Slashdot Mirror


Who Invented the Linux-Based Wireless Router?

mtaht writes "I've just had the interesting experience of being deposed to talk about one of the first embedded, Linux-based, wireless routers. Our (free!) 1998 publication of how to make one predates patent #7035281, filed September 13, 2000, by someone else. Their patent was recently granted and is now being disputed in court, in part using our how-to as an example of prior art. The lawsuit continues; the case goes before a judge shortly, and a jury trial if necessary is scheduled for the spring. I find myself plagued with the question: So... who invented the embedded Linux based wireless router? What relevance does 'who' have, when there is such an enormous confluence of ideas from thousands of people? What constitutes invention, anyway?"

4 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. What constitutes invention? by popo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every new platform (almost by definition of the term "platform") allows it to be married to myriad other technologies. Unfortunately the USPTO does not seem to understand that each one of these secondary permutations does not (should not) constitute "invention".

    But ultimately -- the answer, like most answers to legal questions, isn't a matter of who's right and who's wrong, or even "what is the truth?". The answer depends on who has the combination of legal-budget and willpower to pursue the patent.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:What constitutes invention? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't seem to know what 'invent' means.

      Well, I don't know what the legal threshold for "inventing" is in this case. The guy who did 'invent' it isn't sure he actually invented anything. And he did it before the guy who patented it.

      Built? Sure. Assembled? Fine. Extended someting? Absolutely. Invented? I honestly don't know.

      Take any functionality that already existed on a computer in the late 90's, add "wirelessly" to it -- have you "invented" anything? Or extended something that was already well known? I would argue it's a (fairly) predictable application of existing tech -- wireless is just one in a long line of 802.* protocols; does going from 802.3 to 802.11 cause magic to happen?

      They didn't invent the router. They didn't invent wireless networking. They just sorta smushed them together, and in a way that is consistent with how you might expect them to be used.

      Did Jeff Bezos "invent" one-click purchases? Or did he basically take the well-known concept of "button" and apply it to the well-known concept of "purchase"? Many of us would argue that it's a stupid patent.

      This is before the courts, and has to go through a jury trial. It might be a little premature to get all smug and say that you can definitively conclude that this was, in fact, an "invention" or not. If it was so easy, we wouldn't be reading the article and debating what exactly "invent" means in this case.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  2. This is good! by countSudoku() · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Our submitter is doing the right thing here; testifying against a company that tried to patent an already freely available idea. No patent should be allowed to protect this device's software. The hardware is a separate issue. Thanks for doing the right thing!

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  3. IEEE 802.11 by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How can someone get a patent on an obvious implementation of a new standard, in this case 802.11? I wonder if Anthony Spearman or Andrew Tompkins had any access or input into the standard? I wonder if they were part of the standards process but realized they couldn't patent the standard so the patented the implementation.