On Wednesday 15 December 2004 05:27, Jens M Andreasen wrote: > Actually, the patent is not on graph-traversal as such, but on graph- > traversal in context with virtual instrumentation having some kind of > adjustable front-panel on screen ... It is a "methods" patent that only > applies when all the ingredients are in place. The prior art shown in > court was overturned in part because it did not use windows and mouse.
If you want to see just how silly these 'methods' patents can get, here's one that rocked my own little niche recently: http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/ special-report/02_rw_automation_suit_2.shtml Not a patent on touchscreens, but on touchscreens, when used a certain way, by a certain industry, for a certain specific purpose. DRECK! Mares' nests, one and all. Not that that stops any attorney -- straining at gnats and swallowing elephants is a required course at law school. The depresssing thing about it is that a number of automation suppliers have already fed the energy monster by paying up ($50,000 is the quoted 'license fee') rather than face the expense and uncertainty of litigation. Talk about putting a damper on 'innovation'. Cheers! |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Director of Broadcast Software Development | | | Salem Radio Labs | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | WASHINGTON DC: Fifty square miles almost completely surrounded by | | reality. | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
