| Author |
Message |
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:21 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Peter Moylan wrote:
| Quote: | Paul Wolff infrared:
In message <31phahF3c3et9U1@individual.net>, Mike Lyle
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes
OK, while you're here. If Pythagoras hadn't nicked the3-4-5 idea from
builders and formulated his celebrated theorem, and I were to work it
out, could I patent it? Would I therefore have cause for complaint
against anybody who used the principle without my consent?
No, you couldn't patent a 3-4-5 triangle or the theorem behind it
because (assuming it is hitherto unknown) it excluded in principle, and
also has no industrial utility as a mere geometric figure. But you
could patent a method of manufacturing a right-angled object (using that
term very loosely) using the principle.
This is a European view, where:
(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which
are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and
which involve an inventive step.
[etc.]
That's the "old Europe" view, if I may steal a phrase. Apparently
there's a new EU law on patents that's close to being passed, see
URL:http://webshop.ffii.org/>; I don't know a lot about it, but
according to rumour it will make a lot of frivolous patents enforceable.
|
What I heard recently from a couple of BrE patent blokes (= EstE "blakes")
is that the enlargement of the EU is playing a role in this -- but it's
the "new Europe", in Dubya's terminology, that is resisting more liberal
(i.e., expansive) laws on the patentability of software-related
inventions. The foaming-at-the-mouth anti-software-patent crowd
(NTTAWWT) is apparently quite strong in Poland, for example, and in
these sorts of countries big software companies don't have as much
political influence as they do in, say, France or Germany.
--
Steny '08! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter Moylan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:21 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Bob Cunningham infrared:
| Quote: | I don't know what's been happening lately, but it used to be
the only thing you had to provide a working model for was a
perpetual-motion machine.
|
How long would it have to keep running in order to substantiate the
claim?
--
Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Moylan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:21 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Paul Wolff infrared:
| Quote: | In message <31phahF3c3et9U1@individual.net>, Mike Lyle
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes
OK, while you're here. If Pythagoras hadn't nicked the3-4-5 idea from
builders and formulated his celebrated theorem, and I were to work it
out, could I patent it? Would I therefore have cause for complaint
against anybody who used the principle without my consent?
No, you couldn't patent a 3-4-5 triangle or the theorem behind it
because (assuming it is hitherto unknown) it excluded in principle, and
also has no industrial utility as a mere geometric figure. But you
could patent a method of manufacturing a right-angled object (using that
term very loosely) using the principle.
This is a European view, where:
(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which
are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and
which involve an inventive step.
|
[etc.]
That's the "old Europe" view, if I may steal a phrase. Apparently
there's a new EU law on patents that's close to being passed, see
<URL:http://webshop.ffii.org/>; I don't know a lot about it, but
according to rumour it will make a lot of frivolous patents enforceable.
It looks as if the law is being pushed through with indecent haste,
presumably so that Microsoft can get exclusive rights to the
Theorem of Pythagoras [1] in time for Christmas.
[1] I'm joking, of course. MS doesn't care about that theorem, as
far as I know. All it wants is to make it illegal to use
open-source software.
--
Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:20 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In message <slrncsiprl.43.peter@EEPJM.newcastle.edu.au>, Peter Moylan
<peter@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au> writes
| Quote: | That's the "old Europe" view, if I may steal a phrase. Apparently
there's a new EU law on patents that's close to being passed, see
URL:http://webshop.ffii.org/>; I don't know a lot about it, but
according to rumour it will make a lot of frivolous patents enforceable.
|
The issue isn't about frivolous patents being enforceable, but about
whether an invention in the software field should be protectable in the
same traditional way as inventions in the hardware world are.
The intellectual argument seems to be about whether we should place a
patentability dividing line between an invention that can be created and
demonstrated purely by a mental reasoning process and an invention that
requires mastery of some material behaviour of 'things'.
The utility argument is concerned about the lack of good references to
what has been done before ('prior art' in the jargon) to strike down
frivolous (that is, not really inventive) software patents; and as far
as US patents are concerned, the deference by US courts to grant
decisions of the US Patent Office.
European law broadly makes no such presumption of a granted patent's
validity.
The quoted site is itself frivolous in that it grossly misrepresents
what its authors don't like.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:07 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Paul Wolff wrote:
| Quote: | The utility argument is concerned about the lack of good references to
what has been done before ('prior art' in the jargon) to strike down
frivolous (that is, not really inventive) software patents; and as far
as US patents are concerned, the deference by US courts to grant
decisions of the US Patent Office.
|
"Frivolous" seems to be the wrong word to use here -- or, rather, it's
only a proper subset of non-inventive patents that can be called
"frivolous". You'd have to knowingly file something that is anticipated
or obvious in view of the prior art for it to be frivolous, I think (and
such a thing would fall afoul of US rules).
I think what's really going on with a lot of software-related patents is
that the people drafting the patents don't know much from the prior art,
and the patent examiners know even less, if that's possible, which results
in the granting of a lot of overbroad patents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:54 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In message <330ttuF3qrrh4U3@individual.net>, Areff <me@privacy.net>
writes
| Quote: |
I think what's really going on with a lot of software-related patents is
that the people drafting the patents don't know much from the prior art,
and the patent examiners know even less, if that's possible, which results
in the granting of a lot of overbroad patents.
|
The draftsmen claim as much as they can on the basis that they will be
letting their clients down if they neglect to get as wide a patent for
the presumed invention as they could.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Nitabach
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:29 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Paul Wolff <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in
news:rBgdsMShy0yBFwqX@fpwolff.demon.co.uk:
| Quote: | In message <330ttuF3qrrh4U3@individual.net>, Areff
me@privacy.net> writes
I think what's really going on with a lot of software-related
patents is that the people drafting the patents don't know much
from the prior art, and the patent examiners know even less, if
that's possible, which results in the granting of a lot of
overbroad patents.
