Question about software patents

Post #19,456 by marlowe 11/26/01 6:03:23 PM Reply	Question about software patents Suppose there is a patent P. covering the use of software concepts C1, C2 and C3 in conjunction to perform function F. Now suppose I write from scratch implementations of C1, C2 and C3, and release them under an open source license. I code them in such a way that anyone could easily combine them to perform function F with half a dozen lines of code to glue them together. But I don't provide the half a dozen lines of code. Have I gotten past the patent? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #19,459 by Another Scott 11/26/01 6:15:09 PM Reply	Dunno. Is it anything like Adobe's claim that Macromedia is violating its patent on tabbed palette patent? [link\|http://www.adobe.com/adobefacts/faq.html\|Here's] Adobe's FAQ on it. Q8: Tabbed palettes are fairly common throughout software applications and operating systems -- what makes Adobe's palettes special and patentable? A: Like Velcro\ufffd and Post-It\ufffd notes, the very best inventions become so familiar that they are taken for granted. The fact that tabbed palettes seem so natural and common now is a testimony to the Adobe development effort that went into the invention. Adobe's patent describes a unique method that allows tabs within palettes to be customized, separated and reorganized by users. This invention was a significant leap forward for customers' productivity and personalization of the interface. It seems similar to what you describe. You create a generic, extendable tabbed palette widget which can be extended to "obvious" uses in graphics apps... I'd think it would depend on how well the patent was written and how many claims the PTO allowed in awarding the patent. Adobe seems to think they have a strong case. I can't evaluate the merits... Does that help? Cheers, Scott.
Post #19,498 by wharris2 11/27/01 9:00:47 AM Reply	Disagreement (alas, not supported) Adobe seems to think they have a strong case. I can't evaluate the merits... I can. It's invalid, as are all software and "business method" patents. Unfortunately the patent office and the courts don't seem to share my view. :=( I don't think patent reform is a high priority on any politician's list - or if it is, the money poured into his political opponents makes it a moot point. I suppose a politician could run a stealth campaign and make patents a priority after safely elected. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #19,476 by JayMehaffey 11/26/01 9:46:57 PM Reply	Depends Do you have more money for lawyers then they do? Then you can beat their patent. American patent law has long since passed the point where logic or sanity have much bearing. Number of lawyers is the key factor in determining the validity of any patent. Jay
Post #19,523 by tuberculosis 11/27/01 12:43:39 PM Reply	Maybe Depends on whether C1, C2 and C3 are among the claims in the patent. If only the combination of the 3 Cs is novel, then probably. The problem with current patent law (which I've discussed at length with my neighbor who writes patents for a living) is that the US Patent office has taken the stand that you can file (and they'll grant) a patent on anything and its up to the courts to invalidate frivolous patents. Natch, what this does is hand all the cookies to the companies with the most money for lawyers to defend their do-nothing patents. Economic might makes right kind of thing. It sucks, patents are licenses for the wealthy to steal IP from the little guy.
Post #19,559 by cforde 11/27/01 7:08:03 PM Reply	a friend of mine works for a software patent attorny and he says: I am far from being a patent attorney, but the way I understand it, if software concepts C1, C2, and C3 are covered by the patent, then no, you haven't gotten past the patent. If C1 is a bubble sort, C2 is a hash table, and C3 is a binary tree (in other words, prior art), then you have got past the patent. Have fun, Carl Forde
Post #19,571 by wharris2 11/27/01 10:22:52 PM Reply	He's a friend? "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #19,595 by cforde 11/28/01 1:44:13 AM Reply	heh We have at least one friend here who works for Microsoft. Your point was? ;-) Have fun, Carl Forde

Welcome to IWETHEY!