Another Linux patent.....
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>Another Linux patent.....
And that pretty much says it. Assigned to the Canopy Group. So SCO
will have yet another lawsuit to threaten us with. If they survive
the thrashing I've Been Moved will give them at the end of the day.
Too bad that you can figure out how to file a patent, but can't figure
out how to setup an html link. Why the hell would I want to look at
the link in kwrite?
Seems like a good question to me.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.34% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>>Another Linux patent.....
>>
>>
>
>And that pretty much says it. Assigned to the Canopy Group. So SCO
>will have yet another lawsuit to threaten us with. If they survive
>the thrashing I've Been Moved will give them at the end of the day.
>
>
The way to fight the patents is for Linux developers to file their own
and start
putting down stakes.
>Too bad that you can figure out how to file a patent, but can't figure
>out how to setup an html link. Why the hell would I want to look at
>the link in kwrite?
>
>
>
Talk to the USPTO, they created these links from their website. BTW, if
you check
the verson of web server run on the uspto.gov server, you will discover
it is
Apache on IBM servers and IBM Linux. Ask them why IBM's sofware outputs
links this way.
Jeff
>Seems like a good question to me.
>
>
>
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 23:28, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>>On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>>>Another Linux patent.....
>>
>>And that pretty much says it. Assigned to the Canopy Group. So
>> SCO will have yet another lawsuit to threaten us with. If they
>> survive the thrashing I've Been Moved will give them at the end of
>> the day.
>
>The way to fight the patents is for Linux developers to file their
> own and start
>putting down stakes.
Play your game your way or get out of Dodge eh? I have opinions on
that, but they aren't printable on a public list.
But at least we ALL know now who you are STILL working for, don't we?
If you were such a gung-ho FOSS fan, it should have been offered to
the eff or fsf.
It brings up another sore point with me. I'm of the opinion that both
copyright, and patent, should be granted to the author/inventor on a
non-transferable basis. He could then sell rights to use it for a
set period of time, at the end of which it is still his. The
present, sell it to the highest bidder situation too often leaves
talented folks in the soup lines at the local mission because they
were screwed out of the benefits their invention or composition
should have brought them.
>> Why the hell would I want
>> to look at the link in kwrite?
>
>Talk to the USPTO, they created these links from their website. BTW,
> if you check
>the verson of web server run on the uspto.gov server, you will
> discover it is
>Apache on IBM servers and IBM Linux. Ask them why IBM's sofware
> outputs links this way.
Correction Jeff, you sent that link to the list, and IMNSHO, it was
your job to see to it the mimetype was properly set. It was not.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.34% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Gene Heskett <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Why the hell would I want to look at the link in kwrite?
>>
>>Talk to the USPTO, they created these links from their website. BTW,
>>if you check the verson of web server run on the uspto.gov server,
>>you will discover it is Apache on IBM servers and IBM Linux. Ask
>>them why IBM's sofware outputs links this way.
>
> Correction Jeff, you sent that link to the list, and IMNSHO, it was
> your job to see to it the mimetype was properly set. It was not.
What are you talking about? Web links don't have mime types. The
HTTP headers from that page say content-type is text/html, so where's
the problem?
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 21:28 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> >On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >>Another Linux patent.....
... and another - AFAICS obvious - trivial ("prior art") patent (but I'm
not fluent in patent quak, I'm just a simple systems engineer).
And one more reason to sent the European software patent directive
simply to hell, clarify in ?52.2 to not patentability of "software"
discarding the word play of the patent attorneys and offices and get
into the head of the folks of the EPO (with whatever means are
necessary).
> >And that pretty much says it. Assigned to the Canopy Group. So SCO
> >will have yet another lawsuit to threaten us with. If they survive
Apparently Canopy Group/SCO/... are not of the front of innovation since
"what is new on a RAID system in any way in 2005"?
> >the thrashing I've Been Moved will give them at the end of the day.
> >
> The way to fight the patents is for Linux developers to file their own
> and start putting down stakes.
Or simply drop the whole patent system as such. Apparently it is only
abused to make money of the inventions of others and for sure does not
help innovation as such in any way (it may help the lawyers, offices and
companies in that area - patent utilisation - to get rich but that area
has nothing to do with innovation).
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 01:21 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
> It brings up another sore point with me. I'm of the opinion that both
> copyright, and patent, should be granted to the author/inventor on a
> non-transferable basis. He could then sell rights to use it for a
ACK. This would kill the abuse and do what lots people are claiming -
help the actual innovator (and not only help the patent abuse
machinery).
BTW in Austria and Germany (and probably the rest of continental Europe)
the local version of the copyright (in german "Urheberrecht") has this
feature since ages.
So just move onto here and voila, you there in at least this point.
> set period of time, at the end of which it is still his. The
> present, sell it to the highest bidder situation too often leaves
> talented folks in the soup lines at the local mission because they
> were screwed out of the benefits their invention or composition
> should have brought them.
[...]
> >Talk to the USPTO, they created these links from their website. BTW,
Does USPTO sent the mail? No.
> > if you check
> >the verson of web server run on the uspto.gov server, you will
> > discover it is
> >Apache on IBM servers and IBM Linux. Ask them why IBM's sofware
> > outputs links this way.
And who sent it that broken way?
> Correction Jeff, you sent that link to the list, and IMNSHO, it was
> your job to see to it the mimetype was properly set. It was not.
ACK. PEBKAC without doubt.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:31:36AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 01:21 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> [...]
> > It brings up another sore point with me. I'm of the opinion that both
> > copyright, and patent, should be granted to the author/inventor on a
> > non-transferable basis. He could then sell rights to use it for a
>
> ACK. This would kill the abuse and do what lots people are claiming -
> help the actual innovator (and not only help the patent abuse
> machinery).
> BTW in Austria and Germany (and probably the rest of continental Europe)
> the local version of the copyright (in german "Urheberrecht") has this
> feature since ages.
> So just move onto here and voila, you there in at least this point.
>...
At least in Germany, it's not the way you describe it:
With a few minor limitations, you can transfer exclusive rights on the
thing you have the copyright on to someone else.
The basics of German and US copyright law are different, but the
practical consequences aren't.
> Bernd
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Why the hell would I want
>>>to look at the link in kwrite?
>>>
>>>
>>Talk to the USPTO, they created these links from their website. BTW,
>>if you check
>>the verson of web server run on the uspto.gov server, you will
>>discover it is
>>Apache on IBM servers and IBM Linux. Ask them why IBM's sofware
>>outputs links this way.
>>
>>
>
>Correction Jeff, you sent that link to the list, and IMNSHO, it was
>your job to see to it the mimetype was properly set. It was not.
>
>
>
I used mozilla mail in Fedra Core 2 to send it -- ON LINUX.
Jeff
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 21:28 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>>Gene Heskett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Another Linux patent.....
>>>>
>>>>
>
>... and another - AFAICS obvious - trivial ("prior art") patent (but I'm
>not fluent in patent quak, I'm just a simple systems engineer).
>
>And one more reason to sent the European software patent directive
>simply to hell, clarify in ?52.2 to not patentability of "software"
>discarding the word play of the patent attorneys and offices and get
>into the head of the folks of the EPO (with whatever means are
>necessary).
>
>
>
>>>And that pretty much says it. Assigned to the Canopy Group. So SCO
>>>will have yet another lawsuit to threaten us with. If they survive
>>>
>>>
>
>Apparently Canopy Group/SCO/... are not of the front of innovation since
>"what is new on a RAID system in any way in 2005"?
>
>
>
>>>the thrashing I've Been Moved will give them at the end of the day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The way to fight the patents is for Linux developers to file their own
>>and start putting down stakes.
>>
>>
>
>Or simply drop the whole patent system as such. Apparently it is only
>abused to make money of the inventions of others and for sure does not
>help innovation as such in any way (it may help the lawyers, offices and
>companies in that area - patent utilisation - to get rich but that area
>has nothing to do with innovation).
>
> Bernd
>
>
Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
Constitution, and patents
are not going away. Live with guys. The best way to win the patent
wars is for people
who do Linux development to file their own patents and put some stakes
in the ground.
You guys keep saying, "stop the patents" but this is insanity. It's
like all these big companies
used patents like swords and are hemming linux in, and Linux stands
naked and defenseless.
You guys need to get your own swords and fight -- start filing patents
-- go to this new law
center "Southern Poverty Law Center" they setup I read about and get
these folks to start
filing patents on Linux code (before you disclose it that is) and
protect yourselves. Then
you have ammo to negotiate cross patent agreements with MS and these
other companies
to create a balance of power.