The draftsmen claim as much as they can on the basis that they
will be letting their clients down if they neglect to get as wide
a patent for the presumed invention as they could.
|
English Usage Point: Patents are characterized as "broad", not "wide".
--
Mike Nitabach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:04 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In message <Xns95C8BC26898E6mnitabachacedslcom@216.196.97.140>, Michael
Nitabach <mnitabach@acedsl.com> writes
| Quote: | Paul Wolff <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in
news:rBgdsMShy0yBFwqX@fpwolff.demon.co.uk:
The draftsmen claim as much as they can on the basis that they
will be letting their clients down if they neglect to get as wide
a patent for the presumed invention as they could.
English Usage Point: Patents are characterized as "broad", not "wide".
They are variously characterised as broad, wide, narrow, tightly-drawn, |
slipshod, covetous, laughable, creative, and watertight. But these
descriptions are opinions, unless they are decisions or judgements, in
which case they may be reversed on appeal.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Nitabach
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:07 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Paul Wolff <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in
news:m16eB+GRzF0BFwoT@fpwolff.demon.co.uk:
| Quote: | In message <Xns95C8BC26898E6mnitabachacedslcom@216.196.97.140>,
Michael Nitabach <mnitabach@acedsl.com> writes
Paul Wolff <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in
news:rBgdsMShy0yBFwqX@fpwolff.demon.co.uk:
The draftsmen claim as much as they can on the basis that they
will be letting their clients down if they neglect to get as
wide a patent for the presumed invention as they could.
English Usage Point: Patents are characterized as "broad", not
"wide".
They are variously characterised as broad, wide, narrow,
tightly-drawn, slipshod, covetous, laughable, creative, and
watertight. But these descriptions are opinions, unless they are
decisions or judgements, in which case they may be reversed on
appeal.
|
I have never heard a patent referred to as "wide" or "covetous" in the
United States. Could you give some examples of these uses?
--
Mike Nitabach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:59 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:07:49 -0600, Michael Nitabach
<mnitabach@acedsl.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Paul Wolff <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in
news:m16eB+GRzF0BFwoT@fpwolff.demon.co.uk:
In message <Xns95C8BC26898E6mnitabachacedslcom@216.196.97.140>,
Michael Nitabach <mnitabach@acedsl.com> writes
Paul Wolff <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in
news:rBgdsMShy0yBFwqX@fpwolff.demon.co.uk:
The draftsmen claim as much as they can on the basis that they
will be letting their clients down if they neglect to get as
wide a patent for the presumed invention as they could.
English Usage Point: Patents are characterized as "broad", not
"wide".
They are variously characterised as broad, wide, narrow,
tightly-drawn, slipshod, covetous, laughable, creative, and
watertight. But these descriptions are opinions, unless they are
decisions or judgements, in which case they may be reversed on
appeal.
I have never heard a patent referred to as "wide" or "covetous" in the
United States. Could you give some examples of these uses?
|
If the patent application is too wide, covetous, or laughable, and the
patent is rejected, then you wouldn't hear about it. No? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:29 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | If the patent application is too wide, covetous, or laughable, and the
patent is rejected, then you wouldn't hear about it. No?
|
Perhaps not, but it might also be issued and later judged by a court to be
invalid.
But use of "wide" in connection with patents seems unidiomatic for AmE.
--
Steny '08! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Nitabach
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:29 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:33cbtpF3t716oU2@individual.net:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper wrote:
If the patent application is too wide, covetous, or laughable,
and the patent is rejected, then you wouldn't hear about it. No?
Perhaps not, but it might also be issued and later judged by a
court to be invalid.
But use of "wide" in connection with patents seems unidiomatic for
AmE.
|
That's what I'm sayin'. Covetous, too.
--
Mike Nitabach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:56 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper wrote:
If the patent application is too wide, covetous, or laughable, and the
patent is rejected, then you wouldn't hear about it. No?
|
US patent applications are a matter of public record as soon as they are
filed, whether or not they're approved. They're even published on the
Web. At this page,
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html
you can search either for
Issued Patents (PatFT)
(full-text since 1976, full-page images since 1790)
or
Published Applications (AppFT)
(published since 15 March 2001)
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:35 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:56:15 +0100, trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
wrote:
| Quote: | Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
If the patent application is too wide, covetous, or laughable, and the
patent is rejected, then you wouldn't hear about it. No?
US patent applications are a matter of public record as soon as they are
filed, whether or not they're approved.
|
Except for the classified ones, although inventors generally make
every effort to write them in an unclassified way. Patents have other
applications, often times, than the intended military one, is one
reason.
Just for the record, the device described in my one and only patent
application was stolen from me by a government man I went to for
advice, who had some buddies in industry. The device they made, using
the idea, worked too, I'll have you know. Pisses me off a tiny bit
because I suspect John made some money out of the deal, while I made
not a penny, the GS 15 son-of-a-bitch. He was, too, clever or not.
--
Charles Riggs
They are no accented letters in my email address |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:54 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Donna Richoux wrote:
| Quote: | Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
If the patent application is too wide, covetous, or laughable, and the
patent is rejected, then you wouldn't hear about it. No?
US patent applications are a matter of public record as soon as they are
filed, whether or not they're approved.
|
Not true. US patent applications are confidential until they're
published (see 37 CFR 1.14), which, for applications filed since Nov. 29,
1999, is generally 18 months from the filing date (unless there's a
secrecy order or the patent applicant requests non-publication and doesn't
file in other countries). Pending applications filed prior to that date
are generally confidential until the patent issues, I believe. You could
do a FOIA request to find out information on unpublished applications,
however.
Information regarding rejections of published applications is available to
the public, but you have to pay for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in