|
Newsletters
|
|
|
|
|
| Wireless Developer Network Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: MobileLBSList: Patent claims |
| Date: |
09/19/2000 03:54:22 PM |
| From: |
Christoffer Andersson (EUS) |
|
I don't think this got through.
/CA
-----Original Message-----
From: christoffer@wirelessdevnet.com
[mailto:christoffer@wirelessdevnet.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 5:34 AM
To: Hung-Hsien Chang: Bryan Morgan
Cc: mobilelbslist@wirelessdevnet.com
Subject: RE: MobileLBSList: Patent claims
I'm currently offline, so excuse me if I'm not up-to-date. I
just wanted to share my experiences in avoiding patents. There are mainly
two ways:
1. If the patent is narrow or has made some dumb limitations, you
exploit that and get around it
2. If the patent is broad, you find evidence the patent is not a valid
invention because it was known at the time.
In this case, let's explore option 2:
I'll just clarify one thing when it comes to patents. A
patent that is broad like this is often the least valuable, because it can
easily be declared invalid. If someone wants this patent declared invalid
(through an opposition process, ask your favorite patent attorney) you only
have to find proof that this technique was known to the public (so someone
'skilled in the art' could implement it) at the time of filing. The filing
date is stated in the application and on the granted patent.
Say that this patent was granted in August 2000, and filed
(submitted to the patent authorities), say April 1997 (I have no idea), you
want to find prior art older than April 1997. This means that we ('skilled
in the art') could have implemented the said technique at that time and the
patent is invalid (this must then be proved to a court). In this case it
would be enough to find ONE example of ANY technology that uses location
based services (if the patent is as broad and stupid as it sounds) to make
the patent invalid. Say we find someone who did any location based service
in Japan in the early nineties and did some documentation that the general
public theoretically could have accessed. I've seen patent being opposed
because of some obscure paper in whatever language that was published at
libraries in the land of whatever. If the prior art is found relevant by a
court, the defendant can bargain to keep a narrower part of the patent,
depending on how it's formulated.
Summing up, at patent is only valid if it:
* Was not known at the time of filing (no prior art)
* Describes a sufficient inventive step, that it would not have been
obvious to someone 'skilled in the art' to do it just as a natural step. The
step from known techniques must be high enough.
So, if I would have been on the task force to destroy such a
patent, I would have celebrated the general claims if they are like they
seem in this message that you're quoting. But one would want to read the
actual claims to know for sure.
I hope this makes things clearer,
Christoffer
-----Original Message-----
From: Hung-Hsien Chang
[mailto:hubert@cs.nyu.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 2:28 PM
To: Bryan Morgan
Cc: mobilelbslist@wirelessdevnet.com
Subject: Re: MobileLBSList: Patent
claims
General claim patent SUCKS.
It used to be protecting the inventor from
being robbed.
Now it is helping the consumers being
robbed.
What century are we in now?... Patent...
I think Fourier should have patented his
transformation method
and Watson and Crick(?) should patent the
discover of DNA.
You know, those guys claiming for general
statement patent is
simply suck. It shows how 'competitive' they
are.
Hubert
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Bryan Morgan wrote:
> I wanted to see what others thought of
this seemingly endless stream of
> frivolous patent claims by technology
companies. How can the government
> continue to grant patent licenses to
companies who clearly have not
> developed a proprietary or even, unique,
technology? Some examples:
>
> * Amazon.com's "One click" ordering
> * Priceline.com's process of "naming your
price" for items
> * Geoworks patent on using generic markup
to format display on a wide
> variety of devices - which led to their
patent claims on WAP.
>
> ...and this gem from Cell-Loc (which
affects LBS):
>
> >From May 2000:
>
> "Dr. Michel Fattouche, president and CEO,
Cell-Loc Inc. (TSE:CLQ), is
> pleased to announce that the U.S. patent
office has conditionally allowed
> Cell-Loc to claim the delivery of
handset-based wireless location content
> and services over the Internet as its
property, regardless of technological
> method employed. This same patent
application has been filed worldwide. "
>
> Regardless of technological method
employed?!? How is this possible?
> Someone wiser than me please help me
understand!!!
>
> Bryan
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, write to
mobilelbslist-unsubscribe@geocomm.com
>
________________________________________________________________________
> The MobileLBSList is brought to you by The
GeoCommunity and The WirelessDeveloperNetwork
> http://www.geocomm.com
> http://www.wirelessdevnet.com
>
>
>
To unsubscribe, write to
mobilelbslist-unsubscribe@geocomm.com
________________________________________________________________________
The MobileLBSList is brought to you by The
GeoCommunity and The WirelessDeveloperNetwork
http://www.geocomm.com
http://www.wirelessdevnet.com
To unsubscribe, write to mobilelbslist-unsubscribe@geocomm.com
________________________________________________________________________
The MobileLBSList is brought to you by The GeoCommunity and The WirelessDeveloperNetwork
http://www.geocomm.com
http://www.wirelessdevnet.com
|
|
|
