🚀 go-pugleaf

After following the discussion on software patents, I've a few
comments to make.

First off, if you ever wind up in court about a patent, DO NOT claim
"it's obvious".  Most judges don't think of computer design as being
obvious.  Instead, claim "prior art".  That's a claim is provable.

Second, when claiming prior art, you don't have to limit yourself to
high-end computer systems.  If you can show examples in other fields
(say butterfly collecting, spray painting, brick laying, or whatever),
you can often show that a TECHNIQUE (and often an APPLICATION) was in
use before the patent application.

Finally, in the case of the AT&T patent, terminals with display
screens, keyboards, graphical input devices, and clipping regions were
in use back in the '70s (I remember seeing them at a Tektronix plant).
On the other hand, I'm not totally sure that a device has been built
which has all the characteristics of that patent claim (simultaneous
update?  Brings to mind the difference between multi-programming and
multi-processing.)

Judges aren't stupid.  Give them a convincing, objective argument, and
it's quite possible (likely? that depends) they'll decide the case in
your favor.  Unfortunately, many people don't, even when they're
right.  And judges are NOT omniscient.

Raul Rockwell