🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MJOHNSTO.91Feb26095537@admin8780.shearson.com> mjohnsto@admin8780.shearson.com (Mike Johnston) writes:
>
>This is not a flame. 

Good - I generally just ignore flames.

>I agree that original work should be rewarded but there
>are some things that are so fundamental to an industry that patents should
>not be allowed. As an extreme example let's say you are a car manufacturer
>and want to get an edge on your competitors. A quick check with your
>legal office reveals VOILA! the *wheel* was NEVER patented!!!!! Naturally,
>if you are the anti-competitive sort you'll run right down to the patent
>office and put a lock on it and immediately begin to demand royalties from
>anyone who uses a wheel in their product.

Slight problem, the law is that you only get a patent if the idea was
never before known. Seems to me that people have used wheels before.

>Extreme? Yes, but think of the ramifications of this sort of mentality
>as it continues to gather steam. What is next? Does someone patent the
>idea of a pipe or I/O redirection?

Which is precisely why the USPTO (aka U.S. Patent Office) exists and why
there is such a thing as a patent examiner.

One thing seems to be generally confusing everyone, the date that counts
on a patent is the date of APPLICATION (or innovation) not the date of
ISSUE. Many of these software patents took an excessive time between
application and issue. For example U.S. Patent 4,398,249 was filed in
1970, but didn't issue until 1983. This is the one that covers
spreadsheets. If you can find someone with a spreadsheet written and/or
described publicly BEFORE 1970 then a lot of people like Lotus would
like to hear of it!

In 1970 the concept was indeed new, novel etc., in 1983 there were
dozens of spreadsheets around.

-- 
           *Mike Waters    AA4MW/7  waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com *
Certainly there are things in life that money can't buy, but it's very funny--
	Did you ever try buying then without money?
		-- Ogden Nash