Update on Tux 2 Patent analysis.
Of the three patents identified by Daniel, one has been eliminated as
a potential for infringement and the other two have not. We have obtained
copies from the USPTO of the full patent files for the patents originally
identified (3). The detail on one of the
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 inf
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.
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
"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, th
> 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 trad
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 Jackar
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 crashe
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 p
> 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 contro
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
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
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]
> > Subje
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 di
ah, 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
>
>
>
&g
-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 corre
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 m
> 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 t
w.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
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.
.
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 a
]
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.
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-provisio
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
> > th
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 domai
"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
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 pa
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,
ently 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:
&
m: 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
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
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The patent attorneys at Malinkrodt received th
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 vi
"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
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
"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
f 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
>
> A
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 th
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
39 matches
Mail list logo
