🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Nov2.174226.26107@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM writes:

>In article <Bx0JrG.JsE@iat.holonet.net> phoffman@orac.holonet.net (Paul E. Hoffman) writes:
>>oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
>>>The original poster asks for help on several forms 
>>>of protection for his software, and I observe that he did not mention
>>>patent protection.  Then I ask if that was a conscious choice.
>>>I agree that the vast majority of commercial software is not patented.
>>>But I think many items of commercial software represent things that
>>>could have been patented if the author/inventor had applied for a 
>>>patent.
>>I find that statement intriguing. Examples, please (if you can do so without
>>violating confidentiality). Are you saying that they could be patented under
>>the spirit of the patent law or simply due to the incompetance of the
>>patent office?

>  IBM recently received a patent on "the various functions and procedures
>  needed to support a preprocessor-based application program interface from 
>  an embedded SQL program to a database engine".  I.e., IBM managed (God only
>  knows how) to patent the concept and details of using a call-level
>  interface to call a database engine.  The whole idea is so ludicrous and
>  yet, there it is, IBM holds the patent.  By my reckoning, this means that
>  most of the database companies in the industry may need to seek license
>  arrangements in order to continue to provide preprocessors and APIs for
>  their database engines.  

Time to put on the flame-suit, I suppose.  Haven't worn it in a while.
Here goes ...

When one is citing a patent (and particularly when one is citing 
a patent that the citer thinks should never have been issued as a patent)
it would be helpful, most helpful, if one would give the patent number
and if one would quote a claim that is thought to exemplify the perceived
problem.

Here, we have someone posting only the title or a few words from the abstract.
That poses several problems.  First, the reader is quite unable to go and
look at the patent himself or herself to reach the reader's own view as
to whether or not they think the patent should never have been issued.
Second, by quoting only the title there is the danger the patent is being
misconstrued by the poster or others.

In general the impression one gets reading the title does not match
the actual scope of the patent as defined by its claims.  This makes it 
all too easy for one to get riled up about a patent when it is not 
justified.

When a patent owner sues someone for infringement, it is irrelevant
whether the accused infringer does what is recited in the title.  What
matters is whether or not the accused infringer does what is in the claims.

For all we know, the patent cited above is one that has claims the
poster would not object to.  Perhaps the claims cover only one 
particular way to do what is in the title.  In that case, the poster has
overreacted.


>  You may call this incompetence of the patent office.  

Maybe not.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519