Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #75818Re: patents
From: Jeffrey Kegler
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 1990 20:42
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 1990 20:42
43 lines
2795 bytes
2795 bytes
preston@titan.rice.edu (Preston Briggs) writes: > >My favorite is IBM's patent 4,571,678, >titled "Register allocation and spilling via graph coloring." >Inventor is Gregory Chaitin from Yorktown Heights, NY, >the application date is 11/5/82, and the grant date is 2/18/86. > >I don't know of any court challenges. Minor point: It is not up to someone using the patented technology to challenge in court. The most frequent strategy, and apparently best from a legal standpoint is to simply use the technology whose patentability you doubt, and put the burden of initiating legal action on the patent holder. Over half of all patents granted by the Patent Office are tossed out by the court (and this figure includes a vast majority of patents on much more well-established grounds than the one above.) Why bother with a Patent Office then? It forces the patent holder to follow a standard form, creates a central reference for those worried about potential infringement to consult, and tosses out the most ridiculous claims. (This used to include all software patents in happy days of yore). By allowing software patents the Patent Office is not saying software is patentable. It is saying that it does not want to risk being sued for denying the patent application, and has decided to allow the affected parties to contest the issue in the courts. Some software patents have made money from people who have decided paying royalties is easier than contesting the lawsuit, and many people have avoided using a patented technology for similar reasons, but I know of no software patent which has ever been tested in court. And note that most of those going to court with intellectual property claims in software these days are using the copyright laws, not the patent laws. That tells you something. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but these days I spend more time in court than most lawyers. -- Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc. jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey 1762 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1990Apr9.204220.8231@algor2.algorists.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!algor2.algorists.com!jeffreyReferences:
<9004060202.AA06155@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> <JIM.90Apr5205848@baroque.Stanford.EDU> <6439@brazos.Rice.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,4e7412316d3f93a9 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1990-04-09 20:30:31 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!algor2.algorists.com!jeffrey From: jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: patents Message-ID: <1990Apr9.204220.8231@algor2.algorists.com> Date: 9 Apr 90 20:42:20 GMT References: <9004060202.AA06155@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> <JIM.90Apr5205848@baroque.Stanford.EDU> <6439@brazos.Rice.edu> Reply-To: jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM (Jeffrey Kegler) Distribution: gnu Organization: Algorists, Inc. Lines: 43 Posted: Mon Apr 9 21:42:20 1990