Re: Tux 2 patents
Tim, I forwarded this one to the lawyers. Thanks Jeff Timothy Roscoe wrote: > > For what it's worth, the system was called "Jackdaw" and was written by > Mike Challis. It was in extensive use on the University's MVT/MVS/MVSXA > mainframe for many years as the database for holding user information. The > document Alain's got is probably Computer Laboratory Technical Report no. 1 > (yes, One!). > > If it isn't, and you need it, see > > http://www.ftp.cl.cam.ac.uk/ftp/papers/reports/TR.txt > > Jackdaw was phased out when the mainframe was decommissioned about 5 years > ago. Mike's still around, but I think he's retired. > > -- Timothy > > At 10:00 PM 10/5/00 +, Alain Williams wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I remember when at the University of Cambridge (in England) about 25 years ago > >seeing some work then about the Jackdaw (or was is Jackard) database system > >that had the great feature of being immune to OS crashes, it used a phased > >update mechanism where new blocks were written to disk and the last block > >written was the one that contained the switched pointer, until this last block > >had been written the changes had not been made. Since the write of a disk > >block > >was atomic the database would never be corrupt. > > > >If someone wants I think that I still have a (paper) copy of the report > >describing > >this. I can send/fax a copy if wanted. > > > >I don't subscribe to this list, so please reply direct if someone wants it. > > > >(Please don't request a copy just out of curiosity since I don't want to have > >to post/fax copies that won't help resolve this case by showing prior art.) > > > >Cheers > > > >-- > >Alain Williams > >- > >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > >the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
For what it's worth, the system was called "Jackdaw" and was written by Mike Challis. It was in extensive use on the University's MVT/MVS/MVSXA mainframe for many years as the database for holding user information. The document Alain's got is probably Computer Laboratory Technical Report no. 1 (yes, One!). If it isn't, and you need it, see http://www.ftp.cl.cam.ac.uk/ftp/papers/reports/TR.txt Jackdaw was phased out when the mainframe was decommissioned about 5 years ago. Mike's still around, but I think he's retired. -- Timothy At 10:00 PM 10/5/00 +, Alain Williams wrote: >Hi, > >I remember when at the University of Cambridge (in England) about 25 years ago >seeing some work then about the Jackdaw (or was is Jackard) database system >that had the great feature of being immune to OS crashes, it used a phased >update mechanism where new blocks were written to disk and the last block >written was the one that contained the switched pointer, until this last block >had been written the changes had not been made. Since the write of a disk >block >was atomic the database would never be corrupt. > >If someone wants I think that I still have a (paper) copy of the report >describing >this. I can send/fax a copy if wanted. > >I don't subscribe to this list, so please reply direct if someone wants it. > >(Please don't request a copy just out of curiosity since I don't want to have >to post/fax copies that won't help resolve this case by showing prior art.) > >Cheers > >-- >Alain Williams >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
For what it's worth, the system was called "Jackdaw" and was written by Mike Challis. It was in extensive use on the University's MVT/MVS/MVSXA mainframe for many years as the database for holding user information. The document Alain's got is probably Computer Laboratory Technical Report no. 1 (yes, One!). If it isn't, and you need it, see http://www.ftp.cl.cam.ac.uk/ftp/papers/reports/TR.txt Jackdaw was phased out when the mainframe was decommissioned about 5 years ago. Mike's still around, but I think he's retired. -- Timothy At 10:00 PM 10/5/00 +, Alain Williams wrote: Hi, I remember when at the University of Cambridge (in England) about 25 years ago seeing some work then about the Jackdaw (or was is Jackard) database system that had the great feature of being immune to OS crashes, it used a phased update mechanism where new blocks were written to disk and the last block written was the one that contained the switched pointer, until this last block had been written the changes had not been made. Since the write of a disk block was atomic the database would never be corrupt. If someone wants I think that I still have a (paper) copy of the report describing this. I can send/fax a copy if wanted. I don't subscribe to this list, so please reply direct if someone wants it. (Please don't request a copy just out of curiosity since I don't want to have to post/fax copies that won't help resolve this case by showing prior art.) Cheers -- Alain Williams - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
Tim, I forwarded this one to the lawyers. Thanks Jeff Timothy Roscoe wrote: For what it's worth, the system was called "Jackdaw" and was written by Mike Challis. It was in extensive use on the University's MVT/MVS/MVSXA mainframe for many years as the database for holding user information. The document Alain's got is probably Computer Laboratory Technical Report no. 1 (yes, One!). If it isn't, and you need it, see http://www.ftp.cl.cam.ac.uk/ftp/papers/reports/TR.txt Jackdaw was phased out when the mainframe was decommissioned about 5 years ago. Mike's still around, but I think he's retired. -- Timothy At 10:00 PM 10/5/00 +, Alain Williams wrote: Hi, I remember when at the University of Cambridge (in England) about 25 years ago seeing some work then about the Jackdaw (or was is Jackard) database system that had the great feature of being immune to OS crashes, it used a phased update mechanism where new blocks were written to disk and the last block written was the one that contained the switched pointer, until this last block had been written the changes had not been made. Since the write of a disk block was atomic the database would never be corrupt. If someone wants I think that I still have a (paper) copy of the report describing this. I can send/fax a copy if wanted. I don't subscribe to this list, so please reply direct if someone wants it. (Please don't request a copy just out of curiosity since I don't want to have to post/fax copies that won't help resolve this case by showing prior art.) Cheers -- Alain Williams - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 05:21:19AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > "Albert D. Cahalan" wrote: > > > > > The main goal is to encourage NetApp management to do the right thing. > > > > They are required to run the business in a profit seeking manner. > > I think they can even go to jail... so "do the right thing" is not > > an option for them. > > Rubbish. By this argument, the management of every corporation that > ever made a donation is going straight to jail. Acting ethically is > allowed in corporations, as in other walks of like. There is an > 'ethical growth fund' in Canada that limits its investments to companies > known for 'doing the right thing'. Guess what? It outperforms the > market. > > > You can trade patent licenses for other patent licenses. > > You can trade a patent license for code or secrets. > > You can trade a patent for goodwill. Goodwill is real. What is > goodwill? When you sell a corporation 'good will' is the difference > between the value of its hard assets and the price you got for it. Under US Law, "trading on someone's goodwill" usually means using their trademarks or in some way using their "market association" for your own benefit. The actual tort usually brought is a claim of "conversion" meaning that in some way you have "converted" their business opportunities for your own uses. Patent infringement claims could succeed with a conversion tort if they can show a court you converted business opportunities that would have otherwise been theirs. When you hear this term "trading on goodwill" this is usually the context it refers to. Conversion claims are very difficult to defend because in the case of conversion, the tortorious party does not have to have acted in bad faith (bad faith means you knew you were doing something wrong at the time, and did it anyway). You could be the CEO of a company, and one of your employees brought in some pirated code or something, and you could still be liable uder the law if the other side can show conversion occurred as the result of trade secrets being taken, or trademark or patent infringement, etc. If you ever get nailed for acting in bad faith regarding a conversion claim, the opposing side can get treble punitive damages (meaning the judge could hit you for three times their damages amounts as a punitive measure). Hope this explains this term to you. Jeff > > > Say, would Tux2 be useful on a DVD-RAM? Gee, can you think of > > any other patent-holders and secret-holders that might have a > > use for Tux2? Apple has some influence over video patents > > used in QuickTime. > > *** ponder > > Tux2, or more specifically, the phase tree algorithm is useful for any > non-volatile read-write storage medium, since it gives no window of > vulnerability to crashes. It is particularly good for slow, large media > that are not friendly to journals. It is even better for flash memory > where you don't have to worry about seek time. It is useful in any > application where you need to support 'instant off' while leaving > nonvolatile memory in a known, consistent state. > > -- > Daniel > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote: > > > The main goal is to encourage NetApp management to do the right thing. > > They are required to run the business in a profit seeking manner. > I think they can even go to jail... so "do the right thing" is not > an option for them. Rubbish. By this argument, the management of every corporation that ever made a donation is going straight to jail. Acting ethically is allowed in corporations, as in other walks of like. There is an 'ethical growth fund' in Canada that limits its investments to companies known for 'doing the right thing'. Guess what? It outperforms the market. > You can trade patent licenses for other patent licenses. > You can trade a patent license for code or secrets. You can trade a patent for goodwill. Goodwill is real. What is goodwill? When you sell a corporation 'good will' is the difference between the value of its hard assets and the price you got for it. > Say, would Tux2 be useful on a DVD-RAM? Gee, can you think of > any other patent-holders and secret-holders that might have a > use for Tux2? Apple has some influence over video patents > used in QuickTime. *** ponder Tux2, or more specifically, the phase tree algorithm is useful for any non-volatile read-write storage medium, since it gives no window of vulnerability to crashes. It is particularly good for slow, large media that are not friendly to journals. It is even better for flash memory where you don't have to worry about seek time. It is useful in any application where you need to support 'instant off' while leaving nonvolatile memory in a known, consistent state. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
