🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Riddle writes:

   Chris Petrilli writes:

   >The problem is that the people who settled seem to be admitting
   >guilt, which, IMHO, is not true.  The patent covers software,
   >which I do not believe is patentable, hence my hatered for this
   >and all softare lawsuits.

   Well, I can understand your policy argument, but the Patent and
   Trademark Office has in fact been issuing software patents for at
   least a few years now.  Whether you or I agree with the policy,
   Hayes has a duty to its owners to preserve its legal rights.

It is this policy however that is based on legally shakey ground.  The
entire policy of the PTO is based on _Diamond v. Deihr_, which did not
specifically permit software patents, but on the other hand did not
invalidate a patent becuase a small part of it included softare.  The
exact decision was that 'the use of a program in the process is not
enough to render the patent nullified.'  This does not say software is
patentable, but that software, by itself does not cause a patent to be
invalidated. (See CACM, August 1990).

   Your argument is best addressed at the PTO or Congress.  Given
   that, note that the PTO this very month issued a request for public
   comments on this area.

I have sent various letters to both the PTO and Congress (my reps),
but have not received a response of any sort (what representation of
the public!).  I will continue to persist, but I do not believe that
the Congress or PTO are qualified to make a decision on software.
Polls have shown that roughly 90% of all programs do not belive
patents are in the best interest of the industry, it is the accounting
department that wants the patent.

   I would recommend that /anyone/ with thoughts on this subject
   respond to the PTO.  This is a much more productive method than (as
   some have done) blaming Hayes for pursing its legal options.

Agreed.

Chris
--
| Chris Petrilli
| petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu
| I don't even speak for myself.