Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-08 Thread Salvador Vidal

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 illegal.

Clients in US may still be a target of a patent, if claims of the
patents do not cover servers and cover the clients only.

However, virtually no one can control downloading of software from
the servers to the clients at home.

As the Internet is not a collection of private IP networks connected
by NAT boxes, ISP has no knowledge nor responsibility on what their
customers are doing.

It's like copyright, so called, piracy, against which Holywood is
fighting seemingly in vain.

When some irresponsable companies use copyrights like another marketing mix
element, promoting piracy in promotion and begining agresive campaigns
agains it when everybody use their products, it is very difiicult that
people take seriosly this issue!

It doesn`t not have any sense a system where some people don`t pay
copyrights not because money but to avoid that his friends will call him
idiot!.

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 products, telephone bills,..., some strong points of indirect way
are:

-It is more just that everibody pay, but is expected that the people that
pay now, pay much less becouse there are more people paying, so that
copyright owners dont use it to get more incomes.

-Telecomunications companies that get big profits thanks to webmasters
work, perhaps will now begin to PAY SOMETHING FOR THEIR WORK!

-Indirect incomes impulse copyrights owners goal of have as much audience
as posible, not limited like now by market ofert demand market decisions,
so in this point is worthy to impulse universal cultural access.
...

The weaks points that I see are:

-If rooyalties are based only on trafic, developers will increse their
efforts on products driven to the mass, usually with poor intelectual
value, so we will promote that Internet becomes a Huge garbage TV, the
products with hight intelectual value has small audience but it is worthy
to promote them.

-Indirect incomes give everybody equal treatment but there must be
exceptions, i.e. third world people, schools,..., to promote universal
access to the culture.

-Some people will think that is injust to pay royalties on their
telecomunications when they use telecominications service just for
cominicating with other people, so the amount that comes from comunications
between people must go to services to the comunity not to copyrights owners.
...

The current Internet culture of take things, transform, or not, them and
publish again, have some profits and bad things, like everything, to put
yourself front of culture and say this is not the way, simple does not work
but also donĀ“t get the profits of this culture, so I think that copyright
concept must evolve from the static form, aplieed to finish works, to a
dinamic one for works in evolution, in order to been able to get the
profits of the current culture:

The intelectual work like a work in comun in evolution, evolution that get
that some products incrise their value and other decrease it, and the
market will do the natural selection of them. 

And to avoid the bad things of this culture: 

Mainly that someone gets incomes thanks to other work without reward.

So I think that copyrights will be mainly indiret and dinamic but require
many ajust in order to realy impulse progress, prosperity and culture.

Salva

**
"Where money is the measure of everithing, it will be very dificult that
public matters where driven with justice and life with prosperity" ,
Copyright: Thomas More  ;-)
**   




Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-08 Thread John Stracke

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 servers, clients and network
 inbetween are all located outside of US?

No, not that; but, if the server is outside the US and the client is inside, then
maybe.

--
/=\
|John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist ||
|eCal Corp.  |"Where's your sense of adventure?" "Hiding under|
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|the bed."   |
\=/






Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-08 Thread Jon Crowcroft


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 cache, transprent or otherwise is"

sorry,
all bets are off about this dicussion except in the presence of the
european union, where all bets are subject to VAT 

:-)



In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Stracke typed:

 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 servers, clients and network
  inbetween are all located outside of US?
 
 No, not that; but, if the server is outside the US and the client is inside, then
 maybe.
 
 --
 /=\
 |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
 |Chief Scientist ||
 |eCal Corp.  |"Where's your sense of adventure?" "Hiding under|
 |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|the bed."   |
 \=/
 
 
 

 cheers

   jon




Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-06 Thread Stewart Bryant

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 Royer wrote:
 
 "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 get the patent. It's not
 a hard set time limit.
 
 -Doug




Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-06 Thread John Stracke

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, the examiners do at least some
literature search.  I remember being involved in a patent where the examiner
sent it back with an article clipped from the trade press.