> The main goal is to encourage NetApp management to do the right thing. They are required to run the business in a profit seeking manner. I think they can even go to jail... so "do the right thing" is not an option for them. You can trade patent licenses for other patent licenses. You can trade a patent license for code or secrets. Say, would Tux2 be useful on a DVD-RAM? Gee, can you think of any other patent-holders and secret-holders that might have a use for Tux2? Apple has some influence over video patents used in QuickTime. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:49:20PM +, John Alvord wrote: > On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:00:58 +, Alain Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >I remember when at the University of Cambridge (in England) about 25 years ago > >seeing some work then about the Jackdaw (or was is Jackard) database system > >that had the great feature of being immune to OS crashes, it used a phased > >update mechanism where new blocks were written to disk and the last block > >written was the one that contained the switched pointer, until this last block > >had been written the changes had not been made. Since the write of a disk block > >was atomic the database would never be corrupt. > > > >If someone wants I think that I still have a (paper) copy of the report describing > >this. I can send/fax a copy if wanted. > > > >I don't subscribe to this list, so please reply direct if someone wants it. > > > >(Please don't request a copy just out of curiosity since I don't want to have > >to post/fax copies that won't help resolve this case by showing prior art.) > > > >Cheers > > The VM/CMS operating system had a new file system around 1979 or 1980. > It had exactly the same characteristics... writing the new blocks and > then writing a final block which changed the world. The work was > derived from Chris Stephens' work on YMS (Yorktown Monitor System). > Since Chris was part of IBM Research, and since researchers got major > brownie points from patents, I bet that the there are some patents to > be found of interest. > > Clearly, the same idea has been rediscovered over and over again. The > VM/CMS case would be a good example of prior art, since it had > thousands of licenses and hundreds of thousands of end users in the > early 1980s. > > john alvord John, Thanks. I'll forward this on. Jeff > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:00:58 +, Alain Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hi, > >I remember when at the University of Cambridge (in England) about 25 years ago >seeing some work then about the Jackdaw (or was is Jackard) database system >that had the great feature of being immune to OS crashes, it used a phased >update mechanism where new blocks were written to disk and the last block >written was the one that contained the switched pointer, until this last block >had been written the changes had not been made. Since the write of a disk block >was atomic the database would never be corrupt. > >If someone wants I think that I still have a (paper) copy of the report describing >this. I can send/fax a copy if wanted. > >I don't subscribe to this list, so please reply direct if someone wants it. > >(Please don't request a copy just out of curiosity since I don't want to have >to post/fax copies that won't help resolve this case by showing prior art.) > >Cheers The VM/CMS operating system had a new file system around 1979 or 1980. It had exactly the same characteristics... writing the new blocks and then writing a final block which changed the world. The work was derived from Chris Stephens' work on YMS (Yorktown Monitor System). Since Chris was part of IBM Research, and since researchers got major brownie points from patents, I bet that the there are some patents to be found of interest. Clearly, the same idea has been rediscovered over and over again. The VM/CMS case would be a good example of prior art, since it had thousands of licenses and hundreds of thousands of end users in the early 1980s. john alvord - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:49:20PM +, John Alvord wrote: On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:00:58 +, Alain Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I remember when at the University of Cambridge (in England) about 25 years ago seeing some work then about the Jackdaw (or was is Jackard) database system that had the great feature of being immune to OS crashes, it used a phased update mechanism where new blocks were written to disk and the last block written was the one that contained the switched pointer, until this last block had been written the changes had not been made. Since the write of a disk block was atomic the database would never be corrupt. If someone wants I think that I still have a (paper) copy of the report describing this. I can send/fax a copy if wanted. I don't subscribe to this list, so please reply direct if someone wants it. (Please don't request a copy just out of curiosity since I don't want to have to post/fax copies that won't help resolve this case by showing prior art.) Cheers The VM/CMS operating system had a new file system around 1979 or 1980. It had exactly the same characteristics... writing the new blocks and then writing a final block which changed the world. The work was derived from Chris Stephens' work on YMS (Yorktown Monitor System). Since Chris was part of IBM Research, and since researchers got major brownie points from patents, I bet that the there are some patents to be found of interest. Clearly, the same idea has been rediscovered over and over again. The VM/CMS case would be a good example of prior art, since it had thousands of licenses and hundreds of thousands of end users in the early 1980s. john alvord John, Thanks. I'll forward this on. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
The main goal is to encourage NetApp management to do the right thing. They are required to run the business in a profit seeking manner. I think they can even go to jail... so "do the right thing" is not an option for them. You can trade patent licenses for other patent licenses. You can trade a patent license for code or secrets. Say, would Tux2 be useful on a DVD-RAM? Gee, can you think of any other patent-holders and secret-holders that might have a use for Tux2? Apple has some influence over video patents used in QuickTime. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote: The main goal is to encourage NetApp management to do the right thing. They are required to run the business in a profit seeking manner. I think they can even go to jail... so "do the right thing" is not an option for them. Rubbish. By this argument, the management of every corporation that ever made a donation is going straight to jail. Acting ethically is allowed in corporations, as in other walks of like. There is an 'ethical growth fund' in Canada that limits its investments to companies known for 'doing the right thing'. Guess what? It outperforms the market. You can trade patent licenses for other patent licenses. You can trade a patent license for code or secrets. You can trade a patent for goodwill. Goodwill is real. What is goodwill? When you sell a corporation 'good will' is the difference between the value of its hard assets and the price you got for it. Say, would Tux2 be useful on a DVD-RAM? Gee, can you think of any other patent-holders and secret-holders that might have a use for Tux2? Apple has some influence over video patents used in QuickTime. *** ponder Tux2, or more specifically, the phase tree algorithm is useful for any non-volatile read-write storage medium, since it gives no window of vulnerability to crashes. It is particularly good for slow, large media that are not friendly to journals. It is even better for flash memory where you don't have to worry about seek time. It is useful in any application where you need to support 'instant off' while leaving nonvolatile memory in a known, consistent state. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 05:21:19AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: "Albert D. Cahalan" wrote: The main goal is to encourage NetApp management to do the right thing. They are required to run the business in a profit seeking manner. I think they can even go to jail... so "do the right thing" is not an option for them. Rubbish. By this argument, the management of every corporation that ever made a donation is going straight to jail. Acting ethically is allowed in corporations, as in other walks of like. There is an 'ethical growth fund' in Canada that limits its investments to companies known for 'doing the right thing'. Guess what? It outperforms the market. You can trade patent licenses for other patent licenses. You can trade a patent license for code or secrets. You can trade a patent for goodwill. Goodwill is real. What is goodwill? When you sell a corporation 'good will' is the difference between the value of its hard assets and the price you got for it. Under US Law, "trading on someone's goodwill" usually means using their trademarks or in some way using their "market association" for your own benefit. The actual tort usually brought is a claim of "conversion" meaning that in some way you have "converted" their business opportunities for your own uses. Patent infringement claims could succeed with a conversion tort if they can show a court you converted business opportunities that would have otherwise been theirs. When you hear this term "trading on goodwill" this is usually the context it refers to. Conversion claims are very difficult to defend because in the case of conversion, the tortorious party does not have to have acted in bad faith (bad faith means you knew you were doing something wrong at the time, and did it anyway). You could be the CEO of a company, and one of your employees brought in some pirated code or something, and you could still be liable uder the law if the other side can show conversion occurred as the result of trade secrets being taken, or trademark or patent infringement, etc. If you ever get nailed for acting in bad faith regarding a conversion claim, the opposing side can get treble punitive damages (meaning the judge could hit you for three times their damages amounts as a punitive measure). Hope this explains this term to you. Jeff Say, would Tux2 be useful on a DVD-RAM? Gee, can you think of any other patent-holders and secret-holders that might have a use for Tux2? Apple has some influence over video patents used in QuickTime. *** ponder Tux2, or more specifically, the phase tree algorithm is useful for any non-volatile read-write storage medium, since it gives no window of vulnerability to crashes. It is particularly good for slow, large media that are not friendly to journals. It is even better for flash memory where you don't have to worry about seek time. It is useful in any application where you need to support 'instant off' while leaving nonvolatile memory in a known, consistent state. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 10:56:51PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > I would appreciate you not bouncing off the walls... > > The main goal is to encourage NetApp management to do the right thing. > If refraining from making inflamatory remarks about burning down the > USTPO helps advance that purpose then that's exactly what I'll do. Whatever happens, so long as we are doing the right thing, we'll be ok. :-) Jeff > > Incidently, the continuing controversy seems to have resulted in a > steady stream of very well qualified and helpful subscribers to the > tux2-dev list. This suggests that when I do post the code sometime next > month, development will proceed more rapidly than I had previously > hoped. So something good has already come of this. > > -- > Daniel > > http://innominate.org/mailman/listinfo/tux2-dev <- read the archives and > sign up here > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
