Re: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection patent]

[Kent Q. <ken...@co...>]

IANAL, but as I recall, the phrase is "obvious to a skilled practioner".
It seems clear that the USPTO strategy in recent years has been to
ignore that phrase and let the courts sort it out later.

Understand, however, that most of these cases never reach court. What
tends to happen is this:

* GreatSatan Corp. goes to the USPTO and gets a patent on the bubble
sort. 
* They include it in the list of several thousand patents they hold, and
sign a cross-licensing agreement with IBM, Microsoft, and several other
large companies.
* They find several small companies with less money than brains and
notify them they're infringing on the patent, but that they'll license
them the right to continue to use the technology for a smallish fee (a
couple of thousand dollars). Realizing that it will cost them that much
for the first phone call with a decent patent attorney, they sign the
license.
* They find a couple of medium-sized companies and extort them for large
license fees. They point out that all sorts of companies both big and
small have licensed this patent rather than fight it. If anyone puts up
a fight and starts talking about going to court with "prior art" or
"obvious" claims, they drop the fees and give away the license. 

Played properly by a big company with idle attorneys, even the most
obvious patent never goes to court, unless they have the bad luck to
find someone who is both principled and rich (rare in itself), and who
also cares enough to fight to the bitter end.

What does this mean to the free software developer? If someone thinks
the patent is being infringed, and that your work is impacting their
patent rights (if you give it away how can they sell it?), they can get
an injunction to keep you from distributing the work, and they can sue
you for damages.

On the other hand, if the patented technology is only a small portion of
what you're doing, and you're really doing it for free, you might find
some patent holders would be willing to license it for free or very
cheap.

	Kent

Jani Peltonen wrote:
> 
> As far as I remember, one of the requirements for a new patent is that the
> patented idea be non-obvious. Lot of the software patents I have seen are
> clearly obvious to someone who works in the field but how would you prove
> that in a court.
> 
> > ----------
> > From:         Akbar A.[SMTP:sye...@ea...]
> > Reply To:     gda...@li...
> > Sent:         Thursday, August 17, 2000 2:28 AM
> > To:   gda...@li...
> > Subject:      RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision
> > detection patent]
> >
> > what about non-profit software or "free" software?
> > can the company's that hold patents effect us as well?
> > for ex.
> > if i release a chunk of software that uses a "patented" routine.
> > could that company in theory target _ME_ in court?
> > how does patent infringement court cases even work in the software field.
> > Big Corporate Company versus small independent developer?
> > are these even heard of?
> > what about countersealing by saying that the patent is "logical" or was
> > going to come anyways?
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Quirk                   | CogniToy: Intelligent toys...
Game Architect               |           for intelligent minds.
ken...@co...      | http://www.cognitoy.com/     
_____________________________|_________________________________________