RE: [xml-dev] Lame patent application of the day

["Doug Ransom" <Doug.Ransom@pwrm.com>]

I don't think determining the originality of the work is a problem, even after a patent grants if prior art is found claims of originality can be repudiated.  

In general (as opposed to being concerned with the MS patent),  it the interpretation of nonobviousness by the patent office I find interesting.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:09 PM
> To: Doug Ransom; Dennis Sosnoski; XML DEV
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Lame patent application of the day
> 
> 
> It is possibly more correct to say that it 
> enables their right to license their intellectual 
> property including the right to determine the 
> terms of licensing which may include exchange 
> of money, services in kind, like valued items, 
> royalty free, and so forth.   Their are two problems 
> that are becoming increasingly troublesome:
> 
> 1.  Determining the originality of the work.
> 
> 2.  Unusually long durations for the right 
>     to license.
> 
> Item one is something that we can influence 
> as shown by the cited paragraph
> 
> 35 U.S.C. 301. Citation of prior art
> 
> at
> 
> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep_e8_2200.pdf
> 
> Thanks to James Anderson for looking that up for us.
> 
> Again, this is where open standards organizations have 
> benefited the technical community by ensuring a greater 
> awareness of art sufficient to enable prompt input. 
> After that, the onus is on the technical community to 
> provide it.
> 
> Item two is particularly troubling in the other domain 
> of copyrights.  Technical patents by the nature of 
> the fast pace of change has a more limited lifecycle. 
> That can tend to make a holder try to get as much 
> up front as possible.   The 'reasonable' in RAND 
> is very underdetermined.
> 
> len
> 
> From: Doug Ransom [mailto:Doug.Ransom@pwrm.com]
> 
> Well, the very purpose of the patent system is to provide 
> inventors a monopoly in exchange for them disclosing their ideas.
> 
> I don't imagine claim 1 will be granted or defensible if it 
> already has been -- dde + excel server + excel client looks familliar.
>