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 : )
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
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.
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.
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
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!
Is it me, or does the USPTO simply suck at finding prior art? I'm not saying it's their fault, I'm simply saying it's difficult for them to sift through huge amounts of data for each patent looking for the prior art that may invalidate said patent.
There are several reasons for this. One reason is that most examiners are inexperienced. Right now something like 80% of examiners have been working for the PTO for less than 3 years. Only about 7% have been working there for more than 10.
Another reason is that, particularly with regard to software and software-related inventions, the PTO has a hard time recruiting qualified examiners. A big reason for this is that examiners have to live in the Alexandria, VA area, which is about as far as you can get from the west coast IT industry.
I've also heard that examiners don't have the resources they need to do a proper search of the non-patent literature, but I don't have any hard data on that.
And, of course, sometimes patent applicants represent their invention one way during prosecution but then try to use it differently during litigation. For example, I believe Yahoo was sued or at least threatened for something to do with its maps website by a company that had a patent on using a computer to map...migratory birds. The claims appeared to read on Yahoo Maps, but it was quite apparent from the application as a whole that the invention was unrelated to anything Yahoo was doing. There's really not much the PTO can do about that.
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'
The USPTO needs satellite offices in tech hotbeds. San Francisco/Palo Alto, Austin, etc. Bring them to Alexandria for training, but have them work collaboratively remotely.
Unfortunately it literally takes an act of Congress for the PTO to be able to do this.
The Telework Improvements Act of 2010 (aka the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010) would allow examiners to work from anywhere in the country. While the bill has passed the House and Senate it still has to go through conference committee and be signed into law. That might happen during the lame duck session or it might happen next spring. Or it might never happen, since it's not exactly the highest priority right now and politicians prefer to argue over stuff that gets headlines.
House version: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1722
Senate version: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-707
Grond: Thanks for the bill name!
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!