Re: Comments requested
From: Walt Howard (howard@duh.chpc.utah.edu)Date: 03/13/02
- Next message: Gee: "Re: CIW Security exam"
- Previous message: Ross Oliver: "Re: i386-RHLinux box hacked. What next?"
- In reply to: David Montville - RTL: "Comments requested"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: howard@duh.chpc.utah.edu (Walt Howard) Date: 13 Mar 2002 22:16:36 GMT
In article <mLOj8.193$oa.161763@news20>,
David Montville - RTL <dwm1@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Any comments on the following would be appreciated:
>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?TERM1=6%2C356%2C937&Sect1=PTO1&Sec
>t2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=0&f=S&l=50
>
>Thanks,
>
>info@rivertechltd.com
>
The referenced patent (on which the OP's name appears as one inventor)
makes a lot of claims about "Interoperable full-featured web-based and
client-side e-mail system". IANAL, but I think most of the claims should
have been disallowed on the basis of prior art. Bluntly, it appears that
you have been granted a patent for assembling a bunch of other people's
ideas. Of course, an email system that doesn't conform to Internet
standards is going to be hard to sell, even if it does some things better
than standards-conforming systems.
IMHO, this patent clearly demonstrates two (unoriginal) ideas:
1. Software patents are evil, just as Richard Stallman has been claiming.
2. The US P&TO is incapable of assessing the claims in software patent
applications. They just don't know enough to recognize new claims on
existing ideas.
Lest there be any doubt, I do NOT speak for my employer.
-- Walt Howard InterNet: whoward@ieee.org BellNet: +1 801 585 0003
- Next message: Gee: "Re: CIW Security exam"
- Previous message: Ross Oliver: "Re: i386-RHLinux box hacked. What next?"
- In reply to: David Montville - RTL: "Comments requested"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|