🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Feb28.185304.3268@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>metzger@halley.watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>I think a boycott of AT&T for their unsportsmanlike behavior vis a vis
>>backing store would be quite a good thing.
>
>I think that it would be a *bad* thing until someone actually reads the
>patent and finds out just what AT&T is claiming ownership of.

I visited the Sunnyvale branch of the Patent Office Friday, and, after
some difficulty, was able to copy Patent 4,555,775, "Dynamic
Generation and Overlaying of Graphic Windows for Multiple Active
Program Storage Areas", aka the Backing Store Patent.  It is in U.S.
Class 364/900 (they are filed by class number).  The lady at the
Patent Office said "Oh!  This one is in the computer section--that one
is getting very crowded, you know."

A few points:

1.)  I am sorry, but it is too long for me to type in (17 dense
pages).  I will see if I can get a volunteer.

2.)  There are 15 claims.  Some are so general they cannot be taken
seriously.  For example, claim 7 on

A graphic terminal comprising
  a display,
  a keyboard,
  a graphics control device, and
  programmed apparatus for controlling said terminal,
    said apparatus comprising
  means responsive to said control device for creating a
    plurality of overlapping display layers on said dis-
    play, wherein each of said display layers comprises
    an autonomous level of graphical information, and
  means for associating each of said display layers with
    an independent computer program, and
  means responsive to said keyboard for interacting
    with any selected one of said display layers to cre-
    ate, execute and display the output of an indepen-
    dent computer program.

I believe this is in there because the Patent Office will reject a
patent that does not refer to hardware somewhere.

3.)  Claim 12 seems to be the relevant one.  It is for

The method of supporting a plurality of virtual 
computer graphical terminals on a single physical termi-
nal including a display screen comprising the steps of
  identifying a plurality of overlapping working areas
    on said screen,
  associating each said working area with an indepen-
    dent computer program,
  selectively communicating data to each said program
    through its associated working area, and
  continually displaying the output from each said
    computer program on its associated working area.

There are three dependent claims, which somewhat narrow the scope of
claim 12.

4.)  The algorithm is given in the body of the patent, in very rough C
pseudo-code.  The law, I am told, requires the patent to document the
invention in a way that someone versed in the field can readily
recreate it by being competent, but without being creative.  It is not
clear to me that the patent supplies this requirement.

AT&T wanted to get a patent, but not give any code away.  I suspect
the patent can be invalidated on grounds of insufficient disclosure
alone.

5.)  The whole thing is sloppily thrown together.  Column 9, line 54,
the empty parentheses designating a function name are astride a line
break, with the closing parenthesis starting a new line.  Column 4,
line 29 tells us of "an obscured bitmap list comprising nothin [sic]
more that a sequence of pointers to the obscured bitmap areas."

6.)  Silicon Valley Report, a local PBS show, reported on this affair
and added "AT&T stresses that their letter [to the X users] is not a
threat of lawsuit."

Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc.
jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
137 E Fremont AVE #122, Sunnyvale CA 94087
-- 

Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc.
jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
137 E Fremont AVE #122, Sunnyvale CA 94087