Slashdot Mirror
Company Claims Patent on CD Writing
rborek writes "According to CNet News.com, Roxio is being sued by Optima Technology over Patent 5,666,531 which covers 'Recordable CDROM accessing system'. It looks as though the patent describes DirectCD and its packet writing technique. Many different programs and operating systems use this - including Linux, which opens the door for widespread patent licensing issues if the suit is valid and the patent upheld."
It would seem, that in light of recent IT events, a business model build around patent litigation isn't as stupid as it sounds....
With recent price cuts to DVD writers, will anybody care in 18 months?
over the Internet?
Speed Demos Archive - Lots of speed runs!
I would have run out of lightning bolts to throw by now...
Its becoming a more and more common trend in that software is allowed to develop freely - and then come out with a patent and start suing.
I agree that Roxio should have looked at this patent, but an interesting trend nonetheless.
Filed : April 7, 1995
Granted : September 9, 1997
This might be hard to beat. Anyone using a cd burner 8 years ago?
Patents are stupid. Get over it. Any patent-based lawsuit like this one it just going to shed some light on the fact that patents are stupid. Patents are stupid.
Oh, and patents are stupid.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
And in related news, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is being sued by SCO due to their patent on the process of reviewing and approving patents ;-)
That's old news. The lawsuit was dismissed, on the basis that the patent covers "reviewing and approving" patents, and USPTO doesn't do any reviewing of patents prior to issuing them.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Just look at their home page:
Their "accomplishments" consist mainly of suing the pants off everyone they meet!Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
And if this didn't somehow affect Linux nobody would even care...
In looking over the patent, it does seem to describe exactly what DirectCD does - allows the disc to be continually written upon and accessed by other computers with a DirectCD-like reader on it. So it looks like Roxio might be screwed.
But does this affect the general user? I've personally never used DirectCD for anything; around our office we just burn a CD once, close the disc, and ship it out wherever it needs to go. Is there really a need for a continually writable procedure on a CD when there are so many other mediums more suitable and with more capacity than a CD?
Roxio Response: /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Roxio
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Dec. 16
(Nasdaq: ROXI), The Digital Media Company(R), today responded to Optima
Technology's allegations of patent infringement.
We are aware of the Optima '531 patent and the claims within and believe
that any claim of infringement by Roxio's software products is utterly without
merit. At Roxio, we respect the legitimate intellectual property rights of
others but in this instance there is no colorable argument that the claims set
forth in the patent read on any Roxio products. We intend to aggressively
defend ourselves in this litigation.
It took Optima 5+ years to figure out that all CDR Software/Hardware infringed upon their patent?
Just another happy case of
1) Patent some tech
2) Wait for tech to become standard
3) Collect the underware
4) Sue for profit!
Apple free since 1990!
please let me know when we can begin the DOS attack on their web site, mail server, etc.
thank you.
Method of stylus-induced pits into clay, one tablet at a time.
I usually use a felt-tip pen, as it has much better marking characteristics than a ball point. I've written several things on my CDs, including "Pictures" and "Document Folder Backup 11/2003". This patent is obviously frivolous.
paintball
If, as it initially appears (I'm no expert in this area), this patent represented a useful step forward in CDROM technology at the time, and the technology was picked up and used by Roxio and others without license, then why shouldn't Optima get due credit and compensation?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petition.html
I don't know if it will really do anything but any bit helps. Of course, getting someone into the patent office who actually has a clue as to how computer software/hardware works would be much more effective. These kinds of patents are akin to a rock band having a patent for a standard rock song chord progression and suing everybody who uses the same chords. Ridiculous.
-- tokengeekgrrl
Patents aren't stupid -- the patent office is. It seems to me that they're taking the approach that if the applicant can hold a reasonable argument for a process they don't understand, they issue the patent under the assumption that the courts will sort out the garbage fromt the useful patents.
I say that it's time for an examination of the whole patent application/approval process.
Consider supporting the following groups:
Free Software Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation
... and read
The Danger of Software Patents
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
The Recording Technique provides a directory which indicates the location of only the last version of any stored information or modified entry of stored information, prior versions being transparent to the operating system. The Recording Technique further provides a directory recorded on the CDROM which is transportable to other computers having the Recording Technique installed thereon. As a result, the user of a computer with a CDROM reader will interface with the CDROM in the same manner as with a non-volatile memory device that is read only.