--
/==\
|John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=|
|eCal Corp.  |Among animals, it's eat or be eaten. Among   |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|people, it's define or be defined.   |
\==/






Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-06 Thread Masataka Ohta

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 subject to US law even if the tech is not resident
 in the US (under the same sort of theory used against Internet gambling).

Legislation logic around patent does not allow US patents applicable
to servers outside of US.

If US tries to change its law, companies in US may be affected by
US laws, which will drive servers and companies away from US.

 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 servers, clients and network
inbetween are all located outside of US?

Masataka Ohta




Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-05 Thread David L. Nicol

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 present system you
are complaining about.

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?


Getting a patent costs money -- maybe not enough to hire good patent
clerks,
but enough to keep today's garage tinkerers from doing it -- with some
obvious exceptions


 

David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]




Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-03 Thread Henning Schulzrinne

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 unethical? Indeed, peer review can help catch the case
of intentional or otherwise duplication of earlier work.

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 lawyers over any small or not-for-profit outfit. I'm not worried
about the stupid ideas (yes, there's a patent on including a list of
destination network addresses in a packet header to do multicast), but
rather the previously published and slightly non-obvious results.

Henning 
-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs




RE: A thought about patents

2000-04-02 Thread Dave Miller

 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 invention-protection
forum operating on principles very similar to those of the USPTO, but run by
a board comprised of elected members.

- Members submit ideas in confidence for evaluations by engineering types
"skilled in the art".  The process is very simple, and versatile in it's use
of communications such as e-mail, personal interview, etc.

- The board's responsibility is to ensure competent and fair evaluation.

- Ideas considered to bare the essential attributes of a true invention are
declared such.

- Ideas not considered to be true inventions are released into the public
domain  :-!

- Members agree to honor the evaluation, which means not suing anyone who
implements a non-invention and not using anyone's true invention without
negotiating compensation.

- Anyone who's not a member gets a raspberry.

- I wonder how much of government we can get rid of if we keep chipping away
at it?






Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-01 Thread Jon Crowcroft


 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 would liek to offer another:-

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 automotive and aero industries

in software, its pretty obvious that this is silly - one-klik took
someone about 6 nanoseconds to think up, and 3 to test...

 Maybe such an approach might ameliorate the "gold rush" mentality to be the 
 first to slap a patent on an idea or technique that is coming to be 
 accepted art in the normal process of technology evolution.

the ietf has a very good protection in principle against people who
think that a patent is power to "own" a standard - it would be nice
to try to identify the mistaken "stakeholders" who belive that 
patents are a weapon...
 

 cheers

   jon




Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-01 Thread Vernon Schryver

 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 automotive and aero industries

 in software, its pretty obvious that this is silly - one-klik took
 someone about 6 nanoseconds to think up, and 3 to test...

Why should it a priori take decades to check an idea in the automotive
industry but seconds in the computer industry?  What about overlapping
areas, such as computer networks in cars?
Would you have the same people checking the claims of how much it cost
to develop an idea that now check the technical claims, including those
who checked http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?pn=US05446889__ and
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US06025810__s_all=1#23
(The main purpose of "6025810: Hyper-light-speed antenna" is "to allow
signals to travel great distances at many times the speed of light.")

Patents have been a dire mess for more than 100 years.  Look at the
patent games played with firearms 125 years ago.  Consider the "defensive
patents" in the ink jet printer business in the last 20 years.


 ...
 the ietf has a very good protection in principle against people who
 think that a patent is power to "own" a standard 

"Protection in principle" is right, as plenty of experience in the
IETF demonstrates.  I care a lot more about protections in practice.

it would be nice
 to try to identify the mistaken "stakeholders" who belive that 
 patents are a weapon...

The only mistake I see is the idea that patents are other
than very effective weapons.  It sounds like an insane idea to
anyone who reads a newspaper.


Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]