> I would appreciate you not bouncing off the walls... The main goal is to encourage NetApp management to do the right thing. If refraining from making inflamatory remarks about burning down the USTPO helps advance that purpose then that's exactly what I'll do. Incidently, the continuing controversy seems to have resulted in a steady stream of very well qualified and helpful subscribers to the tux2-dev list. This suggests that when I do post the code sometime next month, development will proceed more rapidly than I had previously hoped. So something good has already come of this. -- Daniel http://innominate.org/mailman/listinfo/tux2-dev <- read the archives and sign up here - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:13:45PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Sat, 07 Oct 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:45:38PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > You are right of course. I'm open to suggestions on exactly how best to > behave. The object is to make the most forward progress. Thank you. Lawyers can be really straight and narrow, particularly patent lawyers. To date, you have not disclosed the specific methods that will comprise the claims of you invention, just a high level description, which is ok. Until the provisional application has been issued a docket number, you need to not describe the actual methods publically other than in high level designs. Malinkrodt has your email address, and I expect next week, they will begin their dialouge with you. It only takes a few days to slap a provisional application together. > But how did we get from a state where algorithms were not patentable to one > where they are? Surely at least that can be undone. The spirit of the USPTO is to protect inventors rights and balance this with those things which are "essential facilities" of the affected area. The USPTO is not the utlimate authority on what is or is not patentable, the Judges sitting in the Federal Courts of the US are. There are many patents ruled to be invalidate, and vis-a-vis the other way in infringement claims. The controlling law here is what's described in the Consitution, and the rights of an inventor to enjoy the profits of his invention for a limited period of time. People always assume it's these big, evil companies behind all the patent issues in the US. The fact is that the system in the US recognizes individual inventors. These inventors have to assign their patents to a corporation in order for a corporation to own it. These laws in the US were originally intended to protect individual inventors, BTW. > obviously with a view to learning the truth. I'm also not sure whether you're > also objecting to the idea of trying to fence in closed-source software sellers, > are you? Or is it just that it seems like an inflamatory idea? It's not so black and white. In the US, we have a concept of "courts of equity". This means folks are basically free to step on each others rights, including the right to develop new ways of writing software. At times, the system has no other recourse than to resort to one side or the other litigating before a sitting Judge to expand the meaning and application of these laws, such as the laws regulating patents. Much of the USPTO's current policies are based on this case law from the US District Courts. I agree that the legal system in the US is "tecnology ignorant" but it is getting better. :-) Jeff > > -- > Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:45:38PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Marty Fouts wrote: > > > Well, I like your version more than Jeff's because if you're right then > I still have time to make a whitehat patent application for my better > atomic commit method. What's a whitehat patent? It's one that helps > fence in companies who want to use patented algorithms in closed source > software. Whitehat patents will help convince the blackhats that it's > in their interest to disallow algorithm patents and put things back the > way they were before. Daniel, Do you want me to continue the patent attorney's analysis or not? If I'm spending money to help you here, I would appreciate you not bouncing off the walls. I am also having this guy put togther a provisional patent application for your stuff, if you want to obtain a patent. You are not going to change the USPTO, that's the system here, and like it or not, we all just have to live with it. The USPTO's authority is consitutional in it's basis regarding the rights of inventors (section 113), and unless Congress and the Senate ammend the constitution, the USPTO and the rights of inventors in the US will be protected. The list lurker non-lawyer technocrats waiving web pages around don't change the system, or provide the resources to help you. Jeff > > -- > Daniel > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 09:11:44PM -0700, Marty Fouts wrote: > I don't know a lawyer I would trust who would give free legal advice on a > mailing list without the usual disclaimers. You should go back and read the start of this thread. I've hired an IP Patent attorney to handle the Tux 2 Patent issue, and will be posting his analysis back to this community. I have forwarded Daniel's designs and the specific patents and we are performing an infringement analysis. I think it's great that the USPTO has a website, but it's no subsitute for "real" legal help to folks on this list. Jeff > > And I don't care what you've done elsewhere, you have, here, been misleading > about patent law. I stand by my recommendation that people who are > interested should read the Nolo Press book and then, if they have specific > issues, consult an IP lawyer on those particular issues. > > In addition to the Nolo press, by the way, the US Patent Office now has a > web site with good general information for those people who are interested > in US patent issues. (http://www.uspto.gov/) I suppose there is a similar > web site for people interested in EU patent specifics as well. One of the > serveral ways in which you were mistaken in your assertions is that you've > neglected to clarify where US Patent Law differs from Patent Law in other > jurisdictions. You may be in Utah, but not everyone on this mailing list > is. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 3:40 PM > > To: Marty Fouts > > Cc: 'jesse'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents > > > > > > > > > > Marty Fouts wrote: > > > > > > I don't do pissing matches, Jeff, and won't compare the > > quality of the IP > > > experts I have access to to the quality of those you have access to. > > > > > > I will say that you are wrong about disclosure because you > > have overly > > > simplified, and again recommend that people who care should > > discuss their > > > specific cases with real lawyers, which neither you no or I are. > > > > Excuse me -- I was one of the attorneys on the Novell/TRG lawsuit -- > > check my motions > > and filings. In fact, check the 4th District Court in general for my > > filings in other cases. You can check the Texas courts for 1980's as > > well. Just because I have been a software > > engineer for the past 20 years does not mean I did something else in a > > previous life. > > > > Since all my friends are lawyers and TRG runs a law firm out of here > > should say something. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
Marty Fouts wrote: > > I don't know a lawyer I would trust who would give free legal advice on a > mailing list without the usual disclaimers. You mean 'I am a lawyer but this is not legal advice'. Hmm, I think the fact that it's on a mailing list and doesn't say 'here's my advice' should be disclaimer enough. Of course IANAL, so I may be attempting to lead you into a legal deathtrap ;-) > And I don't care what you've done elsewhere, you have, here, been misleading > about patent law. I stand by my recommendation that people who are > interested should read the Nolo Press book and then, if they have specific > issues, consult an IP lawyer on those particular issues. Well, I like your version more than Jeff's because if you're right then I still have time to make a whitehat patent application for my better atomic commit method. What's a whitehat patent? It's one that helps fence in companies who want to use patented algorithms in closed source software. Whitehat patents will help convince the blackhats that it's in their interest to disallow algorithm patents and put things back the way they were before. Have I said publicly that I'm waiting to hear from NetApp about whether they're going to write a GPL-compatible license for the patents in question? And thus remove all doubt about whether they conflict with my work. I'm not sure I said that - I'm saying it now. So far, not a word out of NetApp management, though I know they're well aware of the issue. My idea is that by waiting patiently and not accusing them of being turds that they will find it a lot easier to take a deep breath and do the right thing. > In addition to the Nolo press, by the way, the US Patent Office now has a > web site with good general information for those people who are interested > in US patent issues. (http://www.uspto.gov/) I suppose there is a similar > web site for people interested in EU patent specifics as well. One of the > serveral ways in which you were mistaken in your assertions is that you've > neglected to clarify where US Patent Law differs from Patent Law in other > jurisdictions. You may be in Utah, but not everyone on this mailing list > is. Yes, it's thoughtful of the USPTO to give us free access to documents that state in precise terms exactly how we are being screwed. What I really want to see on the site is "patents on software are no longer allowed, and we have invalidated all the ones that we granted in error". -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
Marty Fouts wrote: I don't know a lawyer I would trust who would give free legal advice on a mailing list without the usual disclaimers. You mean 'I am a lawyer but this is not legal advice'. Hmm, I think the fact that it's on a mailing list and doesn't say 'here's my advice' should be disclaimer enough. Of course IANAL, so I may be attempting to lead you into a legal deathtrap ;-) And I don't care what you've done elsewhere, you have, here, been misleading about patent law. I stand by my recommendation that people who are interested should read the Nolo Press book and then, if they have specific issues, consult an IP lawyer on those particular issues. Well, I like your version more than Jeff's because if you're right then I still have time to make a whitehat patent application for my better atomic commit method. What's a whitehat patent? It's one that helps fence in companies who want to use patented algorithms in closed source software. Whitehat patents will help convince the blackhats that it's in their interest to disallow algorithm patents and put things back the way they were before. Have I said publicly that I'm waiting to hear from NetApp about whether they're going to write a GPL-compatible license for the patents in question? And thus remove all doubt about whether they conflict with my work. I'm not sure I said that - I'm saying it now. So far, not a word out of NetApp management, though I know they're well aware of the issue. My idea is that by waiting patiently and not accusing them of being turds that they will find it a lot easier to take a deep breath and do the right thing. In addition to the Nolo press, by the way, the US Patent Office now has a web site with good general information for those people who are interested in US patent issues. (http://www.uspto.gov/) I suppose there is a similar web site for people interested in EU patent specifics as well. One of the serveral ways in which you were mistaken in your assertions is that you've neglected to clarify where US Patent Law differs from Patent Law in other jurisdictions. You may be in Utah, but not everyone on this mailing list is. Yes, it's thoughtful of the USPTO to give us free access to documents that state in precise terms exactly how we are being screwed. What I really want to see on the site is "patents on software are no longer allowed, and we have invalidated all the ones that we granted in error". -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 09:11:44PM -0700, Marty Fouts wrote: I don't know a lawyer I would trust who would give free legal advice on a mailing list without the usual disclaimers. You should go back and read the start of this thread. I've hired an IP Patent attorney to handle the Tux 2 Patent issue, and will be posting his analysis back to this community. I have forwarded Daniel's designs and the specific patents and we are performing an infringement analysis. I think it's great that the USPTO has a website, but it's no subsitute for "real" legal help to folks on this list. Jeff And I don't care what you've done elsewhere, you have, here, been misleading about patent law. I stand by my recommendation that people who are interested should read the Nolo Press book and then, if they have specific issues, consult an IP lawyer on those particular issues. In addition to the Nolo press, by the way, the US Patent Office now has a web site with good general information for those people who are interested in US patent issues. (http://www.uspto.gov/) I suppose there is a similar web site for people interested in EU patent specifics as well. One of the serveral ways in which you were mistaken in your assertions is that you've neglected to clarify where US Patent Law differs from Patent Law in other jurisdictions. You may be in Utah, but not everyone on this mailing list is. -Original Message- From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 3:40 PM To: Marty Fouts Cc: 'jesse'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents Marty Fouts wrote: I don't do pissing matches, Jeff, and won't compare the quality of the IP experts I have access to to the quality of those you have access to. I will say that you are wrong about disclosure because you have overly simplified, and again recommend that people who care should discuss their specific cases with real lawyers, which neither you no or I are. Excuse me -- I was one of the attorneys on the Novell/TRG lawsuit -- check my motions and filings. In fact, check the 4th District Court in general for my filings in other cases. You can check the Texas courts for 1980's as well. Just because I have been a software engineer for the past 20 years does not mean I did something else in a previous life. Since all my friends are lawyers and TRG runs a law firm out of here should say something. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:45:38PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: Marty Fouts wrote: Well, I like your version more than Jeff's because if you're right then I still have time to make a whitehat patent application for my better atomic commit method. What's a whitehat patent? It's one that helps fence in companies who want to use patented algorithms in closed source software. Whitehat patents will help convince the blackhats that it's in their interest to disallow algorithm patents and put things back the way they were before. Daniel, Do you want me to continue the patent attorney's analysis or not? If I'm spending money to help you here, I would appreciate you not bouncing off the walls. I am also having this guy put togther a provisional patent application for your stuff, if you want to obtain a patent. You are not going to change the USPTO, that's the system here, and like it or not, we all just have to live with it. The USPTO's authority is consitutional in it's basis regarding the rights of inventors (section 113), and unless Congress and the Senate ammend the constitution, the USPTO and the rights of inventors in the US will be protected. The list lurker non-lawyer technocrats waiving web pages around don't change the system, or provide the resources to help you. Jeff -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:13:45PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Sat, 07 Oct 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:45:38PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: You are right of course. I'm open to suggestions on exactly how best to behave. The object is to make the most forward progress. Thank you. Lawyers can be really straight and narrow, particularly patent lawyers. To date, you have not disclosed the specific methods that will comprise the claims of you invention, just a high level description, which is ok. Until the provisional application has been issued a docket number, you need to not describe the actual methods publically other than in high level designs. Malinkrodt has your email address, and I expect next week, they will begin their dialouge with you. It only takes a few days to slap a provisional application together. But how did we get from a state where algorithms were not patentable to one where they are? Surely at least that can be undone. The spirit of the USPTO is to protect inventors rights and balance this with those things which are "essential facilities" of the affected area. The USPTO is not the utlimate authority on what is or is not patentable, the Judges sitting in the Federal Courts of the US are. There are many patents ruled to be invalidate, and vis-a-vis the other way in infringement claims. The controlling law here is what's described in the Consitution, and the rights of an inventor to enjoy the profits of his invention for a limited period of time. People always assume it's these big, evil companies behind all the patent issues in the US. The fact is that the system in the US recognizes individual inventors. These inventors have to assign their patents to a corporation in order for a corporation to own it. These laws in the US were originally intended to protect individual inventors, BTW. obviously with a view to learning the truth. I'm also not sure whether you're also objecting to the idea of trying to fence in closed-source software sellers, are you? Or is it just that it seems like an inflamatory idea? It's not so black and white. In the US, we have a concept of "courts of equity". This means folks are basically free to step on each others rights, including the right to develop new ways of writing software. At times, the system has no other recourse than to resort to one side or the other litigating before a sitting Judge to expand the meaning and application of these laws, such as the laws regulating patents. Much of the USPTO's current policies are based on this case law from the US District Courts. I agree that the legal system in the US is "tecnology ignorant" but it is getting better. :-) Jeff -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
I would appreciate you not bouncing off the walls... The main goal is to encourage NetApp management to do the right thing. If refraining from making inflamatory remarks about burning down the USTPO helps advance that purpose then that's exactly what I'll do. Incidently, the continuing controversy seems to have resulted in a steady stream of very well qualified and helpful subscribers to the tux2-dev list. This suggests that when I do post the code sometime next month, development will proceed more rapidly than I had previously hoped. So something good has already come of this. -- Daniel http://innominate.org/mailman/listinfo/tux2-dev - read the archives and sign up here - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 10:56:51PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: I would appreciate you not bouncing off the walls... The main goal is to encourage NetApp management to do the right thing. If refraining from making inflamatory remarks about burning down the USTPO helps advance that purpose then that's exactly what I'll do. Whatever happens, so long as we are doing the right thing, we'll be ok. :-) Jeff Incidently, the continuing controversy seems to have resulted in a steady stream of very well qualified and helpful subscribers to the tux2-dev list. This suggests that when I do post the code sometime next month, development will proceed more rapidly than I had previously hoped. So something good has already come of this. -- Daniel http://innominate.org/mailman/listinfo/tux2-dev - read the archives and sign up here - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Tux 2 patents
I don't know a lawyer I would trust who would give free legal advice on a mailing list without the usual disclaimers. And I don't care what you've done elsewhere, you have, here, been misleading about patent law. I stand by my recommendation that people who are interested should read the Nolo Press book and then, if they have specific issues, consult an IP lawyer on those particular issues. In addition to the Nolo press, by the way, the US Patent Office now has a web site with good general information for those people who are interested in US patent issues. (http://www.uspto.gov/) I suppose there is a similar web site for people interested in EU patent specifics as well. One of the serveral ways in which you were mistaken in your assertions is that you've neglected to clarify where US Patent Law differs from Patent Law in other jurisdictions. You may be in Utah, but not everyone on this mailing list is. > -Original Message- > From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 3:40 PM > To: Marty Fouts > Cc: 'jesse'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents > > > > > Marty Fouts wrote: > > > > I don't do pissing matches, Jeff, and won't compare the > quality of the IP > > experts I have access to to the quality of those you have access to. > > > > I will say that you are wrong about disclosure because you > have overly > > simplified, and again recommend that people who care should > discuss their > > specific cases with real lawyers, which neither you no or I are. > > Excuse me -- I was one of the attorneys on the Novell/TRG lawsuit -- > check my motions > and filings. In fact, check the 4th District Court in general for my > filings in other cases. You can check the Texas courts for 1980's as > well. Just because I have been a software > engineer for the past 20 years does not mean I did something else in a > previous life. > > Since all my friends are lawyers and TRG runs a law firm out of here > should say something. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
Marty Fouts wrote: > > I don't do pissing matches, Jeff, and won't compare the quality of the IP > experts I have access to to the quality of those you have access to. > > I will say that you are wrong about disclosure because you have overly > simplified, and again recommend that people who care should discuss their > specific cases with real lawyers, which neither you no or I are. Excuse me -- I was one of the attorneys on the Novell/TRG lawsuit -- check my motions and filings. In fact, check the 4th District Court in general for my filings in other cases. You can check the Texas courts for 1980's as well. Just because I have been a software engineer for the past 20 years does not mean I did something else in a previous life. Since all my friends are lawyers and TRG runs a law firm out of here should say something. Jeff > > As a starting point I recommend Nolo press' "Patent Copyright & Trademark" > book and that an individual see a lawyer for their specific case. > > (The Nolo press book can be bought online at > http://www.nolo.com/product/pct.html?t=0023003202000) > > -Original Message- > From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 2:35 PM > To: Marty Fouts > Cc: 'jesse'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents > > I've filed lots of patents in my day Marty -- this is correct. I have > two patent lawyers on staff. Want to try again.. > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
David Schwartz wrote: > > > I've filed lots of patents in my day Marty -- this is correct. I have > > two patent lawyers on staff. Want to try again.. > > > > Jeff > > > > And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a > > > provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's > > > issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before > > > the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. > > No, it's incorrect and misleading. See for example > http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/novelty.htm which states: > > "In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the > patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: "(a) the > invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or > described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the > invention thereof by the applicant for patent," or "(b) the invention was > patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country > or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the > application for patent in the United States . . ."" > > The "year of protection" has nothing whatsoever to do with provisional > patent applications which are something else entirely. > > DS Which is what I described in previous postings on this thread. Go read them. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Tux 2 patents