OK, so I'm not a CD engineer, but:
All these things existed well before September, 1997, AFAIK!!
I cringe everytime I check Slashdot. The world is getting downright surreal. Above this posting is a story about a broad patent on packet writing, and above that an ad for Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX, and to my left the Slashdot logo.
... hell?
Am I dead?
Did I blow it and not believe in Jesus the right way and now I'm in some sort of
This company is amazing. If you read their corporate history, it's littered with stories of litigation. My favorite entry:
Feb. 2003: Optima partners with the Lava Group www.lavagroup.net to enforce Optima patents, trademarks, copyrights and intellectual property
Do they really think that their customers particuarlly care that they hired new lawyers?
Sounds like EOLAS 2: Electric Bugaloo, but the dates on the patent are gonna be hard to match.
That's EXACTLY what they do.
Later, when a lawsuit comes up, that's what sorts out whether or not the patent is idiotic or not. I think the patent office should have to refund 110% of the fee if a patent is overturned in court. Might make them actually THINK a little bit before they just grab the damn stamper and give it a stamp of approval.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
It seems to me that copmanyies very often sit on a patent until their 'invention' becomes very popular before enforcing the patent. Perhaps patents should be more trademarks, either enforece it, or lose it. As it stands, each copmany that wants to bring a product to market would have to do a thorough (and costly) patent search to avoid litigation. This seems counter-intuitive for ideas that have established themselves, or even become standards, such a packet writing. After all, if countless other companies are producing it, why should I expect to have any trouble myself? But then, boom, the company holding the obscure patent comes out of nowhere.
It's unfair of a company to keep quiet about patent infringement until their invention has become a standard, and then try to leverage their way into a monopoly with patent litigation. If they had been forthcoming about their patent in the first place, perhaps other (better?) standards would be invented. Or, if the idea behind the patent really is that good, the original copmany would en up with most of the market share, and come by it honestly.
In conclusion, patents should be more like trademarks. Use 'em or lose 'em.
Stupid like a fox!
I worked for a company that bought a "WORM" (Write Once Read Many) drive for backup purposes in 1987. We were amazed at a technology that could store over 650 megabytes on a single replacable CD-like platter! It cost something like $10,000.
The cake is a pie
good thing that this is a hardware patent, then.
I am starting to think that this sue-crazy atmosphere that just gets thicker and thicker with lawyers will be the downfall of Western Civilization. Sure, we have to protect intellectual property and all, but sheesh...this is just downright predatory. It's dangling bait out in front of an industry until they all adopt it, then biting down on them with litigative teeth. At this rate, someone will come up with a patent on breathing...and we'll all have to pay up or desist.
Actually, I live in the DC area I know someone who works at the patent office and what you describe is actually pretty close to how it happens. Although, they do actually have people help them understand the processes described, they do no research on prior art what so ever. Apparrently there is not time. The validity of a patent is for the courts and ultimately the tax payers to figure out.
Is the Optima Technology patent the ONLY way to write to CDs? If not, then somebody else can innovate around the patent. The nice thing about patents is that they fully disclose the invention so that others might create even better inventions.
Aside from the stealthy nature of the patent application process, I would think that most technologists would think patents irrelevant. After all, a patent assumes fairly slow moving rates of innovation -- that the patent wil be valuable for tens of years. Yet I would think that the rapid pace of innovation would make any patent useless after a few years.
Its time for innovation.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Sep. 2003 Optima Technology files multi-million dollar lawsuit against Network Solutions
Jul. 2003 Optima Technology Settles Federal Patent case in California
May 2003 Optima Technology Corporation took an innovative action today and offered a $1 Million bounty
Apr. 2003 Optima approved by court to be excluded from EZ-Datatech's Bankruptcy and now continues to push forward in both its State and Federal Courts regarding patent and trademark infringement against EZ-Datatech, Michael Decorte as well as others.
Feb. 2003 Optima partners with the Lava Group www.lavagroup.net to enforce Optima patents, trademarks, copyrights and intellectual property
Feb. 2003 Optima seeks Federal Court's approval to void Michael Decorte/EZ-Data bankruptcy on grounds of Fraud
Nov. 2002 Michael Decorte/EZ-Data whom Optima sued for fraud and stealing of trade secrets avoids multi-million dollar Federal Court judgment by filing Chapter 7 in Bankruptcy court
Oct. 2002 Optima files for default judgment in Federal court
May 2002 Optima ships CDR-Access Pro(TM)v4.7 for Macntosh OS 9.2
Apr. 2002 Optima ships DeskTape Pro(TM) v5.7 for Macintosh OS 9.2
Mar. 2002 Optima files Federal lawsuit against EZ-Data, Michael Decorte, alleging patent and trademark violations on its software's: DeskTape Pro(TM), CDR-Access Pro(TM), DiskArray Pro(TM) and Xchange(TM) and Xchange Pro(TM)
Feb. 2002 Optima Technology Corporation hires law firm Cox Castle Nicholson www.coxcastle.com with key attorney Frederick "Rick" Kranz to protect Optima's Intellectual Property from company's unwilling to respect Optima's Royalty rights on patents and trademarks.
Dec. 2001 Optima Technology Corporation hires Los Angeles based law firm Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman www.kmzr.com to take over State Patent and trademark lawsuit against former employees and companies.
Jun. 2001 Optima files lawsuit for patent and trademark violations against EZ-Data and former employees Michael Decorte and Raymond Martin
May 2001 Optima reopens its Irvine, CA office and moves its corporate office to USA
Apr. 2001 Announced release of CD-R Access Pro (TM) for Macintosh OS 8.5
Feb. 2001 Announced release of DeskTape Pro (TM) v5.5 for Macintosh OS 9.1
Dec. 1999 Optima ships DeskTape Pro(TM) v5.1 for Macintosh OS 9.0
Jun. 1999 Optima moves corporate office to Paris France
Mar.1999 Optima reorganizes its office's and closes Irvine, CA
Jan. 1999 Announced release of CD-R Access Pro v3.6 for Macintosh OS 8.5
Nov. 1998 Announced release of DeskTape Pro(TM) v4.6 for Macintosh OS 8.5
Mar. 1998 Announced release of CD-R Access Pro v3.1 for Macintosh OS 8.1
Feb. 1998 Announced release of DiskArray(TM) v2.0 for Macintosh OS 8.1
Jan. 1998 Announced release of DeskTape Pro(TM) v4.5 for Macintosh OS 8.1
Dec.1997 Released CDWriter(TM), the world's only super fast rewritable DVD/CD drive with up to 21.9 GB capacity
Nov. 1997 Released GigaBank(TM) Fibre Channel and Ultra Wide SCSI RAID subsystems
Nov. 1997 Release Award-Winning RAID Bundles for Windows 95/98/2000/NT/XP
Nov. 1997 Released SCSI Inspector(TM) for remote configuration, testing and monitoring of RAID systems
Sep. 1997 Patent 5,666,531 awarded to Optima Tehnology on Recordable CD ROM Accessing System
Jul. 1997 Announced release of DeskTape Pro(TM) v4.0 for MAC OS 8.0
Jul. 1997 Announced release of CD-R Access Pro v2.3 for MAC OS 8.0
Jul. 1997 Released DeskTape(TM) video, enabling QuickTime movie playback direct from tape
Jul. 1997 Matthew Bahrami is elected as Optima's new Chief Executive Officer
Jan. 1997 Released DisKovery (TM) 7300 CDR and CD-R Access Pro to enable write/read of 7.3 GB of data onto a standard CD
Jan. 1997
According to the patent: "The Recording Technique provides a directory which indicates the location of only the last version of any stored information or modified entry of stored information, prior versions being transparent to the operating system."
Packet writing does not leave behind the old data and only make it "transparent" to the operating system....it in fact rewrites the sectors that are not allocated in directory entries (file allocation table??); I would also assume that this multi-session writing is already an ISO standard.
"The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
-Thucydides
I think this is more interesting. Is Roxio going to get StaXored?
