[Discuss] more on software patent

[matt at mattshields.org (Matt Shields)]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Kyle Leslie <fbxxkl at gmail.com> wrote:

> While I don't have a ton of a background in this whole Patent thing, I have
> been reading this thread and trying to form my own opinions and gain
> knowledge. I decided to read the article that Matt posted and in doing so I
> stumbled upon one of the patents that the company is claiming has been
> infringed on.  I found it so interesting because some things look like they
> are just thrown in there for added benefit of blocking other people.
>
> US5546397 - (Abstract)
>
> A high reliability access point for RF communications in a wireless local
> area network. The high reliability access point includes a central
> processing unit (CPU) for handling high level protocol functions and for
> interfacing with the infrastructure of the local area network. The high
> reliability access point also includes at least two wireless adapters. Each
> wireless adapter includes a radio, a media access control (MAC) processor
> for handling low level protocol functions, and at least one antenna. The
> multiple wireless adapters allow the access point to perform self
> monitoring, reduce the effects of multipath interference, reduce some
> occurrences of collisions at the access point and provide infrastructure
> backup in the event of an infrastructure failure. The access points also
> allow for wireless network infrastructure communication for connection of
> one or more remote access points to the infrastructure. *A backup power
> supply for the access point is also shown.
>
> *-------
>
> The last sentence is what I found so interesting.  From everything I have
> read, if someone designed a similar item but included a backup power supply
> then they would be infringing because that is patented.
>
> To prove infringement, the patent owner must establish that the accused
> party practices all the requirements of at least one of the claims of the
> patent. (This is from wikipedia)
>
> You essentially can't have an access point with a backup power supply
> because this patent holds that.  This is my understanding of how patents
> are
> used to block other people.  Find one small thing that is similar or the
> same and say "No you can't use it or pay me money".  It literally looks as
> if someone was standing over the shoulder of the person writing the patent
> and said "Oh put that in there so you can hold the patent for it".
>
> It was always my understanding that a part of innovation was to build off
> the ideas of other people.  To take what they created and make it better.
>
> If what I am saying is totally wrong then just delete this email.. but if
> what I understand patents to be and how they work correct then how is
> anyone
> supposed to be inventive with out the penalty of cost?
>
> If a program's algorithms are able to be patented, then software is in
> trouble (from what I read it sounds like it already is). What if HTML code
> were to be patented.  You wouldn't be able to use head or title tags with
> out a fee?
>
> Please let me know if I am stating things here that are correct in theory.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kyle  (Trying to learn about Software Patents)
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:57 AM, John Abreau <abreauj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The BLU leadership has neither the interest nor the funds to support
> this.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2011/10/3 Hsuanyeh Chang <hsuanyeh at gmail.com>:
> > > If I have the honor, what I can offer now is to write up, in the name
> of
> > > BLU, a "request for ex parte reexamination" and get it on file in the
> > patent
> > > office in an attempt to invalidate the asserted patent(s).  But, I
> would
> > > need support from the BLU (e.g., knowledge and time to find prior art,
> > > official fees to be paid to the patent office, and other costs). Would
> > > anyone be willing to take action together?
> > >
> > > HYC on the go
> > >
> > > ? Oct 3, 2011 9:01 PM ??Matt Shields <matt at mattshields.org> ???
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Hsuan-Yeh Chang <hsuanyeh at gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> 35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.
> > >>
> > >> "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
> > >> manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
> > >> improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
> > >> conditions and requirements of this title."
> > >>
> > >> Talking about this particular patent (USP 7,818,225), the claims are
> > >> directed to "a financial instrument," which does not even fall into
> > >> the four statutory patentable classes (i.e., "process," "machine,"
> > >> "manufacture," and "composition of matter").  This very patent cannot
> > >> really prove that the patent system is screwed up.  This patent only
> > >> proves that the Patent Office should train their Examiners better.
> > >> Plus, there are administrative proceedings that one can use to knock
> > >> down this patent.  The owner of this patent should better not seek
> > >> enforcement, or it would be invalidated rather easily...
> > >>
> > >> HYC
> > >> - Hide quoted text -
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:03 AM, <markw at mohawksoft.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >> See the poster child
> > >> > >>
> http://www.1201tuesday.com/1201_tuesday/2010/10/poster-child.html
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> If this is a valid patent; already in; how do you accommodate
> that?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If I were the Examiner, I would reject the claims and have the
> > >> > > applicant
> > >> > > appeal my decision.  With this particular case, I would blame the
> > >> > > Examiner
> > >> > > for passing this application to issuance.
> > >> > >
> > >> > And that's the problem. You assume the patent examiner has the real
> > >> > ability to reject this patent. He or she does not. The patent
> examiner
> > >> > must have a defensible reason to reject a patent, it can not be
> > >> > arbitrary.
> > >> > There are limited tools with which they can reject a patent
> > application.
> > >> >
> > >> > With Bilski, its a little easier, but it is still hard. The weight
> is
> > on
> > >> > the examiner to prove it can't be patented, the patent application
> is
> > >> > assumed to be patentable otherwise. This is why absurd patents get
> > >> > approved.
> > >> >
> > >> > The patent system has been destroyed by IP lawyers and it is broken.
> > >> >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Discuss mailing list
> > >> Discuss at blu.org
> > >> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >>
> > >> Hsuan-Yeh,
> > >> This is exactly the kind of ridiculous stupidity that IP and patent
> > >> lawyers do to waste people's time and money.  Again, I'll repeat my
> > >> recommendation to you, if you are serious about helping the OSS
> > community or
> > >> the industry in general, donate your time to defend against these
> > trolls.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/03/2236255/Patent-Troll-Says-Anyone-Using-Wi-Fi-Infringes?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Matthew Shields
> > >> Owner
> > >> BeanTown Host - Web Hosting, Domain Names, Dedicated Servers,
> > Colocation,
> > >> Managed Services
> > >> www.beantownhost.com
> > >> www.sysadminvalley.com
> > >> www.jeeprally.com
> > >> Like us on Facebook
> > >> Follow us on Twitter
> > >>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > Discuss at blu.org
> > > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
> > GnuPG KeyID: 0xD5C7B5D9 / Email: abreauj at gmail.com
> > GnuPG FP: 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at blu.org
> > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

Okay, I'm filing for a patent today. My idea is putting network switches in
a rack connected to a UPS both in your office or datacenter.  Also, I'd like
to add that in my patent I'll describe a method for keeping the cables neat
and organized, color coded depending on purpose and labeled which I will
call Cable Management.  Now I could say that everyone is infringing and sue.
 Forget prior art or that this is such a basic concept that has been done
for the last 30 years or so, or even that it's just plain common sense.
 Who's with me?  We'll make a fortune suing all the infringers.

Matthew Shields
Owner
BeanTown Host - Web Hosting, Domain Names, Dedicated Servers, Colocation,
Managed Services
www.beantownhost.com
www.sysadminvalley.com
www.jeeprally.com
Like us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/beantownhost>
Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/#!/beantownhost>