Experienced web mapping experts that are also patent lawyers? Good luck finding one.
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode35/usc_sec_35_00000102----000-.html>of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. [1] It just says "to a person having ordinary skill in the art". I don't believe the law is so foolish as to expect everyone to double-dip in their professions. 1. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_35_00000103----000-.html - bri On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Michael P. Gerlek <m...@lizardtech.com>wrote: > <note> > While I have no absolutely no familiarity with the patent in question, > something I've said here before perhaps bears occasional repeating: > > Patent and IP law is a very deep and complex subject. The vast majority of > us laypersons are not qualified to read and evaluate patent claims; what is > reported in the popular press is often a very watered-down or simplistic > interpretation of what is actually being claimed. Some patent claims do > indeed turn out to be riddled through with "obvious" prior art, but in order > to really know that typically requires one to be experienced in the field of > use *and* have thorough understanding of the legal language used in the > claim constructions. > > By all means we should all continue to bring down bogus patent attempts, > but we in doing so we all need to be careful of making any hasty or > unfounded allegations. > </note> > > -mpg (ianal) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto: > discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Bill Thoen > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 7:14 AM > To: OSGeo Discussions > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Patent for feature of paper map. > > You might be surprised what people might be able to get away with, > though. There's been repeated attempts to patent "web mapping" for > example, and if it wasn't for the efforts of a few dedicated people, > there would now be patents in both Britain and the USA on displaying > maps over the web. But the threat is not dead yet, believe it or not, > and it may culminate in a battle between Microsoft and Google sometime > in the near future. Check out Daniel Morissette's blog entry for Feb 21, > 2009, "Microsoft Patents the Map" at http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=68. > If Microsoft really uses the Multimap patent to put the bite on Google, > then you can bet your bippy that it'll affect your web mapping business > too. > > If reading that article brings your blood to a righteous boil, and you > want to know more about who really invented web mapping, see Carl Reed's > 2004 article, "Intellectual Property, Patents, and Web Mapping: > Historical Perspective" at > http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=28360. > > - Bill Thoen > GISnet - www.gisnet.com > > Brian Russo wrote: > > I've seen legends similar to that before; afraid I can't offer > > anything solid in terms of prior art examples but it's hardly as > > revolutionary as they seem to think. > > Pretty absurd if you ask me; > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:34 AM, "René A. Enguehard" > > <ahugen...@gmail.com <mailto:ahugen...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > I suspect they might be applying for the patent but in for quite a > > surprise when it gets rejected. Features for maps would be very > > tricky to patent and, more importantly, not in the interest of the > > general public. As such the patent applications would probably get > > rejected. Would we really want people patenting things like > > projections, north arrows, scale bars or legends? I don't think it > > would be productive and suspect any patent office in its right > > mind would see it the same way. > > > > Patents were created to help people protect their ideas for a > > length of time so they could reap the rewards of their work and > > refine it without fear of being copied or undercut. This works > > very well for many things but fails miserably for conceptual > > things like maps or layouts for books or posters. This is why many > > patent offices now require people to patent "systems" rather than > > "things". I don't see how a wrap-around map could be explained as > > a system. > > > > René > > IANAL > > > > Landon Blake wrote: > > > > > > The latest issue of the ACSM Bulletin had an interesting > > article about a map matrix that wraps around the edge of a > > paper map. It seems the company that is using this feature of > > hard copy map design is applying for a patent. I didn't even > > think you could get a patent a feature of a paper map. It got > > me wondering who holds the patent on the use of a north arrow > > and scale. > > > > At any rate, here is the article if you are interested in > > reading it: > > > > http://www.webmazine.org/issues/current/documents/wrap.pdf > > > > I couldn't find the patent application, or I would have posted > > a link to it. Let me know if you have any comments. > > > > Landon > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss