Because people were continuously looking for arguments why 'a person having ordinary skill in the art' would not arrive at the invention. And apparently, lawyers/patent attorneys were smarter than judges in digging up arguments why something would NOT be obvious. In the end, it currently boils down to the person skilled in the art really requiring an incentive to combine (with neon signs indicated almost) two teachings for something to be not obvious. Little bit to far on, I'd say (even as a (non-US) patent attorney).
How to proceed? Install a new standard? Sure, but not directly; gradually might be a good idea. The person skilled in the art is surely somewhat creative. If not, he would be a lousy engineer. This should also be taken into account when judging inventiveness/non-obviousness.
How to put that in arguments is another, but rather difficult issue...
So when we check whether it makes sense, we check the claims.
1. An apparatus for determining an interestingness rank for at least one media object, comprising: logic for accepting at least one metadatum concerning the at least one media object from at least one user; and logic for ranking the at least one media object based at least in part on the quantity of user-entered metadata concerning the at least one media object.
Sure, my computer does not infringe as long as I don't have the software on it. And even then, would logic also be explained as software?
30. A method for determining an interestingness rank for at least one media object, the method comprising: accepting metadata concerning the at least one media object from at least one user; and ranking the at least one media object based at least in part on the quantity of user-entered metadata concerning the at least one media object.
In virtually any product review site, you can sort on user feedback. Anticipated; dependent claims do as far as I see no interesting embodiments.
54. A computer program product including computer-executable program code for determining an interestingness rank for at least one media object, the product comprising program code for: accepting at least one metadatum concerning the at least one media object from at least one user; and ranking the at least one media object based at least in part on the quantity of user-entered metadata concerning the at least one media object.
Same story as the method claim.
Apparently, Flickr thought it would be nice to spend a lot of money on a patent attorney just to have a patent application. Because I really wonder whether this will turn in a patent.
I would not be surprised if this battle would end in an equivalent of SCO vs. IBM, with this the patent holder being a straw man for the oil companies.
On the other topic: At least in the US, at this moment, an open discussion is more or less possible on the horrors of the US occupation of Vietnam.
Don't try to discuss the crimes of war the dutch committed in Indonesia after WW II, at least not with the dutch government. The dutch history books are silent on that.
The bass amplifier circuitry you describe is analog by nature.
correct. But I referred to a bass augmentation circuit. English may not be my mother tongue, but I do know the difference. And in this case, a 1::1 conversion is possible, by an s-to-z tranformation of the transfer function of the circuit.
At least that's how most anti-software-patent people view it.
I'd say that is the correct way of putting it..
Besides, a specific software encoder implementation would most likely be sufficiently protected by copyright law.
Knowing enough on EE technology AND patent/copyright law in the EU, I can tell you that is not the case. Based on information in patent publications, the standards description and trial and error, you should be able to write your own MPEG codec. Without being liable for copyright infringement. That's more or less also the way Lindows has been created.
While setting up the open (!= free) standard of MPEG, companies had to disclose their know-how during discusssions. As the standard would be published, a non-disclosure agreement did not suffice for protections. Therefore, companies applied for patents, to prevent the product of a couple of menyears of research. In this way, the companies could have a proper discussion on creating a standard that would provide the best solution possible.
The other option is a proprietary standard of one company, holding a monopoly to a de facto standard: WMV/WMA.
Which of these two options do you prefer?
It may sound odd, but patents may in this way be the only method to keep Microsoft from taking a full monopoly, as it is the only way other companies can (will) freely discuss their ideas.
Khai's visit also triggered protests in Seattle, reminding everyone of Vietnam's human rights record.
I thought that that issue was solved at the moment the US army left Vietnam some decades ago. Or are they going to discuss all the tons of agent orange that were left as a goodbye present?
Ok, that was too easy
But I hate to see this happening. I would have preferred Vietnam to follow the software policy of its big brother China. Would be better for them and the rest of the world.
And we have seen multiple times that Bill Gates doesn't give sh@t about human rights by introducing censorship modules in chat and blog software for China. Disgusting.
I have never seen a proof that things like this constitute a substantial part of all software patents granted
On the other hand, I have not seen proof of the opposite:-P
coding them takes much more time than having the idea, coding them takes much more time than having the idea, so I seriously doubt it.
True. The very one thing I personally hated in University was coding. I prefered circuit construction (welding). But coding and other implementation lets you face problems. Clear, concrete phyisical problems that need similar solutions. In patent attorney slang, those solutions are called inventions. This hard work is also required to invent.
Show me an example of a software patent where more money was spent on the developers than lawyers crafting the patent claim.
Basically, that's every patent application I draft: A common research engineer/scientist e.g. in the field of video compression produces a patentable invention three months; each time with other colleagues. A very good one does not produce more that five.
I do not make very much more money than someone doing research, so basically, the patent drafting is cheaper than the research.
Analog transistor circuits are very different from digital transistor circuits
Yes, by physical nature. Not necessarily by operation.
I'm an electronical engineer by education
Me too.
And I do know that using bipolars, just as well as CMOS, you can create almost identically operating circuits. Digital and analogue. Only issue is that the current through you bipolar circuit will be a lot more and that digital bipolar circuits (TTL) take up more footprint on the silicon and are therefore more expensive, even though bipolar is a cheaper technology.
I do not know the exact example by heart anymore, but it is for example possible to enhance your bass system by filtering out the lower harmonics from your input signal, double the frequency and skip every second period using e.g. a diode. In this way, it will look like your tiny PC speaker will be able to provide a powerful bass. This is called a psyco-acoustic effect. All elements, filters, frequency doublers, (analogue signal) adders can be implemented in analogue circuitry. No software, whatsoever, so patentable. Agreed?
The same idea can be just as well be implemented in software, e.g. as a Winamp plugin. Analogue operation on analogue signals can be performed on digital signals using digital operators. At least, that's what I learned in University (discrete-time signal processing by A.W.M. van den Enden and N.A.M. Verhoeckx)
You transfer the transfer function in the s (analogue frequency domain) to the z (discrete frequency domain) and design a circuit obeying the z transfer characteristics. And you're done!
You may have missed the recent news of Sony getting a patent on the idea of sending images/music/data directly to the brain without an interface.
If your hardware invention can be completely converted to software then it is not a hardware invention at all, it is in fact a software invention disguised as a hardware invention; one of the few loop holes in the new patent laws RMS talks about.
Basically, all inventions can be turned to hardware. In any case, all electronic ones. Long before anyone even discussed the patenting of software, when the EPO objected towards all patenting of software, you could patent transistor circuits with complex filters. Nobody objected.
Now, you can put them in software, just like that. And all of a sudden, you are not allowed to obtain a patent for such a filter anymore? rather strange.
As for "clear and technical"; do you realize that currently, patents do not need to be implemented at all and thus "clear and technical" is limited to the idea, not the implementation.
I beg to differ. From my experience as a patent attorney. And don't flame me for that, that would be too easy.
By drafting 'literary claims' he insinuates that something like this would ever exist. That will never be the case.
Furthermore, he insists that patents cover ideas.
Incorrect.
When I draft a patent claim for an idea, the (European/Chinese/Japanese/...(not-US)) examiner will reject it, I can tell be experience. The claim has to cover novel, inventive, clear and technical subject matter. Basically, structural features have to be mentioned. This prevents ideas from being patented. Sometimes the EPO may let things slip through, but then there is the opposition procedure to put the EPO back on track.
This prevents those hilarious events as in the US. Can anyone name a software patent lawsuit like SCO pulled up in Europe?
But like I said, (most) politicians do not know a pretty thing on software, patents, copyright and connected issues. They mix patents with copyright, in the way Stallmann explained, but also in another way: you do not need patents on inventions you implement using a computer, because you have copyright... That way of argumentation is wrong as well:
When I have a team of ten researchers working five years to develop a video compression circuit, I get a patent. Reason for this is that I spent fifty menyears to bring the world an invention that I am prepared to publish and the invention is technical. But what if a guy in China (US, Europe, Australia, whatever) copies every bit of the circuit in software, I would not have patent protection anymore, whereas I have patent protection on the hardware (silicon). Strange way of thinking...
We ended up in a big mess: industry (me, if you hadn't figured out already:-P), OSS community and politicians. Who's to blame? I'd say the incapable politicians. I am convinced that people who know they are talking about can figure out a solution here, preventing double and single clicking from being patented on one hand and providing a proper (not excessive) return on investment for industry.
I do not know from the top of my head when the next elections for the European Parliament are, but I'll have hard time finding out who to vote for.
Which might be one of the reasons that Microsoft is backing proposals for a reform of the patent systems, according to this article.
Microsoft is now getting one of those giants like IBM who will constantly be bugged by private patent owners (bogus or real) for money. My experience is that though large companies have many patents, the quality of their portfolio is relatively low as they like big numbers. Small companies, on the other hand, have either a completely worthless portfolio or a small but very powerfull portfolio. And a small production, so the backfire risk of a patent lawsuit towards Microsoft is negligible.
But I do not think a (the?) new US patent system backed by Microsoft will solve that problem for Microsoft. It will probably make it worse. Suffer, dudes...
Yes, I do know the history of Australia: it used to be a penal colony of the British Empire.
I also know the history of the US: (initially) it has been founded by a couple of religious fanatics, whose decendants still think that the bible justifies the death penalty.
OK, case closed. And I do not want to generalise all US citizens: my boss is from the US and he's a great guy, as well as (most) of my US colleagues.
AFAIK, the US has the largest number of prisoners, also in relative numbers. That is on their own US territory, I have not even included the folks in Cuba & Iraq.
So basically, at this moment, the US of A form the largest penal colony in the world.
Perhaps we could state that making interstate trade of wine may make society collapse?;-)
Invalidity of a patent should be done by checking all elements of the claim and comparing them to prior art.
1. An automated method of graphically representing a plurality of data items, wherein each data item has a numerically quantifiable magnitude and at least one data item is an outlier,
Automated method? Go for method, automating it is obvious.
comprising:
Very nice word. All patent attorneys love to use it.
automatically determining an outlier threshold value, such that representation of both over-threshold magnitudes and under-threshold magnitudes using a single linear scale would reduce visual differences between under-threshold magnitudes below a predetermined level;
Again, skip automatically.
Next, determine the threshold. This is common sense; when your values are between 0 and 100 (that's not 4, that hundred) and 99% of the values are between 45 and 55, the first observation of everyone is that the 1% other values (hypothetically located over 90 and under 10) are outliers.
comparing the magnitude of each data item with the threshold value to determine if each of the data items is an outlier;
already done, step above.
representing non-outlier data items as images sized to a common linear scale;
This is what you would do anyway.
representing each outlier data item as a modified image not sized to the common linear scale; and
Here's the tricky part. Is a broken y-axis the same common linear scale? It's a common scale, allright. But is it linear? It has at least two linear parts... However, I can recall graphs having arrows pointing at a value up in the air above the highest line of the graph. Prior art enough.
determining whether there are at least three data items;
Again, you always do that. I guess up to ten items, everyone determines the amount.
.
wherein the comparing and the representing each outlier data item steps are only performed if there are at least three data items;
So the method is not performed when you have two data items, e.g. one at 0.5 and one at thousand. Why?
and wherein, if there are less than three data items, all data items are represented as images sized to the common linear scale.
Is that relevant for the invention? Or is that just an add-on to make the whole stuff just new?
So I'd say it's invalid. Big issue for invalidation, however, is that you should be able to prove it. Not the easiest task. Have you marked you math cahiers with the correct date? Or should we determine the age of your writing with C14? Welcome in the world of the court... But I think some math books will help out. But you still need a very good lawyer/attorney/barrister/whatever.
At least I'm safe; in Europe, this would (most probably of course, legal people like to cover their a-r-s-e-s) not be patentable as it is an automated (no inventive step) method of presenting information (not patentable as such).
The WIPO is a multilateral organisation, whereas the US-Australian deals are bilateral. The WIPO has nothing to do with this. Perhaps you mean WTO, with TRIPs, but that does not apply in this case, either.
Furthermore, I do not know when negotiations between US and Australia have started, but I would be surprised when they would have already started under Clinton.
So, this might very well be a unilateral US thing, with a policy possibly to a large extent dictated by US corporations. Why unilateral? Because when Australia would not comply, they would miss interesting trade deals and seriously loose economy.
So, if there's a politician to blame, it's Bush. When there are companies to blame, they're US.
As for the story: yes, that's the way it goes. IAAPA. Beat them or join them (to beat them).