> I've filed lots of patents in my day Marty -- this is correct. I have > two patent lawyers on staff. Want to try again.. > > Jeff > > And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a > > provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's > > issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before > > the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. No, it's incorrect and misleading. See for example http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/novelty.htm which states: "In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: "(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent," or "(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . ."" The "year of protection" has nothing whatsoever to do with provisional patent applications which are something else entirely. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Tux 2 patents
I don't do pissing matches, Jeff, and won't compare the quality of the IP experts I have access to to the quality of those you have access to. I will say that you are wrong about disclosure because you have overly simplified, and again recommend that people who care should discuss their specific cases with real lawyers, which neither you no or I are. As a starting point I recommend Nolo press' "Patent Copyright & Trademark" book and that an individual see a lawyer for their specific case. (The Nolo press book can be bought online at http://www.nolo.com/product/pct.html?t=0023003202000) -Original Message- From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 2:35 PM To: Marty Fouts Cc: 'jesse'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents I've filed lots of patents in my day Marty -- this is correct. I have two patent lawyers on staff. Want to try again.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
I've filed lots of patents in my day Marty -- this is correct. I have two patent lawyers on staff. Want to try again.. Jeff Marty Fouts wrote: > > This is not correct. There is a lot of partially correct information being > passed around in this thread, and I strongly suggest that people who are > interested not rely on what is being said here, but read the NOLO press book > as a starter, and talk to an IP lawyer if you need to know the details. > > Marty > > -Original Message- > From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 11:52 AM > To: Marty Fouts > Cc: 'jesse'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents > > And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a > provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's > issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before > the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Tux 2 patents
This is not correct. There is a lot of partially correct information being passed around in this thread, and I strongly suggest that people who are interested not rely on what is being said here, but read the NOLO press book as a starter, and talk to an IP lawyer if you need to know the details. Marty -Original Message- From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 11:52 AM To: Marty Fouts Cc: 'jesse'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Tux 2 patents
Please be careful with attributions. I did not write the paragraph attributed to me below, which contains information I believe is incorrect. -Original Message- From: Daniel Phillips [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 12:24 PM To: Marty Fouts; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents Marty Fouts wrote: >> IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released > product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't > file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I > think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think > it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse > to let them use it. No, that was never under consideration (I guess I just don't have the right mindset for this:) I'm looking at the ways in which the phase tree algorithm is superior to what they're doing. And actually, I'm not worried about NetApp, I'm worried about Sauron^H^H^H^H^H^H Bill. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
Alexander Viro wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > > > > And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a > > > provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's > > > issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before > > > the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. > > > > IOW, there is *no chance* to get a white-hat patent on anything I've > > There is no such thing as white-hat patent. Flow with me on this, there is: it's a patent that helps destroy the patent system. If BSD gets hurt then we have to fix it somehow. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote: > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > > And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a > > provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's > > issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before > > the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. > > IOW, there is *no chance* to get a white-hat patent on anything I've There is no such thing as white-hat patent. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 21:18:08 +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: >jesse wrote: >> IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released >> product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't >> file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I >> think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think >> it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse >> to let them use it. > >Ah, but there is plenty patentable in the current phase tree design, >implemented in Tux2 since early last year. Have you ever seen a >three-root atomic commit before? So if you're right then there is still >time. On the other hand, I've heard that as soon as I disclose it >publicly it's not patentable. This my belief too - we looked into patenting a while back, and in general you cannot patent something that is already public knowledge. Ie. if you have already published information, one way or another, no patenting. This certainly applies to hardware (of any kind) - whether the same rule is applied to software - no idea - but it seems probable. Also, our information originates at the EPO - the US regulations/laws might be different. regards, Per Jessen, Principal Engineer, ENIDAN Technologies http://www.enitek.com - home of the J1 serial console - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a > provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's > issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before > the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. IOW, there is *no chance* to get a white-hat patent on anything I've described on these lists recently. That doesn't bother me a lot since there is still a lot I haven't described. What should I do, put it all in the totally-public domain and let evildoers have it too, or should I do interim patent applications from now on? -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
Marty Fouts wrote: >> IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released > product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't > file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I > think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think > it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse > to let them use it. No, that was never under consideration (I guess I just don't have the right mindset for this:) I'm looking at the ways in which the phase tree algorithm is superior to what they're doing. And actually, I'm not worried about NetApp, I'm worried about Sauron^H^H^H^H^H^H Bill. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
jesse wrote: > IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released > product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't > file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I > think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think > it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse > to let them use it. Ah, but there is plenty patentable in the current phase tree design, implemented in Tux2 since early last year. Have you ever seen a three-root atomic commit before? So if you're right then there is still time. On the other hand, I've heard that as soon as I disclose it publicly it's not patentable. Read 'white hat patent' in all of the above, IOW, GPL-compatible licence. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. Jeff Marty Fouts wrote: > > IANAL; this is not legal advice. > > The 'one year' you are referring to is from 'disclosure', not from released > product. "disclosure" in this case is a legal term-of-art. Further, there > is a difference between US and European Union patent law, in that, IIRC, EU > law requires patent application before _public_ disclosure. In effect, > "disclosure" means revealing the idea to anyone, inside your organization or > out, but there are all sorts of corner cases in the law. > > Nolo Press had a good book that discusses copyright and patent law, although > they may not have had the chance to update it to reflect recent changes. > > In any event, if you are serious about either getting or trying to overturn > a patent, you need to see a lawyer specializing in patent law, because case > law frequently changes the nuances in this area. > > -Original Message- > From: jesse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 10:53 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 09:13:25AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > Once you use the technique and it's documented as clear by a patent > > > lawyer, it will be safe for you to use forever, particularly if it's > > > in the public domain. This is winning > > > > This is good to know, but what I was talking about is taking it *out of > > the closed source* domain. The idea is to take our best ideas out of > > the closed source domain. After a few years of doing that, it's my > > guess that the evil software patent system would keel over and die. > > IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released > product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't > file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I > think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think > it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse > to let them use it. > > -Jesse > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Tux 2 patents