Jeff
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 21:28 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Gene Heskett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Another Linux patent.....
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> ... and another - AFAICS obvious - trivial ("prior art") patent (but I'm
>> not fluent in patent quak, I'm just a simple systems engineer).
>>
>> And one more reason to sent the European software patent directive
>> simply to hell, clarify in ?52.2 to not patentability of "software"
>> discarding the word play of the patent attorneys and offices and get
>> into the head of the folks of the EPO (with whatever means are
>> necessary).
>>
>>
>>
>>>> And that pretty much says it. Assigned to the Canopy Group. So SCO
>>>> will have yet another lawsuit to threaten us with. If they survive
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently Canopy Group/SCO/... are not of the front of innovation since
>> "what is new on a RAID system in any way in 2005"?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> the thrashing I've Been Moved will give them at the end of the day.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The way to fight the patents is for Linux developers to file their
>>> own and start putting down stakes.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Or simply drop the whole patent system as such. Apparently it is only
>> abused to make money of the inventions of others and for sure does not
>> help innovation as such in any way (it may help the lawyers, offices and
>> companies in that area - patent utilisation - to get rich but that area
>> has nothing to do with innovation).
>>
>> Bernd
>>
>>
> Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
> Constitution, and patents
> are not going away. Live with guys. The best way to win the patent
NO.
> wars is for people
> who do Linux development to file their own patents and put some stakes
> in the ground.
>
> You guys keep saying, "stop the patents" but this is insanity. It's
> like all these big companies
> used patents like swords and are hemming linux in, and Linux stands
> naked and defenseless.
> You guys need to get your own swords and fight -- start filing patents
> -- go to this new law
> center "Southern Poverty Law Center" they setup I read about and get
> these folks to start
> filing patents on Linux code (before you disclose it that is) and
> protect yourselves. Then
> you have ammo to negotiate cross patent agreements with MS and these
> other companies to create a balance of power.
Morris Dees helps Linux? That's good news. I like the SPLC.
But I would consider checking with the (new) Software Freedom
Law Center too: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
--
~Randy
>> You guys keep saying, "stop the patents" but this is insanity. It's
>> like all these big companies
>> used patents like swords and are hemming linux in, and Linux stands
>> naked and defenseless.
>> You guys need to get your own swords and fight -- start filing
>> patents -- go to this new law
>> center "Southern Poverty Law Center" they setup I read about and get
>> these folks to start
>> filing patents on Linux code (before you disclose it that is) and
>> protect yourselves. Then
>> you have ammo to negotiate cross patent agreements with MS and these
>> other companies to create a balance of power.
>
>
> Morris Dees helps Linux? That's good news. I like the SPLC.
>
> But I would consider checking with the (new) Software Freedom
> Law Center too: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
>
That's what I meant anyway. :-)
Jeff
> Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
> Constitution, and patents
> are not going away. Live with guys. The best way to win the patent
> wars is for people
> who do Linux development to file their own patents and put some stakes
> in the ground.
I have to agree with you. We need to apply for our own patients. The
problem is it cost to lay down patents. Who is going to pay?
As for the US Patent laws based on the constitution. That is no longer
the case. The Patent laws where changed when NAFTA and GATT went into
effect. Now the patent laws are changing again to meet WTO standards. The
whole planet is moving over to one universal set of patent laws. Those are
the laws to watch for. In fact India last month changed there own patent
laws to match WTO requirements. The WTO is not going away and they have
billons of dollars and world goverments behind them.
James Simmons wrote:
>>Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
>>Constitution, and patents
>>are not going away. Live with guys. The best way to win the patent
>>wars is for people
>>who do Linux development to file their own patents and put some stakes
>>in the ground.
>>
>>
>
> I have to agree with you. We need to apply for our own patients. The
>problem is it cost to lay down patents. Who is going to pay?
> As for the US Patent laws based on the constitution. That is no longer
>the case. The Patent laws where changed when NAFTA and GATT went into
>effect. Now the patent laws are changing again to meet WTO standards. The
>whole planet is moving over to one universal set of patent laws. Those are
>the laws to watch for. In fact India last month changed there own patent
>laws to match WTO requirements. The WTO is not going away and they have
>billons of dollars and world goverments behind them.
