publishing your idea somewhere, for public critique, you have
> a year to file your patent application. After that it becomes a
> public prior art.
>
> Am I wrong?
Or if it is a little past a year, and you can show that you
have done your best - you can also ge
Dave Miller wrote:
> - I wonder how much of government we can get rid of if we keep chipping away
> at it?
I see this a lot in discussions of government reform: Imagine your
reform happens, and bureaucratic rot sets in. After a hundred years
or so, you will have something very similar to the p
Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> > The problem is that a patent provides a presumption of validity. Thus,
> > even if the patent ignores prior non-patent art, the creator of that
> > prior (published) art has to spend time and money defending himself in
> > court. Ultimately, that favors the big corpor
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Graham Klyne typ
ed:
>>As many of us are finding, it seems to become more and more difficult to
>>develop or implement a standard without tripping over somebody-or-other's
>>patent for some piece of technology that many of us would regard as fairly
>>obviou
> The problem is that a patent provides a presumption of validity. Thus,
> even if the patent ignores prior non-patent art, the creator of that
> prior (published) art has to spend time and money defending himself in
> court. Ultimately, that favors the big corporation with a standing army
> of la
Henning Schulzrinne [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> writes
>
> In looking in multimedia-related patents, I'm also utterly
> amazed by the
> complete lack of citation of published technical articles or related
> work (RFCs, Internet drafts, etc.). The problem with many patents is
> that if submitted as a tec
I suppose it depends which conferences you attend. I can tell you from
personal experience (and the angry phone calls...) that papers from
"famous" people do get rejected, frequently. Are you arguing that there
should be no peer review, given that it fails on occasion or because
some people are un
On thought of 'peer review' I remember going to ATM Conference a few years ago
where at the end of a joint paper by three 'well-known' contributors a
'not-at-all-known' engineer from another company got up from the rear rows of the
audience and complained that his paper had been stolen and was bei
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Please don't forget that the requirement is just "non-obviousness" for the
> typical person working in the field.
Side note: I think I've been told (by patent lawyers) that it's non-obviousness
for a skilled, even expert practicioner in the field.
> Just split the money
> Would you have the same people checking the claims of how much it cost
> to develop an idea that now check the technical claims...?
Excellent point. The problem, as usual, is in the execution.
So could self-regulation be the answer?
(I'm not a lawyer, but...) Consider a voluntary public inve
> not the one patent examiner that seems to have missed the
> existence of engineering libraries in his or her undergraduate
> education.
That's a bold presumption, and even though i don't know any of those guys whom
you put the blame upon, i'd rather think that you're trying to come up with
a mu
> From: Jon Crowcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> perhaps the length of patent protection should be directly related to
> the cost of developing an idea - in pharmaceutical industry, long
> patents make sense because of the large investment in testing a new
> drug safely - similar i nthe automot
>>My thought is this: I'd like to see a presumption of lack of novelty if an
>>idea gets raised in a public forum, even if it happens _after_ a patent has
>>been applied for, unless it can be shown that the information came from
>>leakage of proprietary information.
intersting idea
i w
In looking in multimedia-related patents, I'm also utterly amazed by the
complete lack of citation of published technical articles or related
work (RFCs, Internet drafts, etc.). The problem with many patents is
that if submitted as a technical paper at even the lowliest conference,
it would be lau
24 matches
Mail list logo