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
3)Sue until your stock price doubles!
SCO stock didn't just double, it went up twenty-fold at one point. If you are as smart, you'll short the stock like some of the smarter geeks out there. The stock will eventually be sued into the ground and you'll have made 100 percent on your investment (minus comission and interest).
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
In patent circles Lemelson was the name of the game .... The basic concept was to file a patent, and then let it sit and sit and sit, and when enough people were using the patent, then Lemelson would get the patent issued and sue. Not exactly the same here, but as some other posts have mentioned, the effect is essentially the same. The Patent Office recognized this and I think designed systems to avoid the Lemelson Strategy ... I think these were also called the "submarine patents."
So, it is adopted as a Standard, and then Optima sues after almost every CD burner is using it ....
From the Lemelson Patents Online Website http://www.lemelsonpatents.com/
I haven't been following the Reno case, but sure do hope that the Roxio defense is successful, and it cripples Optima's patent enforcement efforts. Best of luck Roxio.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Why does their patent's number appear on this page at the USPTO website:m ?
http://www.uspto.gov/go/og/2001/week46/patexpi.ht
How can they enforce an expired patent?
As far as my own opinion of this debacle, I'm confident that prior art will be found to invalidate the patent, whether it's expired or not.
But if Roxio settles, this company is going to come after small companies. You bet they won't tangle with Microsoft or Dell or anyone like that.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Don't follow IP lawsuits much do you?
Here's the process:
1 - company discovers that they have IP that is actually work something! Wow! Fire up the lawyers!
2 - Identify the big targets (HP, MSFT, etc)
3 - Start with the small players. They'll either settle, in which case you have money for future lawsuits AND legal precedent or you'll go to court. If you win in court, you now have money and legal precedent. If you lose, you go try again on some other small company.
4 - Now you have some money and precedent so you go hit up the big players. Generally they'll just settle with you and give you some fixed amount or some fractional royalty.
5 - Put your feet up and watch the money roll in.
Refer to NTP and others.
Actually, patent laws are pretty stupid as well.
The whole reason for having patents is that protection from competition for 20 years is supposed to make more products possible.
In spite of this, the law protects companies that have no intention at all to create any products with their patent, and punishes companies that does something useful. That's just plain stupid.
How many of these lawsuits are on patents which would have to be many years old (or just stupid patents with truckloads of prior art), and only come up once the company being sued for the alleged infringement is successful? These patent holders never intend to make anything, they just let someone else do the actual work and then try and shake some money out of them.
Assuming the patent wasn't bullshit to begin with.
Of course, IANAL and this was gleaned from the web:
It's been mentioned here before, but a patent holder has to make reasonable efforts to secure their patent in the marketplace. If a patent holder neglects enforcement of their patent when an infringement occurs, the patent holder may be guilty of a "submarine patent", where the patent holder specifically withholds action on infringement to maximize allowable damages. The defense to such ocurrences is termed the doctrine of laches and was laid out in a Supreme Court ruling.
The doctrine of laches defense has two elements:
- The alleged infringer will suffer serious harm to their business if the patent were enforced or if the period of time before action was such that important evidence or witnesess were lost.
- The patent holder delayed action for an unreasonable and inexcusable period of time.
Typically, six years is held to be a reasonable amount of time before the doctrine of laches may be used as a defense. Note that the burden of proof rests with the infringer and that both elements must be proven on the proponderance of the evidence and any further infringement is actionable.
That's as much as I could find.
It's called a "submarine patent".
No point in suing poor people, is there?
Clear, Dark Skies
Software is not something you can patent because of fundamental differences in the nature of the end product and how it is manufactured.
Can you imagine someone patenting a device called "method for using a fork to emulate a comb" ? Well that is just what patenting software is mostly about. While when you patent a way to acheive a goal in real life patents you patent the goal in software patents. If i want to do A in software HAVE to use method B, very often because that is the obvious and right way. If i dont do it that way i have to take unessecary steps to get around the obvious solution, often by doing something different than i first set out to do (before i had even thought about how).
The patent becomes the gatekeeper to an end goal and not to one perticular way of acheiving this goal. It is all to evident that software patents is going to inhibit US development of software and give Asia and China etc an enourmous advantage.
