[Discuss] more on software patent

[fbxxkl at gmail.com (Kyle Leslie)]

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
>