Re: Judge Hits Vonage With Injuction; Stop Using

>> And is exactly the same as electronic technology 50-60 years ago.

>> Back in 1957 IBM research discovered something they thought was >> perfectly obvious but to their surprise was never patented. So they >> filed and got a patent for it. On the flip side, a dubious patent >> claim forced IBM to pay out millions of dollars in royalties. > The difference between this situation and the current situation is that > in 1957, the patent office had inspectors who were familiar with the > technology, and who would reject attempts to patent devices that did not > work, or which had become part of standard industry techniques decades > beforehand. > Today, we have the additional issue that the patent office does not > have enough inspectors with actual familiarity with software > technology or with algorithms. This is how Microsoft can get away > with patenting the ring buffer, a data structure used at least as > early as the CDC 6000. > We currently have a situation where huge numbers of obviously invalid > patents are being issued, and there is no way for the patents to be > declared so without going to court. And once it comes time to go to > court, sadly it tends to be a situation of the person with the most > money winning.

So the patent office needs to hire some CS, IS and EE grads. That'd change things in a hurry.

Reply to
Loading thread data ... Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.