I wouldn't react that pessimistic if I were you. More and more large companies rely on open source as it provides a cheap alternative compared to e.g. Microsoft for e.g. video recorders and set-top boxes. Among those, there are companies with enormous patent portfolios.
Only one note: they provide their proprietary knowlegde in another way than they provide the open source (and let it run in a different way). One example is IBM.
Please keep in mind that a lot of those big patent companies are not interested in the open source community. They are only interested in the royalty check and will only sue larger companies for infringement, as this makes royalty collection easier. There's only a few software companies that may pose a patent threat to OS as it currently is.
Trust me, I've been there (I am there) (not with MS!).
Peculiar that Johann Sebastian Bach does not appear anywhere. Of course considering the popular work of Douglas R. Hofstadther on Goedel, Esscher and Bach.
But also considering the logical build-up of the music. Looking at friends and colleagues, I have a feeling that there are more Bach lovers among beta people than there are among alpha people.
Unlike the EU, they [the states of the US] all came from the same original parent culture.
Which parent culture? Only the British Empire? I thought at least Germany (Germans, that is, not the German Empire), France and the Netherlands were involved here as well.
I think your second argument - the states that became the US not being souvereign for a long time - makes more sense. However, all member states have already given up over 50% of the sovereignity with respect to national legisation to the EU, of which this patent directive is a perfect example.
And I sincerely hope that the EU practise (and the constitutional setup) will be more democratic than today (that's the problem, not the willingness to give up sovereignity). And with a different setup than the US, with a system where you can elect the members of parliament directly and the parliament can send home a commissioner/minister home separately and the prime minister/head of state cannot veto a proposal for a law proposed by the parliament.
This could be a scandal that might rock the comparatively-new EU system for a loop. (...) Of course, the USA didn't get things right on the first try either.
I don't think it's a good idea to compare both institutions. You compare a intergovernmental institution with a nation. When you want to compare US with EU member states, you have to check whether Negroponte represents the opinion of the majority of the US citizens when he casts his votes in the UN Security Council.
Nevertheless, you are right that this might rock the system, just as much as the EU world was rocked when the fraud by the French commissioner Edith Cresson was brought out. Perhaps nice to know, although off topic, is that the dutch EU civil servant who brought this to the light is now a member of the European Parliament.
There have been a lot of complaints by Dutch MPs that they are unable to control the ministers in the Council of Ministers. But they did not act. So finally, they know now they can control the Dutch vote over there. About time.
I have seen people exchange business card information by means of a handshake at least ten years ago.
AFAIK IBM introduced a device with which you were able to store business card data in the heel of your shoe and transmit it by means of your body. In digital form.
Only new here might be the master-slave relationship in claim 1, but I doubt whether this is patentable (I am no US patent attorney...). Dependent claims do not provide substantial subject matter.
The rest seems pretty obvious. I wonder how long this patent lasts. I've not been able to find any related patent rights in other countries. Furthermore, there is no pre-publication of the application (usually 18 months after filing of the first application), which is AFAIK in indication that they did not file outside the US. Apparently, they do not have a lot of confidence in the right themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Because people were continuously looking for arguments why 'a person having ordinary skill in the art' would not arrive at the invention. And apparently, lawyers/patent attorneys were smarter than judges in digging up arguments why something would NOT be obvious. In the end, it currently boils down to the person skilled in the art really requiring an incentive to combine (with neon signs indicated almost) two teachings for something to be not obvious. Little bit to far on, I'd say (even as a (non-US) patent attorney).
How to proceed? Install a new standard? Sure, but not directly; gradually might be a good idea. The person skilled in the art is surely somewhat creative. If not, he would be a lousy engineer. This should also be taken into account when judging inventiveness/non-obviousness.
How to put that in arguments is another, but rather difficult issue...
So when we check whether it makes sense, we check the claims.
1. An apparatus for determining an interestingness rank for at least one media object, comprising: logic for accepting at least one metadatum concerning the at least one media object from at least one user; and logic for ranking the at least one media object based at least in part on the quantity of user-entered metadata concerning the at least one media object.
Sure, my computer does not infringe as long as I don't have the software on it. And even then, would logic also be explained as software?
30. A method for determining an interestingness rank for at least one media object, the method comprising: accepting metadata concerning the at least one media object from at least one user; and ranking the at least one media object based at least in part on the quantity of user-entered metadata concerning the at least one media object.
