Hardware security in PCs to accompany new Windows

[phiscock-g851W1bGYuGnS0EtXVNi6w at public.gmane.org]

I was once advised by a client that a company in the  US was trying to
patent something that I had previously invented for this client. (It was a
moving grid aerial camera control system, using (ahem) a Commodore PET as
a control system. It was a while ago...)

Fortunately, I could show prior disclosure, so I wrote to the USPO to
advise them that there was prior art. That was the end of that particular
patent.

However, the client also told me that this situation had occurred to
another Canadian company. The canadian company invented some modification
for an aircraft door (something to do with aerial photography). An
american firm then patented the idea, and the Canadian company (a)
couldn't use their own invention and (b) was nailed for infringement!

So you have to react to these things if you hear about them.

Peter





> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:04:06PM -0400, Srinivasan Krishnan wrote:
>>On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 18:40 -0400, James Knott wrote:
>>> psema4 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My understanding, is that you can't get patents on prior art. ...
>
> I don't wish to rain on anyone's parade, but the way the patent system
> is supposed to work and the way that it does work are not the same.  The
> USPTO does not properly review patent applications - you can patent
> prior art all day long.  Contesting patents places huge burdens on the
> party that does not hold the patent, and the patent-holders are usually
> better capitalized than everyone else, and can win cases by attrition.
>
> The clearest method to rectify this state is not contesting bogus patents
> one at a time, but using political pressure to institute patent reform.
> There is a problem with this too - the better-funded lobby is the one on
> the side of the patent-holders.  Still, there is hope for patent reform,
> and grass-roots pressure and participating in the pro-reform lobby is
> the best course of action.
>
> As for whether US patents affect us here in Canada, the answer is a
> resounding yes.  RIM just paid out $450M USD to a patent-holder in the
> US.  The patent was completely crap IMNSHO, but that doesn't mean
> diddly.  $450M USD is cheaper than an appeal, because RIM would not be
> able to get a stay of judgement, and thus would have to pull the
> Blackberry off the market in the US - obviously not feasible - until the
> appeal was heard - in ten years.
> --
>
> yours,
>
> William
>
>


--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml