Searching \ for '[EE]: Microsoft granted patent on button click tim' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=microsoft+granted
Search entire site for: 'Microsoft granted patent on button click tim'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]: Microsoft granted patent on button click tim'
2004\06\04@013431 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Microsoft granted patent on button click timing.


http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/NL/A05F9C5244A45A33CC256EA800334950

I must have missed the US patent office decision to exclude prior art from
consideration in granting US patents

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@021259 by onio (Nino) Benci

flavicon
picon face
Just my 2 cents worth...

This hit the news list on the Australian Palm Users Group WWW Site
yesterday and the issue of Prior art was high on the agenda.
How the heck could it even pass assessment, was the patent examiner
just bone lazy or simply blind and stupid.

Russell McMahon wrote:

>Microsoft granted patent on button click timing.
>
>
>http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/NL/A05F9C5244A45A33CC256EA800334950
>
>I must have missed the US patent office decision to exclude prior art from
>consideration in granting US patents
>
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------
| Antonio (Nino) L. Benci                            |
------------------------------------------------------

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@021508 by Charles Craft

picon face
This is troubling as well. Any PIC application that accesses a CF card needs to license the FAT from Microsoft?


"Late last year, Microsoft began demanding royalty payments for the use of its FAT (file allocation table) system, for which it was granted a patent in 1996. A group called the Public Patent Foundation in April called for that patent to be revoked, claiming that this amounted to an abuse of monopoly power by Microsoft."




{Original Message removed}

2004\06\04@022545 by onio (Nino) Benci

flavicon
picon face
Further to this silliness and as an example.

[RANT ON]

The now defunct Royal (Olivetti) DaVinci PDA had a time based button
operation for activating the display backlight and/or turning the device
off. A short press would turn the device off and a longer press would
activate the LCD backlight. Nokia phones, from my memory the 5110 and
3215, have a main function button that both turns off the phone and or
selects various profile options, dependent upon the length of time that
the button is held.

Now, if that can't be considered as prior art then i'll just throw my
arms in the air and give up. As an example, many, many moons ago, I
wrote a small control system, running on a 68HC11, for a commercial
client which implemented a menu system using only two buttons. The main
button selected menu items or process functions simply by taking into
consideration the time that the button was held down for. A short
period, <2 secs selected the function, >2 secs selected menu items. The
second button toggled process options.

This method is used on many process controllers to select functions and
menu options, one such process controller that comes to mind which uses
this mode of user interface is the Eurotherm 2414 (2404) controller.

The US patent office should immediately review this silly descision and
null the patent.

[RANT OFF]

Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
------------------------------------------------------
| Antonio (Nino) L. Benci                            |
------------------------------------------------------

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@031223 by techy fellow
picon face
Er.... Did the patent mentioned anything about how many seconds the button must not be pressed to activate certain functions before constituting a violation of the patent ???

And how about, devices that allow users to self-configure delays (in terms of seconds) to activate/ deactivate certain functions. Again, does it mean if users were to set the delays that coincide with those mentioned in the patent, the users are in violation ???

Hum.... This is really intriguing to say the least.


"Antonio (Nino) Benci" <EraseMEnino.bencispam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTSPME.MONASH.EDU.AU> wrote:
Further to this silliness and as an example.

[RANT ON]

The now defunct Royal (Olivetti) DaVinci PDA had a time based button
operation for activating the display backlight and/or turning the device
off. A short press would turn the device off and a longer press would
activate the LCD backlight. Nokia phones, from my memory the 5110 and
3215, have a main function button that both turns off the phone and or
selects various profile options, dependent upon the length of time that
the button is held.

Now, if that can't be considered as prior art then i'll just throw my
arms in the air and give up. As an example, many, many moons ago, I
wrote a small control system, running on a 68HC11, for a commercial
client which implemented a menu system using only two buttons. The main
button selected menu items or process functions simply by taking into
consideration the time that the button was held down for. A short
period, <2 secs selected the function, >2 secs selected menu items. The
second button toggled process options.

This method is used on many process controllers to select functions and
menu options, one such process controller that comes to mind which uses
this mode of user interface is the Eurotherm 2414 (2404) controller.

The US patent office should immediately review this silly descision and
null the patent.

[RANT OFF]

Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
------------------------------------------------------
| Antonio (Nino) L. Benci |
------------------------------------------------------

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@041146 by Morgan Olsson

flavicon
face
Absurd.

FWIW, i have been told by patent lawyers that 7 of 10 US patents fal when you fight them.  And there are lot of ridiculois US patents.  I guess US patent office is set for to earn money on number of patents, not quality.

Plenty of devices and programs have been and are using timed keys.
Mobile phones (ex my Nokia 3110), radios, timers, MiniPLC etc (slow/fast +/- edit), piano keys...

I have made and sold systems that use a one key keyboard:
short (<0,5s) = advance/+
longer (0,5..3s) = back/-
hold (3s) = Enter menu/store value/activate

Here, now that sohuld now be official too, but i guess MS will be granted the patent... :/

/Morgan
--
Morgan Olsson, Kivik, Sweden

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@042224 by Morgan Olsson

flavicon
face
Charles Craft 08:14 2004-06-04:
>This is troubling as well. Any PIC application that accesses a CF card needs to license the FAT from Microsoft?

I guess they will not bother with small companies.  But cameras that use FAT (all seem to) in order to easily connect to MSwindows will be more expensive...

IIRC FAT is not very suitable for flash anyway; there is FFS (Flash File System) developed for that cause (cause less wear; evenly distribyted flash rewrite), and now there is both monetary and technical reasons to use it.

I guess MS wil not make Windows handle alterantively (often better) filesystems because they want to lock people to use technology they make money on, even when that is holding development back...

I think another good alterantive is ext2.
Or for compact storage ReiserFS.

/Morgan
--
Morgan Olsson, Kivik, Sweden

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@063950 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> >This is troubling as well. Any PIC application that accesses a CF card
needs to license the FAT from Microsoft?

We've already had this conversation back in december 2003 :-) under "MS to
charge for the use of FAT file system"

It onlyu reates to extension of the basic 8+3 FAT to use of long file names.
As I inderstand it, using short file names is not covered..


       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
TakeThisOuTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@070517 by Peter van Hoof

picon face
> FWIW, i have been told by patent lawyers that 7 of 10 US patents fal when
you fight them.  And there are lot of ridiculois US patents.  I guess US
patent office is set for to earn money on number of patents, not quality.

Fact is, Microsoft has been granted this patent. Now there is the rule of
the 500 pond gorilla, there are very few company's that are able to attack
this patent just because they just don't have the resources to attack a
company like Microsoft in court.

Software patents SUCK they fight progress.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@090845 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 02:14:28AM -0400, Charles Craft wrote:

> This is troubling as well. Any PIC application that accesses a CF card
> needs to license the FAT from Microsoft?

Not exactly. FAT itself isn't patented, but the file name munging required to
fit long filenames under the standard 8.3 filename format is. Here's a post
that clarifies that point:

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200312/msg00150.html

So PIC projects are most probably not going to be subject to it.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspam.....mitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@095835 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Charles Craft 08:14 2004-06-04:
> >This is troubling as well. Any PIC application that accesses a
> CF card needs to license the FAT from Microsoft?
>
> I guess they will not bother with small companies.  But cameras
> that use FAT (all seem to) in order to easily connect to
> MSwindows will be more expensive...

       Please check the archives for prior discussion on this. The crux is that
Microsoft does NOT have a patent on FAT, it has patents on various
extensions to the FAT file system, and most of those patents have so much
prior art that it's very unlikely they would hold up if challenged.

       Frankly this sort of stuff is just more and more evidence of how absolutely
flawed the patent system has become. TTYL

----------------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspammitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@101329 by Roy J. Gromlich

picon face
This is really sad - the prior art here is piled very deep - the examiner must not have looked very far to have let this one through.  I remember using a Tektronix digital scope or spectrum analyzer (not certain which) about 25 years ago, which used buttons to control everything.  You know the type of action - press a button momentarily and the selected item counts up or down by 1. Press and hold the button and the count starts increasing or decreasing automatically.  
The unusual trick on this particular design was that if, while holding the button (autoincrement running) you RELEASED it for a moment and then held it in again, the autoincrement rate would increase.  If you repeated the action (quick release / press) the autoincrement rate would increase again - you could repeat this many times getting really fast stepping rates. Release the button for a little longer (took some practce) and you were back to 1 step per press. This allowed you to go through a really extended value range very quickly.  I borrowed the idea for several of my own designs back then (around 1980) and we sold the products.

In any case the Microsoft use should never have been granted a patent.

Roy J. Gromlich
Renaissance Technologies

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@105748 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>
This is really sad - the prior art here is piled very deep - the examiner
must not have looked very far to have let this one through.
...
In any case the Microsoft use should never have been granted a patent.
/>


I posted the original article, and i agree in principle with most of the
points that have been raised by various people.
However, it must be realised that patents cover innovation that can include
the combination of various previously known things that are combined in a
unique manner. In this case the "button" referred to is presumably a screen
depiction of a button and not a physical button - and that is a vast
difference in patent terms. I wonder how many of the prior art activities
relate to screen objects using a pointing device (aka mouse)?

I have a Pocket PC 2000 O/S Jornada PDA in which a quick stylus tap on an on
screen object will start the related application but in which a tap and hold
will, after a short delay, open a menu. This seems very close to what is
claimed BUT there is no button image per se, and no mouse involved. Also,
the patent talks about launching an application with different sub
attributes depending on how long the button click is held. This is not the
same as presenting a menu. It may be that Micro$oft'$ patent is essentially
novel within a very limited range of functionality. If so, they deserve
protection as much as any other innovator* IF it cannot be shown that what
they are doing is unoriginal. (* however much that may be ;-) )

       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@124731 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 17:27:38 +1200, Russell McMahon
wrote:

> Microsoft granted patent on button click timing.

I wonder what Xerox and Apple will have to say about
this?  Mice have *always* had different functions
depending on the timing/cadence of a clicks - Macs would
be unusable without this.

This wouldn't have got past the girl on reception at the
UK patent office - and I suspect in most of the rest of
the World too.  You cannot patent an idea (or software,
or genes, or business processes, or a number of other
things) in the UK, only an object.  I think this is true
of the rest of Europe, too.

I wonder why the US has gone so far from the original
principles of patents?

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspamspammitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@134832 by Mike Hord

picon face
This whole thread reminds me of a bit article from The
Onion from quite a while ago...

http://home.att.net/~jbcole/humor/Microsoft_patents.htm

Mike H.

{Quote hidden}

_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@142827 by Matthew Brush

flavicon
face
HAHAHA ... Imagine that, patenting 1 and 0 ... might as well patent A-Z as
well, and 0-9.

That was a good gag article, not so far from reality in many respects.

MJ Brush

{Original Message removed}

2004\06\04@154215 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Friday, Jun 4, 2004, at 07:56 US/Pacific, Russell McMahon wrote:

> This is really sad - the prior art here is piled very deep - the
> examiner must not have looked very far to have let this one through.
>
So has anyone looked at the actual patent yet?  While the patent system
is quite flawed, the press has a lousy track record of accurately
reporting just what a "frivolous" patent is supposed to cover.  The FAT
filesystem patent being another good example of this...

No one has mentioned watches yet.  Or all the creative uses Apple got
out of their one-button mouse...

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@165936 by Andrew Warren

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon <spamBeGonePICLISTSTOPspamspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu> wrote:

> the patent talks about launching an application with different sub
> attributes depending on how long the button click is held. This is
> not the same as presenting a menu. It may be that Micro$oft'$
> patent is essentially novel within a very limited range of
> functionality. If so, they deserve protection

   Exactly the point I was about to make.

   The software-patent debates -- and the numerous examples of "bad"
   software patents -- notwithstanding, the specific claims in this
   particular patent seem valid to me.  Using button-click timing to
   select between launching an application with no document selected
   or with the last-accessed document active (for instance) is, as
   far as I'm aware, innovative.

   -Andy

=== Andrew Warren -- KILLspamaiwspamBeGonespamcypress.com
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@173058 by Peter van Hoof

picon face
This would however fail a very important criterium of patents:
In order to be patented an invention must be novel, useful, and not of an
obvious nature.

Peter

> However, it must be realised that patents cover innovation that can
include
> the combination of various previously known things that are combined in a
> unique manner. In this case the "button" referred to is presumably a
screen
> depiction of a button and not a physical button - and that is a vast
> difference in patent terms. I wonder how many of the prior art activities
> relate to screen objects using a pointing device (aka mouse)?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-request@spam@spamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@183849 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Friday, Jun 4, 2004, at 14:30 US/Pacific, Peter van Hoof wrote:

> In order to be patented an invention must be novel, useful, and not of
> an obvious nature.
>
That "not of an obvious nature" part is REAL tough to judge, especially
with software and microelectronics where "incremental improvement" is
pretty much a way of life...

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\04@185545 by Dave Tweed

face
flavicon
face
Andrew Warren <.....aiwspam_OUTspamCYPRESS.COM> wrote:
> Russell McMahon <TakeThisOuTPICLIST.....spamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu> wrote:
> > the patent talks about launching an application with different sub
> > attributes depending on how long the button click is held. This is
> > not the same as presenting a menu. It may be that Micro$oft'$
> > patent is essentially novel within a very limited range of
> > functionality. If so, they deserve protection
>
> Exactly the point I was about to make.
>
> The software-patent debates -- and the numerous examples of "bad"
> software patents -- notwithstanding, the specific claims in this
> particular patent seem valid to me.  Using button-click timing to
> select between launching an application with no document selected
> or with the last-accessed document active (for instance) is, as
> far as I'm aware, innovative.

Only in the very specific case of "launching an application".

Within an application, this is very old news. I used to use a document
preparation system called Interleaf on Apollo workstations in the
mid-1980s. Its GUI had a rather innovative system of context-sensitive
pop-up menus activated by the right mouse button. These menus sometimes
had relatively complex hierarchies of submenus under them that you could
navigate through to get to the specific action you were after. After that,
if you just clicked briefly in the same context on the right button, you'd
get that same action again (with no pop-up menus), or if you held the right
button down for a second, the hierarchy would reappear as you had last left
it, allowing you to navigate from there to a different action. I actually
liked this system quite a bit, and have been disappointed that it never
caught on anywhere else.

I have a feeling it would be tough for Microsoft to argue that the shell
from which you "launch an application" is not itself an application, and
therefore this patent would be invalidated by the above prior art.

-- Dave Tweed

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
TakeThisOuTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspamspammitvma.mit.edu

2004\06\05@032342 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
The *nix X11 gui servers have had long keypress detection on any mouse
button implemented since the beginning. It is used too. There are several
applications that use this and the function can be scripted, and has been
scripted and applied in many applications. The one that immediately comes
to mind is Tcl/Tk where you have access to button events and timestamp.
For people who run *nix, or have tcl/tk installed, type 'man n bind' and
read at the reference to %t.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\05@032757 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
>I wonder why the US has gone so far from the original
>principles of patents?

Imho because people work less with their hands and more with their heads,
and they are trying to capitalize on it by extending an old idea. It does
not work so far.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\05@033211 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
> HAHAHA ... Imagine that, patenting 1 and 0 ... might as well patent A-Z
> as well, and 0-9.

But that would be megalomaniacal. I would like to be more modest: I'd just
patent *one* letter. Say, 'e'. Or, even better, the digit '0'. I'd also
give good reason. For example, 'e', because it is used in my name.  That
would be an aggregation of previous art, and something new, but unique to
me, no ? So they would grant me the patent I think ...

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\05@041438 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> HAHAHA ... Imagine that, patenting 1 and 0 ... might as well patent A-Z as
> well, and 0-9.


They can't - I can show prior art on both of those concepts.


       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\05@074829 by Walter Banks

picon face
I started out agreeing with you and at least for soft buttons I cannot
think of prior art. However I was driving last night and wanted to lock
in a different radio station and then I realized where I had seen the
concept before. Short push recall long lock new station in. Time to read
the actual words.

w..

Andrew Warren wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\05@083511 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I started out agreeing with you and at least for soft buttons I cannot
> think of prior art. However I was driving last night and wanted to lock
> in a different radio station and then I realized where I had seen the
> concept before. Short push recall long lock new station in.

Presumably use of mouse and virtual on screen "buttons" is different to
hardware ones.
Someone else though mentioned a steam driven app from way back that seemed
to match it closely.

> Time to read the actual words.

Indeed. Anyone offering to do so ? (Not I ... I only start the arguments
:-) )


       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\06@164930 by John N. Power

flavicon
face
> From:         Peter L. Peres[SMTP:RemoveMEplpspamspamBeGoneACTCOM.CO.IL]
> Sent:         Saturday, June 05, 2004 3:39 AM
> To:   spamBeGonePICLIST@spam@spamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: [EE]: Microsoft granted patent on button click timimg

>>I wonder why the US has gone so far from the original
>>principles of patents?

> Imho because people work less with their hands and more with their heads,
> and they are trying to capitalize on it by extending an old idea. It does
> not work so far.

> Peter

The patent system originated in England during the industrial revolution.
People were discovering that physical labor was no longer the sole basis
for exchange in the acquisition of goods produced by someone else. Ideas
came to have cash value; as a result, much useful information was being
kept secret so that the inventor could maintain an advantageous position
over his competitors. The government saw that this was hampering the
growth of technology, and therefore, the growth of society. It was desirable
that new ideas be publicized so that effort would not be wasted "reinventing
the wheel". Many new processes and products were not brought to market
because the inventor lacked a critical part or process which he could not
invent himself. As a result, his own invention failed for lack of knowledge
of the principles behind someone else's invention.

