[8492] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Multimedia has been patented
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Glenn S. Tenney)
Sat Nov 20 19:53:37 1993
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 16:53:16 -0800
To: com-priv@psi.com
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
At 6:36 PM 11/20/93 -0500, Barry Shein wrote:
>The problem is that the system is not adapting to software, even by
>their own admission (do they, USPTO, have a software specialist, like
>they do in other areas, on staff *yet*? It's been ten years that this
>has been an issue, perhaps they finally hired someone but it would be
>quite recent.)
The PTO has a whole group dedicated to "software patents". The head of
that group and an examiner from that group have been to more than one of
the IEEE Intellectual Property Committee meetings -- I believe the first
time they attended was two or three years ago. I therefore believe that
you don't know of what you speak or we have a semantic misunderstanding.
The PTO has, IMHO, two problems:
1. They do not have a searchable database of prior art in a form that can
easily transmute between a prior "invention" and a patent application's
invention. In a simple sense, they can't easily search through journals of
the last 5-50 years and find "flow charts" of, for example, multimedia
systems that clearly shows prior art.
2. It's a question of salaries. A senior examiner in the software group a
couple of years ago was making in the low $30's -- that's with a BSCS
degree and almost four years of experience. That is what the government
pay scale allows, and this person was one of the more senior examiners!
You tell me what an average BSCS graduate could be earning in the
commercial sector after a year or two... Put simply, we don't pay enough!
The people who are there are good, but they don't stay long.
>And it's all the more urgent, in this era of fast-paced global
>technological competition, that they don't do it again and in a big
>way with software.
Look back to any other prior technological era and you will see these same
statements about their technology. Maybe gasoline engines, or airframes,
or pick-your-technology weren't changing as rapidly as ours, but... they
all had the same problem. This is NOT unique wrt software!
>The amount of damage that's been caused by some patents issued over
>the past several years and what has been done with them (in more than
>a few cases their merely being turned over to law firms for
>exploitation with no hi-tech company or attempt at development at all)
>is more than enough to justify a hue and cry.
Why do you not include those companies have done with their patents in your
complaint? And what about the decisions in courts that were wrong? It is
NOT just the PTO!!! Do you use a Hayes compatible modem? If so, then why
didn't you flat out refuse to support them if you felt the Hayes patent was
wrong? Why not argue that the legal system (mainly our litigious nature)
is the problem? ((The "you" here is meant to be generic and not aimed at
Barry!))
---
Glenn Tenney
tenney@netcom.com Amateur radio: AA6ER
Voice: (415) 574-3420 Fax: (415) 574-0546
