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 |
It is the patent CLAIM, not the abstract, that defines the scope of a patent's "exclusive right." So, we should look at the claim language (normally numbered at the end of a patent document) to determine the scope. Each and every claim limitation must be read or found on a device/method to infringe. HYC > Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:29:03 -0400 > From: Kyle Leslie <fbxxkl at gmail.com> > To: BLU <discuss at blu.org> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] more on software patent > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ?<CAOxrMGh3w-D-P41X1KZZrBAYLs=NLtQkYUv0kAQ5vRW6-A4FpQ at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > 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) >
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |