[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Lame patent application of the day

• To: 'Doug Ransom' <Doug.Ransom@p...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Lame patent application of the day
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:45:57 -0600

The problem with doing that afterwards has as has
been pointed out on this list in previous IP 
discussions is the enormous costs of patent 
litigation.   It is very expensive to overturn 
a patent and very expensive to defend one. It 
is better to repudiate it early when the patent 
office is listening rather than paying lawyers 
later to kick down the doors.

As to nonobviousness, I'm not sure I understand 
you. If I were hired as a patent examiner 
and my background in English did not include 
the years of computer science on the job training 
that followed, I would not have a clue about 
the nonobviousness of the ideas patentned.  Heck, I'd 
believe that XML was invented by Zig Zag.  After 
all, it is just a thin wrapper for content, right?

It is a really hard job.  Where they have an 
open ear and it is early in the game, we can
have influence if played well.  I suspect that 
just as the very technical lists require very 
formal exchanges, one should be careful to 
meet their expectations as to content and form 
if one wants them to listen attentively.

len


From: Doug Ransom [mailto:Doug.Ransom@p...]

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.

• Prev by Date: RE: Lame patent application of the day
• Next by Date: Re: Lame patent application of the day
• Previous by thread: Re: Lame patent application of the day
• Next by thread: utf8 -> utf16 conversion problem ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread