[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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.



    > --
    > Daniel
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.022 / U:13.276 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site