IANAL; this is not legal advice. The 'one year' you are referring to is from 'disclosure', not from released product. "disclosure" in this case is a legal term-of-art. Further, there is a difference between US and European Union patent law, in that, IIRC, EU law requires patent application before _public_ disclosure. In effect, "disclosure" means revealing the idea to anyone, inside your organization or out, but there are all sorts of corner cases in the law. Nolo Press had a good book that discusses copyright and patent law, although they may not have had the chance to update it to reflect recent changes. In any event, if you are serious about either getting or trying to overturn a patent, you need to see a lawyer specializing in patent law, because case law frequently changes the nuances in this area. -Original Message- From: jesse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 10:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 09:13:25AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Once you use the technique and it's documented as clear by a patent > > lawyer, it will be safe for you to use forever, particularly if it's > > in the public domain. This is winning > > This is good to know, but what I was talking about is taking it *out of > the closed source* domain. The idea is to take our best ideas out of > the closed source domain. After a few years of doing that, it's my > guess that the evil software patent system would keel over and die. IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse to let them use it. -Jesse - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 09:13:25AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Once you use the technique and it's documented as clear by a patent > > lawyer, it will be safe for you to use forever, particularly if it's > > in the public domain. This is winning > > This is good to know, but what I was talking about is taking it *out of > the closed source* domain. The idea is to take our best ideas out of > the closed source domain. After a few years of doing that, it's my > guess that the evil software patent system would keel over and die. IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse to let them use it. -Jesse - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > > > > > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent > > > > > yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the > > > > > analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML > > > > > next week. > > > > > > > > I'll calm down and work on my magicpoint slides for now. > > > > > > I think you are ok based on our preliminary review, but the patent lawyers > > > will go down each claim granted by the USPTO in related patents, and > > > analyze them relative to your proposed methods. > > > > And if my method is OK, then is there a reason why we should not apply > > for a "white hat" patent with a GPL-compatible licence? And if my > > method is not only OK, but superior in every way, then aren't we > > winning? > > Once you use the technique and it's documented as clear by a patent > lawyer, it will be safe for you to use forever, particularly if it's > in the public domain. This is winning This is good to know, but what I was talking about is taking it *out of the closed source* domain. The idea is to take our best ideas out of the closed source domain. After a few years of doing that, it's my guess that the evil software patent system would keel over and die. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
Daniel Phillips wrote: > > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > > > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > > > > > > The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent > > > > yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the > > > > analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML > > > > next week. > > > > > > I'll calm down and work on my magicpoint slides for now. > > > > I think you are ok based on our preliminary review, but the patent lawyers > > will go down each claim granted by the USPTO in related patents, and > > analyze them relative to your proposed methods. > > And if my method is OK, then is there a reason why we should not apply > for a "white hat" patent with a GPL-compatible licence? And if my > method is not only OK, but superior in every way, then aren't we > winning? Once you use the technique and it's documented as clear by a patent lawyer, it will be safe for you to use forever, particularly if it's in the public domain. This is winning Jeff > > -- > Daniel > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > > > > The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent > > > yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the > > > analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML > > > next week. > > > > I'll calm down and work on my magicpoint slides for now. > > I think you are ok based on our preliminary review, but the patent lawyers > will go down each claim granted by the USPTO in related patents, and > analyze them relative to your proposed methods. And if my method is OK, then is there a reason why we should not apply for a "white hat" patent with a GPL-compatible licence? And if my method is not only OK, but superior in every way, then aren't we winning? -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML next week. I'll calm down and work on my magicpoint slides for now. I think you are ok based on our preliminary review, but the patent lawyers will go down each claim granted by the USPTO in related patents, and analyze them relative to your proposed methods. And if my method is OK, then is there a reason why we should not apply for a "white hat" patent with a GPL-compatible licence? And if my method is not only OK, but superior in every way, then aren't we winning? -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
Daniel Phillips wrote: "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML next week. I'll calm down and work on my magicpoint slides for now. I think you are ok based on our preliminary review, but the patent lawyers will go down each claim granted by the USPTO in related patents, and analyze them relative to your proposed methods. And if my method is OK, then is there a reason why we should not apply for a "white hat" patent with a GPL-compatible licence? And if my method is not only OK, but superior in every way, then aren't we winning? Once you use the technique and it's documented as clear by a patent lawyer, it will be safe for you to use forever, particularly if it's in the public domain. This is winning Jeff -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: Daniel Phillips wrote: "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML next week. I'll calm down and work on my magicpoint slides for now. I think you are ok based on our preliminary review, but the patent lawyers will go down each claim granted by the USPTO in related patents, and analyze them relative to your proposed methods. And if my method is OK, then is there a reason why we should not apply for a "white hat" patent with a GPL-compatible licence? And if my method is not only OK, but superior in every way, then aren't we winning? Once you use the technique and it's documented as clear by a patent lawyer, it will be safe for you to use forever, particularly if it's in the public domain. This is winning This is good to know, but what I was talking about is taking it *out of the closed source* domain. The idea is to take our best ideas out of the closed source domain. After a few years of doing that, it's my guess that the evil software patent system would keel over and die. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 09:13:25AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: Once you use the technique and it's documented as clear by a patent lawyer, it will be safe for you to use forever, particularly if it's in the public domain. This is winning This is good to know, but what I was talking about is taking it *out of the closed source* domain. The idea is to take our best ideas out of the closed source domain. After a few years of doing that, it's my guess that the evil software patent system would keel over and die. IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse to let them use it. -Jesse - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Tux 2 patents
IANAL; this is not legal advice. The 'one year' you are referring to is from 'disclosure', not from released product. "disclosure" in this case is a legal term-of-art. Further, there is a difference between US and European Union patent law, in that, IIRC, EU law requires patent application before _public_ disclosure. In effect, "disclosure" means revealing the idea to anyone, inside your organization or out, but there are all sorts of corner cases in the law. Nolo Press had a good book that discusses copyright and patent law, although they may not have had the chance to update it to reflect recent changes. In any event, if you are serious about either getting or trying to overturn a patent, you need to see a lawyer specializing in patent law, because case law frequently changes the nuances in this area. -Original Message- From: jesse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 10:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 09:13:25AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: Once you use the technique and it's documented as clear by a patent lawyer, it will be safe for you to use forever, particularly if it's in the public domain. This is winning This is good to know, but what I was talking about is taking it *out of the closed source* domain. The idea is to take our best ideas out of the closed source domain. After a few years of doing that, it's my guess that the evil software patent system would keel over and die. IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse to let them use it. -Jesse - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. Jeff Marty Fouts wrote: IANAL; this is not legal advice. The 'one year' you are referring to is from 'disclosure', not from released product. "disclosure" in this case is a legal term-of-art. Further, there is a difference between US and European Union patent law, in that, IIRC, EU law requires patent application before _public_ disclosure. In effect, "disclosure" means revealing the idea to anyone, inside your organization or out, but there are all sorts of corner cases in the law. Nolo Press had a good book that discusses copyright and patent law, although they may not have had the chance to update it to reflect recent changes. In any event, if you are serious about either getting or trying to overturn a patent, you need to see a lawyer specializing in patent law, because case law frequently changes the nuances in this area. -Original Message- From: jesse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 10:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 09:13:25AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: Once you use the technique and it's documented as clear by a patent lawyer, it will be safe for you to use forever, particularly if it's in the public domain. This is winning This is good to know, but what I was talking about is taking it *out of the closed source* domain. The idea is to take our best ideas out of the closed source domain. After a few years of doing that, it's my guess that the evil software patent system would keel over and die. IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse to let them use it. -Jesse - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
jesse wrote: IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse to let them use it. Ah, but there is plenty patentable in the current phase tree design, implemented in Tux2 since early last year. Have you ever seen a three-root atomic commit before? So if you're right then there is still time. On the other hand, I've heard that as soon as I disclose it publicly it's not patentable. Read 'white hat patent' in all of the above, IOW, GPL-compatible licence. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
