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?"
I thought we just resolved this in the last story. Vint Cerf invented it and the lawsuits are his fault.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Does it have Linux on it? --no--> Install Linux. Is Linux installed? --no--> Modify Linux until you can install it. ----> Install Linux.
It's Linux. Installing it is always obvious.
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 : )
Do they have to prove exact prior art, if they can prove that the differences between the prior art and the patent are obvious to a practitioner of the art?
A patent really should only cover non-obvious extensions of existing ideas. As the guy himself states, there was nothing in what he did that was particularly non-obvious to any person who did networking at the time, so it's silly that it should even be patentable, let alone an example of prior art. Rather, their effort just happened to occur at a point in time where wireless networking was just being introduced.
So why on earth should merely combining the words "embedded", "Linux", "wireless" and "router" make something patentable? These are not novel combinations that required a leap of creative insight, but rather extremely straightforward and obvious combinations.
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?
After we sold that company - and the purchaser tanked, we started up Fireplug Computers Inc. doing Linux for embedded devices, including "Thin-Linux" which was specifically oriented to being a router. I ran a version of that on a 486 system until it finally died earlier this year.
We had wireless capabilities in this, with drivers for a couple of the then available wireless chips.
Fireplug was sold to Lineo Inc. in 1999 - and I'm fairly sure that Lineo did some work on Linux wireless too.
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
I say we find everyone who submitted patent ideas before 2002 and buy them a drink.
Nothing's been more of a driver of IT support than those awful little boxes. Thanks for the job security guys!
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Certainly not the very first ever made, but likely the first mainsteam implementation that was available.
I had a 2U 386SX 16Mhz Workstation with full length ISA 900MHz WaveLAN card, that ran LRP off 3.5" 1.44MB.
Host name was 'Brain-Damage'. Some of the first LRP development was done on that back in 1997.
The boys over in Latvia that went on to form RouterBoard were doing much more then me with wireless but I'm not sure if it was with Linux at the time.
Dave
> World domination follows . . .
Except on the desktop... :D
I did it.
Achille Talon
Hop!
The patent in question seems to be for something specific and somewhat different from a regular ol' Linux wireless router, like we all use. Particulars from the patent text (all emphasis mine):
There are other particulars, but this seems more like something to provide large-scale outdoor wireless infrastructure than simple home routing. The diagrams also show little pictures of houses being served by multiple routers as described in the patent.
Breakfast served all day!
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.
a TIFF? Seriously?
via Patent Storm:
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Actually, in the technical drawings they claim it to be a "Router CPU with UNIX derivative operating system" -- so, your FreeBSD would have violated this patent if it didn't exist before the patent was filed.
I still continue to be baffled by patents. They invented none of "embedded", "wireless", linux" or "router". Doing it for the first time is cool (and mad props to the guys who were doing this and might bust this patent), but assembling well known components to do a well known job, but in a brand new configuration is an application of technology, not an invention.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Both were cut from the curriculum to make room for Creationism and Bible Study.
we did that at ReseauCitoyen.be several years ago. At that time there was nothing nor on the Internet nor elsewhere... We never claimed invention for that as this was obvious for us who where in the field... But we build some devices... We had some design published as public domain ones in hope to see them builded by corporations. And finally that was the case. So I can not understand that someone is now claiming a patent on such kind of ideas... PS: I'm not an english language native, so forgive some faults in my wording!
Just an FYI. You just tainted your testimony. Anyone reasonably worth his/her salt as a lawyer looks online to watch discussion of it by witnesses. If there is enough "chatter" your testimony can be thrown into a very poor light. Remember, if you are an expert, why are you asking a bunch of internet board posters what you need to tell a judge?
All ideas, novel or not, are combination of prior ideas. And are certainly expressed in combination of existing words and shapes.
The fundamental challenge for the patent office, and those who are against patents, is that criteria like obviousness, similarity (need to prove assimilation to prior arts,) creativeness, etc. are fundamentally subjective. One could claim Einstein's Theory of Relativity is trivial and obvious, after hearing the details of the Theory; yet it was Einstein, and not billions of people before him in human history, that nailed down the Theory.
I don't think non-subjective definitions of these terms exist. At the end, these come down to who can argue better on a case by case basis.
Did you even read TF Summary? He is the prior art! He's just trying to figure out if there was someone there before him, or how to give credit to those pieces which were already built into the Linux code.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
The ampr.org domain dates to April 1988. Phil Karn's KA9Q NOS claims to date back to 1985. I know I established a routed connection from the east bay to Cupertino via a KA9Q "router" in San Jose using 1200 baud modems on 2m VHF radio around 1990 or 1991, and I was just repeating work that everyone else was doing.
Temkin
In our economy: Invention is the right to a revenue stream if you can afford patent law litigation.
If and only if you can afford to fight your way there. If not it is what the other guy, with the established business, says it is.
Yep. He's looking for prior art that pre-dates him, and he's asking how to prove and attribute prior art to someone.
For this, there are some real common mistakes to avoid:
* You have to find prior art for the claims, not the summary
* You have to find prior art for *all* the claims
* Good news is that acceptable forms of prior art include ads, manuals, magazine articles...
It's not rocket science, but a lot of news stories like this end up wasting people's energy because people contribute their knowledge without knowing these simple rules, and it's all or mostly useless.
As someone who's spent time scraping slashdot stories with 200+ comments for possible *useful* prior art, I can tell you that a lot of people don't know these basic rules.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Thank you for your kind words. I can tell by the way your thoughts transform into free flowing words and by your condescending tone that you are most likely not an idiot like me and you have probably had an easy life.
I too am bitter for some of the things in this world. For example, patent law and corporate control of government policy, which are not mutually exclusive. I don't take it out on anyone I just throw out assertions on the way I see things on message boards such as this. I take it that you don't agree and that's okay with me, you are allowed your opinion.
I disagree with your argument about applying the law yourself. An independent inventor may not have the desire or the ability to apply law and spend time arguing in a courtroom. He or she may be more interested in building a business around something they invented or inventing other things. He or she may not be capable of decorum required in a court of law because they can't communicate without calling people names like idiot, ignorant or hypocrite. Established businesses, on the other hand, have legal departments that are paid to quash other businesses competing with them or else collect royalty from them. In this scenario, patent law is the instrument to make the rich richer and the keep the emergent down. That's the fundamental thing I don't like which lead me to make my comment.
A while back, I signed onto the peer-to-patent website for awhile, and tried to add some prior art references. I tried to refer the patent examiners to a Communications of the ACM article from 20 years ago, and they said they didn't have access to that and I'd have to get them a PDF(!) Similarly they couldn't seem to come up with a copy of Karrels & McKusic et al. to see what was in 4.3BSD a quarter century ago. I mean, they ought to have a library, right? As a public service, I got an ACM membership again for a year so I could pull down the ACM article and give them a copy...
How are they going to recognize a rehash of old ideas if they don't even have the basic reference materials?
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
You can invalidate one claim (as it was written) by submitting prior art about that claim.
"as it was written" because the patent holder gets the chance to reword that claim and resubmit.
Invalidating one claim can solve your problems, but patents are written like thickets, so there are often many claims that cover a real world product.
1. A big box ...
2. The machine from claim #1, with a tap
3. The machine from claim #1, with a basin
4. The machine from claim #2, connected to tubing
5. The machine from claim #4, where the tubing is waterproof
6.
When you build a house or a petrol pump and someone says you infringe a patent, it's usually more than one claim.
Partial invalidation is possible, and might be enough to solve your problem, but it's a broad task. It's not the "Hey, this looks like the thing I saw in 2003" task that many people think it is.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!