I know most of you will think this idea is lame and far fetched and I'm
just a wishful thinker.
Would it be possible that we, as a group with all our collective
backgrounds in software development, could actually gather enough
irrefutable evidence so that it might be presented to a judge to prove
this patent is bogus and should not have been issued?
Alright! I'll just bend over and you guys can kick. Go ahead ... ;-)
Alex Janssen
Lars D. Noodén wrote:
One problem is the junk patent which is far too vague and covers
obvious developments and covers prior art. Two perl modules come to
mind right off "Storeable" and "Data::Dumper";, I'm sure there are
other serialization modules in C libraries or even Pascal if one wants
examples going back to the 80's or late 70's.
The other is the general problem of sw patents. Which cost millions
to over turn. There was a conference on the topic in Brussels last
year in November and the lawyers there indicated that based on actual
costs, it runs about $4 million to throw out a bad patent. So what it
alsmost comes down to is a contest of which team has more money.
SW Patents are a threat to *all* small and medium businesses. SMB is
anything with < 1 billion per year -- so that means pretty much all
European business. And most of those don't have a spare $4 million
every quarter to throw out the bad patents.
A third problem is that MS is putting on a huge marketing / mindshare
campaign right now and is doing everything possible to distract or
confuse the public in regards to OpenOffice and OpenDocument.
-Lars
Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Software patents harm all Net-based business, write your MEP:
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps2.repartition?ilg=EN
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Alex wrote:
Now having re-read the proper patent. I still don't see how they
could be awarded a patent on what appears to be nothing more that
converting a data structure defined in one file to a serial stream in
another file. Sounds like storing a record in a database to me.
:-\ I think Borland was doing this back in the early 90s in BP7,
storing object instances on a data stream. I'll have to check on
that. But it seems so overly simple. Like someone getting a patent
on how you dump cerial into a bowl in the morning changing its format
and then back into the box when you change your mind. You've done it
thousands of times and now someone comes along and gets a patent on
it. Wouldn't this procedure be considered in the public domain?
Alex Janssen
Sander Vesik wrote:
So please englighten us, what about the patent is all that old?
you seemto be seeing just soe fragments and not teh whole -
recognising well-known
tree species but not that you have wondered up to a forest you
havne't seen before
;-)
Its not that teh patent is something incredibly novel or innovative
or that parts of
it (or possibly all) probably won't be upheld in court or that there
definitely
won't be prior art - its just that it is not (as far as software
patents go in this
regard) somehow entirely bogus or preposterous or would cover all
(or even a
fraction of) computer-computer communication as people have been
claiming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
