Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
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>
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |