🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May18.154225.2699@unlinfo.unl.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes:
>In <1991May18.102918.8003@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>
>>In article <1991May18.091829.14936@umbc3.umbc.edu> ac999321@umbc5.umbc.edu (ac999321) writes:
>
>>>Too bad that there is no law that requires judges and lawyers to have 
>>>appropriate technical knowlege ...
>>>that pertains to any cases of a technical nature, that they 
>>>might be required to get involved with, before they are allowed to get
>>>involved with it;

>>  There is probably much truth in this. However, it's also too bad that
>>there is no law that requires engineers and other techies to have some
>>appropriate legal training before they ...

>As both a graduate JD and a "techie," there's much to be said on both
>sides.  What has been completely missing from this discussion is what may
>be patented and why.  The Constitution allows Congress to authorize
>patents for "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
>exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."  U.S.
>Const. Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8.

First, the constitution authorizes, it does not require that Congress
pass such laws.  Second, the words patent and copyright never appear
in the Constitution.  Third, the complete clause is:

  To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
  for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
  their respective writings and discoveries;

Thus, if progress is not promoted, then the patent is invalid.  How does
this particular patent advance progress?  I am not saying that progress
is not being promoted, I am merely asking how it is promoted.

>Hayes does not appear to have tried to preclude anyone from using the
>technology;

Irrelevant to the discussion of whether a particular patent is valid or not.

>I'd still like to see informed technical discussion, such as one might
>expect to have been made before the patent examiner when the patent was
>first issued.  Then maybe we'd have something to discuss besides our
>opinions.

One can be fairly certain that the patent examiner has no c.s. background.
Another patent that may be of interest to this group is one held by IBM.
I forget the exact number.  Essentially, IBM was granted a patent on mail
merge software in the middle to late nineteen eighties.  If you read
the patent, sendmail falls underneath the patent because it includes the
time of day in the message.

David