🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5558@cs.utexas.edu>, jyen@cs.utexas.edu (John Yen) writes...
 
>> In article <78153@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> holland@m2.UUCP (Fred Hollander) writes:
>>I'm still waiting for word on
>>the lawsuit.  Connectix said they have a patent on the only method of
>>virtual memory for the Mac.  "As far as I know, there's only one way
>>to do virtual memory on the Mac, and I've filed a patent application
>>on it."  -- Jonathan Garber, president, Connectix (MacWeek, 1/31/89)
> 
>  Granted that reality doesn't always interface with the law very well, but the
>last time I studied all the techniques collectively called virtual memory, I
>didn't see just one solution.  Does anyone know exactly what Connectix
>is filing a patent application on?
           
Sorry about that last note: I tried to cancel my send and it sent it anyway.

I'm curious about this too.  I'm not patent lawyer, and I think much of the
activity regarding software patents is getting really odd, but this would seem
to me to be the oddest move of all: an outside party patenting a part of a
computer manufacturer's system software?  If some other company had filed a
patent application on a MultiFinder equivalent before Apple released MF
(operative word here is released), Apple couldn't release MF?  Ridiculous.

Anyway, wouldn't VM on the Mac have to make use of system software (like the
Memory Manager)?  It seems to me somewhat odd to file a patent which relies on
another person's software.  And wasn't there some talk on the net awhile ago
saying that if a VM scheme used the MMU from Motorola, it wasn't patentable.

To paraphrase a slogan I saw once on the net: Connectix, keep your lawyers off
our VM! :->

Anyway, just my $0.01 worth.

Robert
------
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
------
generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine
------
MOFO knows!