>
>
Linus and friends need to find some legal resources to pay for the
patent execution.
This software freedom law center should foot the bill.
Jeff
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 08:48 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
> Constitution, and patents
> are not going away.
Merkey aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Unless you do some funky
concatenation of articles and sections you can't find a section 113 (and
probably not even then) in the Constitution.
It is Article 1 Section 8. It also says they shall have that power and
that the intent is to promote the advances of arts and sciences. It
doesn't say that patents are the methods to be used. It doesn't say 17
years (or the whole 70/life+75 crap for copyrights). I think many very
intelligent people have and will show that allowing patents on ideas
(software patents are only this) tend to destroy such advances.
Yeah, yeah, from time to time there is someone who seems to show that
they help... however, 90% of those seem to be backed by MS or SCO.
Interesting considering many people, including Bill Gates, said quite
differently in the past.
Trever
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Trever L. Adams wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 08:48 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>>Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
>>Constitution, and patents
>>are not going away.
>>
>>
>
>Merkey aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Unless you do some funky
>concatenation of articles and sections you can't find a section 113 (and
>probably not even then) in the Constitution.
>
>It is Article 1 Section 8. It also says they shall have that power and
>that the intent is to promote the advances of arts and sciences. It
>doesn't say that patents are the methods to be used. It doesn't say 17
>years (or the whole 70/life+75 crap for copyrights). I think many very
>intelligent people have and will show that allowing patents on ideas
>(software patents are only this) tend to destroy such advances.
>
>Yeah, yeah, from time to time there is someone who seems to show that
>they help... however, 90% of those seem to be backed by MS or SCO.
>Interesting considering many people, including Bill Gates, said quite
>differently in the past.
>
>Trever
>
>
I was informed earlier in this thread the uspto restructured the
regulations and section 113 was
out of their procedures regulations.
Jeff
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 13:11 -0700, Trever L. Adams wrote:
[...]
> It is Article 1 Section 8. It also says they shall have that power and
> that the intent is to promote the advances of arts and sciences. It
Actually the current (ab)use of the patent system (both in the USA and
by the EPO under pressure of you-know-who) does neither of these things
- it simply promotes the *commercial exploitation* of sciences and art.
Interesting enough that arts are mentioned in this thread - one more
point that it is a question of time until all (other) kinds of arts is
covered by patents (probably because you can do it on a computer).
> doesn't say that patents are the methods to be used. It doesn't say 17
> years (or the whole 70/life+75 crap for copyrights). I think many very
The 17/20 years for patents are also defined in TRIPS - so changing
these to some saner value (given the speed of development in the IT
world) is not an option (as pointed out by all patent-promoters at all
opportunities).
> intelligent people have and will show that allowing patents on ideas
> (software patents are only this) tend to destroy such advances.
ACK. And it is even worse: Currently the whole patent system is abused
and there is no regulation in sight (since neither the patent offices
nor large corporations have anything to loose with
illegal/trivial/priort art/... patents).
> Yeah, yeah, from time to time there is someone who seems to show that
> they help... however, 90% of those seem to be backed by MS or SCO.
They help if you can pay your lawyer. This leaves corporations in the
game and the rest (small and medium companies, private folks) is lost -
sooner or later.
And BTW the bigger problem than software corporations (which can be sued
since they are violating lots of these software patents) are the patent
utilization companies which simply posses patents and (must) make money
of it. And this implies going to the court (or you pay beforehand -
since you/your company probably have no chance anyway to pay all the
costs - to avoid this).
Until this abuse is stopped, the patent system as a whole has a serious
problem.
> Interesting considering many people, including Bill Gates, said quite
> differently in the past.
IIRC he's now promising lawsuits (under certain conditions) with patents
- at least to Asian governments.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 01:21:08AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> It brings up another sore point with me. I'm of the opinion that both
> copyright, and patent, should be granted to the author/inventor on a
> non-transferable basis. He could then sell rights to use it for a
> set period of time, at the end of which it is still his. The
You can already license patents, it's done all the time. There's no need for
the government to restrict the rights of patents holders to sell all their
rights, if they choose to.
--
Tom Vier <[email protected]>
DSA Key ID 0x15741ECE