The government (the king) realized that no inventor would reveal the inner
processes of his work if doing so would compromise his economic well-being.
A system was setup to encourage innovators to "disclose" their work in such
a way that any skilled person could reproduce it. In return, the king issued a
"letter patent" (pronounced with a long "a") which extended protection to the
inventor. The word "patent" is one half of the word pair "patent/latent" which
means open/hidden (similar to "overt/covert"). Anyone who used such a
disclosed invention would have to pay a fee (a "royalty") to the royal treasury.
A fraction of the fee was retained by the government to pay the cost of
administration, and the remainder was remitted to the inventor. Use of the
invention without payment was prosecuted by the government at no cost to
the inventor. The benefits were the availability of the invention for use by others
and the spreading of knowledge so that other inventors could make new creative
discoveries inspired by, but different from, the disclosed invention. The essence
of the process was the disclosure of information; the economic protection was
the carrot which induced people to participate.

When colonists from England settled America, they were subject to the same
patent laws. Since most inventions had been made back home, and the
settlers were living a subsistence life involving little invention, the flow of
royalties went in one direction. Abuses of the system were made possible
by the remote location. The Americans had to sail back to England if they
wanted to appear in court, and the payments were made in trade goods
for which the exchange rate was constantly changing. This eventually became
one of the causes of the revolution, causing the new Republic to declare its
own power to issue patents; the Patent Office is the only civilian agency
mentioned in the Constitution

In keeping with the spirit of independence, the US patent system put the
burden on the inventor to protect his own property. Patent infringements
in the US are civil matters, for which the inventor must seek legal counsel.
I believe that the requirement that an invention be non-obvious is also an
American idea. The common notion that the patent system was meant to
reward an inventor for being smart is not supported by historical facts, even
though it may be seen as such today.

John Power

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\06@170213 by Tom

flavicon
face
Very interesting, John, very interesting indeed. Thanks for the quick summary!
Tom

>The patent system originated in England during the industrial revolution.
***snip***
>
>John Power

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\07@051341 by hilip Stortz

picon face
sorry, i just joined and missed the first part of this, do you have a
link for this?  by the way, the u.s. patent system is different than
most countries, though attempts are being made to harmonize the patent
systems.  one annoying difference, the u.s. is the only place where a
company rather than an individual can apply for and be granted a patent.
additionally, it's one of the few companies where the police do not
help with patent enforcement and it's entirely up to the patent owner to
fund patent enforcement and pursue all infringers.

imho, all patents should be issued in the name of real people, even if
owned by their employer (which is also widely abused, the local power
company wants to own completely any patent any employee ever comes up
with, even years after leaving that company, and no matter how unrelated
to their business, and even for humble meter readers!  needless to say i
didn't finish that application!)

also, sadly, the patent office, imho, is really, really blowing things
lately.  issuing patents for all kinds of things that should not be
patentable (because they are obvious or are in fact already well known
solutions).  they have had to revoke a number of patents in more
ridiculous cases.  of course the small company or individual rarely has
the legal resources to challenge what is obviously a bad patent,
particularly if large corporations are involved.  even worse, many
government and other researchers are applying and being granted patents
for simple things simply to demonstrate that they are producing work.

in the case of government researchers, working at government agencies i
frankly have a real problem with them receiving patents and charging
high fees for access to publicly funded research meant to benefit the
public in the first place.  for instance NIST has some rather
ridiculously high fees for access to some of their data, fees that
essentially block access by individuals and small companies unless they
are very sure said information will help them.  i do see it as somewhat
reasonable that private researchers at private companies can get patents
on work partially funded by government grants, though i would argue that
the licensing of these patents does perhaps need to be regulated, at
least as far as letting competitors license these patents for a
"reasonable" fee rather than one company having a monopoly on work that
was partially funded by tax dollars.  my tax dollars should be used to
help all, not to help particular companies establish monopolies.
otherwise said companies should provide all of the funding.

"John N. Power" wrote:
{Quote hidden}

---------

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\06\07@055358 by Ken Walker

flavicon
picon face
Schhhh, you have to be careful what you suggest.

1/ MS might not of thought of that one.
2/ There so stupid and money hungry, they might just try it.

Ken :o) or should it be :o(

{Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2004 , 2005 only
- Today
- New search...