I could swallow it if the patents wore carefully examined and very restrictive but the USPO seems to give patents out like the green card lottery.
HTTP/1.1 400
(Disclaimer: I wrote the UDF support in FreeBSD, but I have offer no other legal or technical advice)
/. headline is vague and misleading. This doesn't look like it applies to CD recording itself, or even packet writing. Instead it looks like it applies to the VAT in the UDF >= 1.5 spec. Basically, the VAT is a sector remapping table. Since CD-R media can only be recorded sequentially, and obviously cannot overwrite existing sectors/packats, the VAT makes this linear recording look like a normal random access filesystem. The VAT is not used on CD/DVD RW media so those are probably clear, and definitely is not used in iso9660 volumes. So at worst this means that the UDF spec becomes encumbered when using the VAT. I'm not clear on whether the OSTA, IEEE, and/or ECMA bodies knew about this patent when they ratified the various specs that contribute towards UDF, but this definitely looks to be an abuse by the patent holder.
As usual, the
Worst case scenario is that this patent is upheld and Roxio (and others like Nero) start paying royalties. The Linux distributors might have to remove VAT support from their kernels. Commercial OS vendors would have to decide on whether to license it or remove it. I'm not sure if DVD mastering software will be affected since the VAT is not part of the UDF 1.0 spec. mkisofs might be affected also if it impliments VAT. Whether the OSTA committee responds with an alternative remains to be seen. But, it's not the end of the world. Like I said, I don't think that this has any bearing on CD-R's that are recorded with traditional iso9660 filesystems. Supporting write-once media and VAT is a PITA anyways, so this gives me a good excuse to not care about it in my implimentation =-)
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
You're right it's not a part of the kernel, but cdrtools et al come with a lot of distributions. I don't think they are covered under that patent. If you read the patent it states specifically that disc-at-once and track-at-once are pre-existing technologies. That's what most of the linux distro's I've seen use. Now I do believe that nautalis in Gnome 2+ has something similar to DirectCD, which is the type of thing this patent seems to cover. (I'm no patent guru, but I did read the patent claim)
Speak for yourself.
WORM file systems using such techniques have been around since at least the 1980's.
yeah we can, make software and business method patents illegal like they should be. There goes most of the load on the patent office.
If this is true, what's all the hubbub, bub?? I have never used this function of my Adaptec software, and have no desire to. I prefer to build a list of files, and burn my CDs once.
While the arguments about taking too long to sue for infrignment have merit, I think the actual impact to most users will be minimal.
Why that is so difficult (as the patent claims) I don't know. Probably a PEBKAC issue.....
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
In order to address the issue with the patent system, the RIAA, SCO, the MPAA, and any other acronym you decide to dislike today, we have to figure out what it is the patent / copyright holders are requesting and what customers want (i.e., the reason innovation is Good).
Firstly, let's say I have just come up with a neat little gadget. Now if I'm a small operation, I don't want some giant company to come and use my idea to beat me out of business through mass production. I simply want to be able to make a living off my idea. If I'm an artist, or an author, I want to be able to make a living off my concepts / performance. There's a little difference between both these concepts, so I'll focus on the patent idea.
A patent, historically, applied to a new device or a new way of doing something (there are process patents, but typically they apply to things like "here's what you need to do to make chemical X"). Now, consider a patent to be something like an "implementation right". Basically a patent says that only the patent holder or the holder's approved agent may implement the said concept. This is similar to a copyright, which states that only the copyright holder or the holder's approved agent my copy a work. I don't have a problem with either of these concepts - with some caveats but I won't discuss those here.
Now, we can argue whether or not it is good for society to have a single entity or authorized group implementing some process. It is generally assumed that it is good for the person implementing it - assuming that the implementation yeilds something for which people are willing to pay. However, what about situations where the person holding the rights to implementation isn't really good at it, and someone knows they could do it better but aren't allowed to because the original holder won't give them approval. This would be a Bad Thing.
Now, what we see here is that independent of what is being implemented we can have unintended consequences with any "exclusive rights" kind of philosophy. What it is saying, though, is that such philosophies only work for "the greater good" if people are inherently altruistic, which history continually demonstrates is not the case.
On top of the above idea, there is also the question of "what constitues an idea for which the implementation authority should be limited?" This is the current hot-topic with IP, specifically patents. What implementable ideas should be protected? What are the costs and benefits of both? Who benefits from the choice? Rarely do we see some small company which is unable to manufacture many things, with small market presence, and some company comes and stomps on them by "copying" their idea. Typically we see one guy with a patent, no ability to produce it, not trying to produce it, but only waiting for someone to copy it. From time to time we may see a small entity with a patent and license (i.e., authorize) some company to produce the product. That is the intended purpose of a patent - to allow the authorized to get started. We also see large corporations, with no real risk of losing their "livelihood", with large portfolios of patents - typically they use these to keep other people out of their industry by requiring large licensing fees, which is opposite the desired effect of patents - they prop up artificial barriers to market entry.
As an aside, I have some issues with performance copyrights. For instance, people might be paying to see a particular person perform a song, not hear the particular song performed. For instance, me performing Beethoven's 9th on a kazoo is hardly the same as the London Symphony Orchestra playing it. So performance pieces, oddly, have a weird effect of there is the thing that is being performed i
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Sounds like a very practical approach by the patent office to me.
If the Patent Office don't understand a patent (and the limited resources of the Patent Office coupled with the complexity of many patents means this can be expected to happen sometimes) then the best approach would be to allow a patent.
It would only become contentious if there is a problem with it, where it will be examined by much more qualified experts before deciding its validity. Uncontentious patents would be granted without the time and expense of having to thoroughly research them.
Refusing patents on the grounds of 'not understanding them' would be a massive blow to many industries by preventing all the valid but complex patents (which are often the most important) from being allowed.
The greatest problem with patents at the moment is not necessarily how the work or are administered, but the length of time they are valid. 20 years is an especially inappropiate length of time for a patent in IT and other rapidly developing areas. A much reduced length of time (1 to 2 years) would solve many of these problems - i.e. provide enough incentive to get a head start in a market, yet the information would enter the public domain to prevent many of the crazy and disproportionate actions that keep popping up.
Here is an idea to thwart these pirate lawsuits. I call them pirate lawsuits because I see companies using a deliberate strategy of waiting for others to do the hard work of developing businesses around a technology, then swooping in, with government backing, to steal the profits. It's like the days when piracy on the high seas was sometimes sanctioned by kings.
One solution would be a statue of limitation for infringement. If patent holders had a one- or two-year time limit for filing infringement suits, they wouldn't be able to wait for billion dollar industries to develop before asserting their rights. People with technology they consider worthwhile would have to protect it in a timely fashion.
An actual lawsuit shouldn't be necessary as a first step, as the cost of litigation might be prohibitive to fledgling innovators. But a patent holder should have to lodge a complaint within the time period. There would be no injunction against the party using the technology. The complaint would be like a building permit, and would have its own expiration date of a year or two before the holder would have to take legal action or drop the complaint.
If you read the claims in the patent, simple multi-session CDs are covered as well. The patent was filed April 7, 1995. I'm fairly certain multisession technology was implemented on CD-ROMS before then.
Also, the patent only applies to "CDROM"s. It does not apply to DVD-based media.
I also think the patent is invalid because they had to limit their patent to applying to CDROMs. Meaning it was already in use for other types of media (other filesystems, whatever.). Meaning it is one of the "logical next steps" the patent office isn't supposed to approve.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
It is my understanding that the PTO is quite good at identifying prior art when it takes the form of previously granted patents. Unfortunately, when they started granting patents for software and business practices, which had not previously been patentable, all of the prior art was documented outside of the patent system. At a previous job, we got a software patent application back with some of the claims disallowed due to prior patents, so that much of the system seems to work. I'm not surprised that the PTO can't deal with the outside documentation of prior art; imagine the size of the job to catalog (as a start) all of the ACM journals, the IEEE computer journals, and the software textbooks that have been published since the 1960s so that you can tell if a particular algorithm used for a particular application has already appeared.
Which is why they should return to the requirement of having a working example in order for it to be patented.
While most agree that an inventor should get credit for his invention, and be able to sue anyone that tries to steal it, this technique of 'stealth patents' need to be abolished.
If it can be proven you intentionally sat on your patent while it became embedded into a large part of society before you stood up, you should be denied the claim to your patent.
If it can be proven you didnt know.. then all bets are off and sue the pants off the offenders...
THis is pretty much how trademark law works now... why should patents be any different?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Well, not everything, but most everything we use on a daily basis and take for granted.
We need to find a way to deal with this fact, instead of running around with blinders on and hoping the patent holder is benelovant.
Also might be good to start collecting ALL source you can find, before its taken out due to the patent holders down the road.. And i dont just mean software source, but also books, formulas, etc..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Price normally would, but do you remember those stereo component CD recorders that can burn CDs off of tape, radio or other CDs without a computer? Those will only record on Music CD-R's.
This article explains it better than I can.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
How can it take seven times longer to research an application and write a letter citing existing patents or prior art, than to research an application and write a letter granting a patent?
Oh, our poor, poor PTO.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Somebody else here can give a better discription, but here are the very basics. In standard iso burining the first thing (and last thing incidentily) on the disk is the index for the entire disk. It includes such information as the last sector with readable data (i think). On a CD-ROM (read only memory!) this is fine and very efficient. However, on a rewritable medium you might want to change the contents of the cd at some time (say, add one file to an almost-full cd). With the ISO filesystem you would have to reburn the ENTIRE disk, as the index file is already written, and cannot be added to because the first bit of data is immediatly after the index. This, I think all will agree, sucks. Packet writing is much more like a traditional FS because instead of burning the entire CD as a single image, it breaks it down into self-contained packets, the CD drive has to spend more time scanning the disk to get drive contents than it would with a CD-ROM index, but you can just plop another packet at the end of the cdrom without problem. Again, I'm not an expert, I'm sure some of my details are wrong, but that is the basic idea.
Little Brother, watching the watchers
Well from this history: http://www.roxio.com/en/support/cdr/historycdr.htm l
We can see that we've had publicly available burners since prior to 1995...
As for the patent itself it seems to argue that it doesn't require any special mastering program, which it does, if it's been merged into the shell it's still there, and looking at it, it would require a similarly set up computer at the other end... So it's incompatible with a standard CDR... even if its not, the process of squirrelling away the interface should not be patentable (this would be like patenting the layout of buttons on a calculator).. tough IANAL...
To be or not to be.-Shakespeare
To do is to be.-Nietzsche
To be is to do.-Sartre
Do be do be do.-Sinatra
OK, we all know this is patent thing is out of hand, and the odds of getting rid of software patents are now approximately nil, thanks to the $$$$ that some folks are making or hope to make from them. However, there might be an alternative way to handle this...
Create a new type of submission to the Patent Office, called a Documentation Of Art. Unlike a patent it doesn't have to go through the $$$ process of evaluation, since it would grant no rights to the person filing and wouldn't have to be checked extensively. What would happen, however, would be that the idea is filed in the archives of the patent office, to be checked whenever anyone files a new patent on something related to the DOA as a possible example of prior art.
This would allow the open source community and other companies to return some sanity to this game. If a DOA is filed, then the assumption is the idea must have been trivial enough that someone didn't expect to make $$$$ off of it. Or, alternately, the original inventor chose to give up his monopoly on the idea freely. Open Source groups and companies tired of patent wars could file very large numbers of well organized DOA forms and make sure it's at least harder for the patent office to characterize something obvious to the tech industry as non-obvious.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Something like 49% of all litigated patents are deemed invalid by the courts.
That number doesn't surprise me. After all, anyone sued for patent infringement will not actually let the case go to litigation unless they are pretty sure they can win. If 49% ("something like" is + or - how much?), that means that slightly more often than not, the defendant in patent litigation is defeated. That is, they erred in judging that they could win.
However, whether 49% is accurate or not, it's not a useful figure. It only tells us what percentage of litigated patent cases go against the patent holder. A useful number would be the percentage of patent cases that are litigated, from which we could determine what percentage of patents are invalidated, not what percentage of litigated patents are invalidated, which is to us a fairly useless statistic.