home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!sdd.hp.com!mips!mips!daver!apt!brian
- From: brian@apt.bungi.com (Brian Litzinger)
- Subject: Re: Boom! You're Dead.
- Message-ID: <1992Jul23.221841.9448@apt.bungi.com>
- Organization: NoOrg
- References: <7274.2A6A7681@psycho.fidonet.org> <Brqz09.D4r@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:18:41 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- >2. Part of the requirements for being granted a patent on an idea is
- >the provision that it be non-obvious to someone working in that field.
- >It's been shown that using a guard time to distinguish a control
- >sequence from data -- what the Hayes patent covers, I believe -- was
- >in use long before Hayes started using it. Therefore, the patent
- >never should have been granted in the first place.
- >
- >The debate is similar in many ways to the debate over software and
- >user-interface patents. Should Apple be able to patent the
- >windows-and-menus IU? Even though they stole it from Xerox? And if
- >they can, should Ford be able to patent the steering wheel and
- >floor-mounted gearshift? There is a very strong argument against
- >IU patents here; should companies be able to patent such basic
- >technology when the result would be making computers harder to use?
- >--
- >Marc Unangst | Real men don't make backups. Real men never
-
- I believe the Constitution of the United States of America, which
- grants the Federal Government the duty to manage patents, says
- something like "to promote the progress of science".
-
- If by granting a patent the Government is not promoting the progress
- of science then the action is invalid, so I'd ignore it.
-
- [my copy of the Constitution is in a box, cuz I'm moving at the moment]
-
- brian@apt.bungi.com
-