Marty Fouts wrote: IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse to let them use it. No, that was never under consideration (I guess I just don't have the right mindset for this:) I'm looking at the ways in which the phase tree algorithm is superior to what they're doing. And actually, I'm not worried about NetApp, I'm worried about Sauron^H^H^H^H^H^H Bill. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. IOW, there is *no chance* to get a white-hat patent on anything I've described on these lists recently. That doesn't bother me a lot since there is still a lot I haven't described. What should I do, put it all in the totally-public domain and let evildoers have it too, or should I do interim patent applications from now on? -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 21:18:08 +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: jesse wrote: IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse to let them use it. Ah, but there is plenty patentable in the current phase tree design, implemented in Tux2 since early last year. Have you ever seen a three-root atomic commit before? So if you're right then there is still time. On the other hand, I've heard that as soon as I disclose it publicly it's not patentable. This my belief too - we looked into patenting a while back, and in general you cannot patent something that is already public knowledge. Ie. if you have already published information, one way or another, no patenting. This certainly applies to hardware (of any kind) - whether the same rule is applied to software - no idea - but it seems probable. Also, our information originates at the EPO - the US regulations/laws might be different. regards, Per Jessen, Principal Engineer, ENIDAN Technologies http://www.enitek.com - home of the J1 serial console - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote: "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. IOW, there is *no chance* to get a white-hat patent on anything I've There is no such thing as white-hat patent. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
Alexander Viro wrote: On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote: "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. IOW, there is *no chance* to get a white-hat patent on anything I've There is no such thing as white-hat patent. Flow with me on this, there is: it's a patent that helps destroy the patent system. If BSD gets hurt then we have to fix it somehow. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Tux 2 patents
Please be careful with attributions. I did not write the paragraph attributed to me below, which contains information I believe is incorrect. -Original Message- From: Daniel Phillips [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 12:24 PM To: Marty Fouts; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents Marty Fouts wrote: IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse to let them use it. No, that was never under consideration (I guess I just don't have the right mindset for this:) I'm looking at the ways in which the phase tree algorithm is superior to what they're doing. And actually, I'm not worried about NetApp, I'm worried about Sauron^H^H^H^H^H^H Bill. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Tux 2 patents
This is not correct. There is a lot of partially correct information being passed around in this thread, and I strongly suggest that people who are interested not rely on what is being said here, but read the NOLO press book as a starter, and talk to an IP lawyer if you need to know the details. Marty -Original Message- From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 11:52 AM To: Marty Fouts Cc: 'jesse'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
I've filed lots of patents in my day Marty -- this is correct. I have two patent lawyers on staff. Want to try again.. Jeff Marty Fouts wrote: This is not correct. There is a lot of partially correct information being passed around in this thread, and I strongly suggest that people who are interested not rely on what is being said here, but read the NOLO press book as a starter, and talk to an IP lawyer if you need to know the details. Marty -Original Message- From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 11:52 AM To: Marty Fouts Cc: 'jesse'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Tux 2 patents
I don't do pissing matches, Jeff, and won't compare the quality of the IP experts I have access to to the quality of those you have access to. I will say that you are wrong about disclosure because you have overly simplified, and again recommend that people who care should discuss their specific cases with real lawyers, which neither you no or I are. As a starting point I recommend Nolo press' "Patent Copyright Trademark" book and that an individual see a lawyer for their specific case. (The Nolo press book can be bought online at http://www.nolo.com/product/pct.html?t=0023003202000) -Original Message- From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 2:35 PM To: Marty Fouts Cc: 'jesse'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents I've filed lots of patents in my day Marty -- this is correct. I have two patent lawyers on staff. Want to try again.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Tux 2 patents
I've filed lots of patents in my day Marty -- this is correct. I have two patent lawyers on staff. Want to try again.. Jeff And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. No, it's incorrect and misleading. See for example http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/novelty.htm which states: "In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: "(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent," or "(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . ."" The "year of protection" has nothing whatsoever to do with provisional patent applications which are something else entirely. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
David Schwartz wrote: I've filed lots of patents in my day Marty -- this is correct. I have two patent lawyers on staff. Want to try again.. Jeff And you only get the year of protection **IF** you have filed a provisional patent application, which expires 12 months after it's issued. You must then file a non-provisional patent application before the year runs out, or you cannot patent the techniques. No, it's incorrect and misleading. See for example http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/novelty.htm which states: "In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: "(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent," or "(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . ."" The "year of protection" has nothing whatsoever to do with provisional patent applications which are something else entirely. DS Which is what I described in previous postings on this thread. Go read them. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
Marty Fouts wrote: I don't do pissing matches, Jeff, and won't compare the quality of the IP experts I have access to to the quality of those you have access to. I will say that you are wrong about disclosure because you have overly simplified, and again recommend that people who care should discuss their specific cases with real lawyers, which neither you no or I are. Excuse me -- I was one of the attorneys on the Novell/TRG lawsuit -- check my motions and filings. In fact, check the 4th District Court in general for my filings in other cases. You can check the Texas courts for 1980's as well. Just because I have been a software engineer for the past 20 years does not mean I did something else in a previous life. Since all my friends are lawyers and TRG runs a law firm out of here should say something. Jeff As a starting point I recommend Nolo press' "Patent Copyright Trademark" book and that an individual see a lawyer for their specific case. (The Nolo press book can be bought online at http://www.nolo.com/product/pct.html?t=0023003202000) -Original Message- From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 2:35 PM To: Marty Fouts Cc: 'jesse'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents I've filed lots of patents in my day Marty -- this is correct. I have two patent lawyers on staff. Want to try again.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Tux 2 patents
I don't know a lawyer I would trust who would give free legal advice on a mailing list without the usual disclaimers. And I don't care what you've done elsewhere, you have, here, been misleading about patent law. I stand by my recommendation that people who are interested should read the Nolo Press book and then, if they have specific issues, consult an IP lawyer on those particular issues. In addition to the Nolo press, by the way, the US Patent Office now has a web site with good general information for those people who are interested in US patent issues. (http://www.uspto.gov/) I suppose there is a similar web site for people interested in EU patent specifics as well. One of the serveral ways in which you were mistaken in your assertions is that you've neglected to clarify where US Patent Law differs from Patent Law in other jurisdictions. You may be in Utah, but not everyone on this mailing list is. -Original Message- From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 3:40 PM To: Marty Fouts Cc: 'jesse'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tux 2 patents Marty Fouts wrote: I don't do pissing matches, Jeff, and won't compare the quality of the IP experts I have access to to the quality of those you have access to. I will say that you are wrong about disclosure because you have overly simplified, and again recommend that people who care should discuss their specific cases with real lawyers, which neither you no or I are. Excuse me -- I was one of the attorneys on the Novell/TRG lawsuit -- check my motions and filings. In fact, check the 4th District Court in general for my filings in other cases. You can check the Texas courts for 1980's as well. Just because I have been a software engineer for the past 20 years does not mean I did something else in a previous life. Since all my friends are lawyers and TRG runs a law firm out of here should say something. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 07:14:44AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > > The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent > > yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the > > analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML > > next week. > > I'll calm down and work on my magicpoint slides for now. > I think you are ok based on our preliminary review, but the patent lawyers will go down each claim granted by the USPTO in related patents, and analyze them relative to your proposed methods. Patents are granted for specific "methods" or ways of implementing stuff, and to infringe, you have to copy the methods described in the claims of the patent and be using them in the same basic combinations. The patent process in the US is a lot like filing a lawsuit. The patent application contains a series of "claims" for the invention, just as a petition for relief in a lawsuit contains "claims" of issues of fact. The patent lawyers have this fancy software (that costs a lot of $$$) that can cross reference your invention with thousands of patents quickly, and look for similiar "methods". The three you identified was very light -- there's probably going to be a larger number identified by these guys since patent attorneys have access to patents pending and provisional patent applications, which are not available to the general public. There's no telling how many provisional patents might be around with something like this. I would be unconcerned. 