well, the thing about those particular software patents is that they are not really software patents, they are "idea" patents. there was no example code listed in the patents. there is no evidence whatsoever that the author even knows how to write code.
in fact, it is probably a good thing. assuming that the author even cares to enforce his patent, and assuming he then as enough money to begin and sustain litigation against tmda or anyone else... patents are legally valid under certain conditions. one condition is that the patent in question must represent something that was not (when patent was filed) obvious to those adequately versed in the particular industry. lacking example code (which might have stood some chance at appearing so convoluted and impossible to understand that a jury might believe only the author smart enough to understand and realize said example code), it would not be incredibly difficult to shoot down in court the author's inherent claim that his "email confirmation idea" is (and was) so far beyond comprehension of anyone in the field, given that the idea itself is hardly new and that many other people are already and have been for years pursuing it. if there were not already (in 98) prior art (which i bet there was), the methods by which email confirmations could have been accomplish were readily known to probably thousands of people, even if the apparent need for such software didn't then exist. you can not adequately uphold patent ideas. you patent the process. i would not worry one single bit abou these frivolous email confirmation patents. this is the exact equivalent of british telecom (ludicrously) claiming patent rights to the idea of "hyperlinks", which has already been happily shot down in court. --michael (no law degree, just common sense) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gre7g Luterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 11:18 AM Subject: Re: more challenge/response patents > > Don't software patents only apply to commercial software and > > shareware, not to opensource or freeware? > > Don't think so. Patents protect your "invention" from being used by > others without paying you a lisence. I don't think you can say > "well, I'm giving it away free, so I don't have to pay a lisence". > > Major bummer. So are we gonna' get sued or something? > > I freakin' hate software patents. They just don't help the industry > like how hardware patents do. > > Gre7g. > > ================================================================= > Gre7g Luterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.templeofluna.com/ > Stay informed: http://www.templeofluna.com/keeper/mailinglist.htm > > If it weren't for sex, none of us would be here. > And of course, by 'here' I mean 'on the internet'. > _____________________________________________ > tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users > _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