95% of getting around patents is just having patent lawyers to handle the politics at the USPTO. Most of the patent process in the US is very much a political process as much as a legal one. Think of a patent lawyer as someone in Congress lobbying for your interests, and you will have kind of the right picture of the "patent racket" in the US. Most patent infringment lawsuits end up in mediation with the USPTO with one side or the other having specific patent claims revoked because one side or the other gets their patent lawyers sending letters to the USPTO challenging prior art claims. Novell in their lawsuit with Roger Billings over the Network Operating System patents in 1993 convinced the patent office to invalidate his patents by shear force in numbers of legions of patent lawyers and a mountain of research and prior art claims -- they could not have gotten out of the infringement suit otherwise :-) Jeff > > -- > Daniel > - - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent > yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the > analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML > next week. I'll calm down and work on my magicpoint slides for now. > Alain Williams wrote: > > > > I remember when at the University of Cambridge (in England) about 25 years ago > > seeing some work then about the Jackdaw (or was is Jackard) database system > > that had the great feature of being immune to OS crashes, it used a phased > > update mechanism where new blocks were written to disk and the last block > > written was the one that contained the switched pointer, until this last block > > had been written the changes had not been made. Since the write of a disk block > > was atomic the database would never be corrupt. > > > > If someone wants I think that I still have a (paper) copy of the report describing > > this. I can send/fax a copy if wanted. > > > > I don't subscribe to this list, so please reply direct if someone wants it. > > > > (Please don't request a copy just out of curiosity since I don't want to have > > to post/fax copies that won't help resolve this case by showing prior art.) Of course IANAL but it seems to me, the more similar things we find the better. I think you have to find essentially all the key ideas pre-existing in one piece of work to have a good piece of prior art, it's my understanding. Now of course that sucks, and the whole patent system sucks, but that's how the game is played. Of course, we have other options in this case. Naturally, I intend to show exactly what my prior work was, but I'm waiting to hear words from the lawyer first. I'm also waiting to hear from NetApp management, publicly or privately. I know they're aware of this, and have been for some time. We've already heard from one right-thinking NetApp employee as I'm sure you're aware. I don't think I should contact NetApp privately, not before I've had legal advice. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
Forward the document to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regarding patents, for prior art to be valid it has to have been "reduced to practice" (the legal term). That means it has to have been implemented and the theory demonstrated. There's no real requirement under US Patent Law that it be shipped, turned into code, etc., but in order to qualify as "prior art" is has to have been shown to have been "reduced to practice" in some meaningful way, and isn't hot air. If your document meets these requirements, it will count towards this issue ... Jeff "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent > yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the > analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML > next week. > > Jeff > > Alain Williams wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I remember when at the University of Cambridge (in England) about 25 years ago > > seeing some work then about the Jackdaw (or was is Jackard) database system > > that had the great feature of being immune to OS crashes, it used a phased > > update mechanism where new blocks were written to disk and the last block > > written was the one that contained the switched pointer, until this last block > > had been written the changes had not been made. Since the write of a disk block > > was atomic the database would never be corrupt. > > > > If someone wants I think that I still have a (paper) copy of the report describing > > this. I can send/fax a copy if wanted. > > > > I don't subscribe to this list, so please reply direct if someone wants it. > > > > (Please don't request a copy just out of curiosity since I don't want to have > > to post/fax copies that won't help resolve this case by showing prior art.) > > > > Cheers > > > > -- > > Alain Williams > > - > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML next week. Jeff Alain Williams wrote: > > Hi, > > I remember when at the University of Cambridge (in England) about 25 years ago > seeing some work then about the Jackdaw (or was is Jackard) database system > that had the great feature of being immune to OS crashes, it used a phased > update mechanism where new blocks were written to disk and the last block > written was the one that contained the switched pointer, until this last block > had been written the changes had not been made. Since the write of a disk block > was atomic the database would never be corrupt. > > If someone wants I think that I still have a (paper) copy of the report describing > this. I can send/fax a copy if wanted. > > I don't subscribe to this list, so please reply direct if someone wants it. > > (Please don't request a copy just out of curiosity since I don't want to have > to post/fax copies that won't help resolve this case by showing prior art.) > > Cheers > > -- > Alain Williams > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML next week. Jeff Alain Williams wrote: Hi, I remember when at the University of Cambridge (in England) about 25 years ago seeing some work then about the Jackdaw (or was is Jackard) database system that had the great feature of being immune to OS crashes, it used a phased update mechanism where new blocks were written to disk and the last block written was the one that contained the switched pointer, until this last block had been written the changes had not been made. Since the write of a disk block was atomic the database would never be corrupt. If someone wants I think that I still have a (paper) copy of the report describing this. I can send/fax a copy if wanted. I don't subscribe to this list, so please reply direct if someone wants it. (Please don't request a copy just out of curiosity since I don't want to have to post/fax copies that won't help resolve this case by showing prior art.) Cheers -- Alain Williams - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
Forward the document to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regarding patents, for prior art to be valid it has to have been "reduced to practice" (the legal term). That means it has to have been implemented and the theory demonstrated. There's no real requirement under US Patent Law that it be shipped, turned into code, etc., but in order to qualify as "prior art" is has to have been shown to have been "reduced to practice" in some meaningful way, and isn't hot air. If your document meets these requirements, it will count towards this issue ... Jeff "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML next week. Jeff Alain Williams wrote: Hi, I remember when at the University of Cambridge (in England) about 25 years ago seeing some work then about the Jackdaw (or was is Jackard) database system that had the great feature of being immune to OS crashes, it used a phased update mechanism where new blocks were written to disk and the last block written was the one that contained the switched pointer, until this last block had been written the changes had not been made. Since the write of a disk block was atomic the database would never be corrupt. If someone wants I think that I still have a (paper) copy of the report describing this. I can send/fax a copy if wanted. I don't subscribe to this list, so please reply direct if someone wants it. (Please don't request a copy just out of curiosity since I don't want to have to post/fax copies that won't help resolve this case by showing prior art.) Cheers -- Alain Williams - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML next week. I'll calm down and work on my magicpoint slides for now. Alain Williams wrote: I remember when at the University of Cambridge (in England) about 25 years ago seeing some work then about the Jackdaw (or was is Jackard) database system that had the great feature of being immune to OS crashes, it used a phased update mechanism where new blocks were written to disk and the last block written was the one that contained the switched pointer, until this last block had been written the changes had not been made. Since the write of a disk block was atomic the database would never be corrupt. If someone wants I think that I still have a (paper) copy of the report describing this. I can send/fax a copy if wanted. I don't subscribe to this list, so please reply direct if someone wants it. (Please don't request a copy just out of curiosity since I don't want to have to post/fax copies that won't help resolve this case by showing prior art.) Of course IANAL but it seems to me, the more similar things we find the better. I think you have to find essentially all the key ideas pre-existing in one piece of work to have a good piece of prior art, it's my understanding. Now of course that sucks, and the whole patent system sucks, but that's how the game is played. Of course, we have other options in this case. Naturally, I intend to show exactly what my prior work was, but I'm waiting to hear words from the lawyer first. I'm also waiting to hear from NetApp management, publicly or privately. I know they're aware of this, and have been for some time. We've already heard from one right-thinking NetApp employee as I'm sure you're aware. I don't think I should contact NetApp privately, not before I've had legal advice. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 07:14:44AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received the materials Daniel sent yesterday on the Tux 2 patents via courier and are working on the analysis. They said they would have something for us to post on LKML next week. I'll calm down and work on my magicpoint slides for now. I think you are ok based on our preliminary review, but the patent lawyers will go down each claim granted by the USPTO in related patents, and analyze them relative to your proposed methods. Patents are granted for specific "methods" or ways of implementing stuff, and to infringe, you have to copy the methods described in the claims of the patent and be using them in the same basic combinations. The patent process in the US is a lot like filing a lawsuit. The patent application contains a series of "claims" for the invention, just as a petition for relief in a lawsuit contains "claims" of issues of fact. The patent lawyers have this fancy software (that costs a lot of $$$) that can cross reference your invention with thousands of patents quickly, and look for similiar "methods". The three you identified was very light -- there's probably going to be a larger number identified by these guys since patent attorneys have access to patents pending and provisional patent applications, which are not available to the general public. There's no telling how many provisional patents might be around with something like this. I would be unconcerned. 95% of getting around patents is just having patent lawyers to handle the politics at the USPTO. Most of the patent process in the US is very much a political process as much as a legal one. Think of a patent lawyer as someone in Congress lobbying for your interests, and you will have kind of the right picture of the "patent racket" in the US. Most patent infringment lawsuits end up in mediation with the USPTO with one side or the other having specific patent claims revoked because one side or the other gets their patent lawyers sending letters to the USPTO challenging prior art claims. Novell in their lawsuit with Roger Billings over the Network Operating System patents in 1993 convinced the patent office to invalidate his patents by shear force in numbers of legions of patent lawyers and a mountain of research and prior art claims -- they could not have gotten out of the infringement suit otherwise :-) Jeff -- Daniel - - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