In virtually any product review site, you can sort on user feedback. Anticipated; dependent claims do as far as I see no interesting embodiments.
54. A computer program product including computer-executable program code for determining an interestingness rank for at least one media object, the product comprising program code for: accepting at least one metadatum concerning the at least one media object from at least one user; and ranking the at least one media object based at least in part on the quantity of user-entered metadata concerning the at least one media object.
Same story as the method claim.
Apparently, Flickr thought it would be nice to spend a lot of money on a patent attorney just to have a patent application. Because I really wonder whether this will turn in a patent.
I would not be surprised if this battle would end in an equivalent of SCO vs. IBM, with this the patent holder being a straw man for the oil companies.
Computer programmes as such. Please give Article 52(2) and 52(3) EPC a better look. As well as EPC caselaw.
On the other topic: At least in the US, at this moment, an open discussion is more or less possible on the horrors of the US occupation of Vietnam.
Don't try to discuss the crimes of war the dutch committed in Indonesia after WW II, at least not with the dutch government. The dutch history books are silent on that.
correct. But I referred to a bass augmentation circuit. English may not be my mother tongue, but I do know the difference. And in this case, a 1::1 conversion is possible, by an s-to-z tranformation of the transfer function of the circuit.
I'd say that is the correct way of putting it..
Knowing enough on EE technology AND patent/copyright law in the EU, I can tell you that is not the case. Based on information in patent publications, the standards description and trial and error, you should be able to write your own MPEG codec. Without being liable for copyright infringement. That's more or less also the way Lindows has been created.
While setting up the open (!= free) standard of MPEG, companies had to disclose their know-how during discusssions. As the standard would be published, a non-disclosure agreement did not suffice for protections. Therefore, companies applied for patents, to prevent the product of a couple of menyears of research. In this way, the companies could have a proper discussion on creating a standard that would provide the best solution possible.
The other option is a proprietary standard of one company, holding a monopoly to a de facto standard: WMV/WMA.
Which of these two options do you prefer?
It may sound odd, but patents may in this way be the only method to keep Microsoft from taking a full monopoly, as it is the only way other companies can (will) freely discuss their ideas.
Ok, that was too easy
But I hate to see this happening. I would have preferred Vietnam to follow the software policy of its big brother China. Would be better for them and the rest of the world.
And we have seen multiple times that Bill Gates doesn't give sh@t about human rights by introducing censorship modules in chat and blog software for China. Disgusting.
A common research engineer/scientist e.g. in the field of video compression produces a patentable invention three months; each time with other colleagues. A very good one does not produce more that five.
I do not make very much more money than someone doing research, so basically, the patent drafting is cheaper than the research.
In Europe, that is.
Yes, by physical nature. Not necessarily by operation.
Me too.
And I do know that using bipolars, just as well as CMOS, you can create almost identically operating circuits. Digital and analogue. Only issue is that the current through you bipolar circuit will be a lot more and that digital bipolar circuits (TTL) take up more footprint on the silicon and are therefore more expensive, even though bipolar is a cheaper technology.
I do not know the exact example by heart anymore, but it is for example possible to enhance your bass system by filtering out the lower harmonics from your input signal, double the frequency and skip every second period using e.g. a diode. In this way, it will look like your tiny PC speaker will be able to provide a powerful bass. This is called a psyco-acoustic effect. All elements, filters, frequency doublers, (analogue signal) adders can be implemented in analogue circuitry. No software, whatsoever, so patentable. Agreed?
The same idea can be just as well be implemented in software, e.g. as a Winamp plugin. Analogue operation on analogue signals can be performed on digital signals using digital operators. At least, that's what I learned in University (discrete-time signal processing by A.W.M. van den Enden and N.A.M. Verhoeckx)
You transfer the transfer function in the s (analogue frequency domain) to the z (discrete frequency domain) and design a circuit obeying the z transfer characteristics. And you're done!
US or European patent?
You're mixing up US and EU. Not a good idea. I sincerely hope that those will be two distinct jurisdictions, not only from a patent point of view.
Basically, all inventions can be turned to hardware. In any case, all electronic ones. Long before anyone even discussed the patenting of software, when the EPO objected towards all patenting of software, you could patent transistor circuits with complex filters. Nobody objected.
Now, you can put them in software, just like that. And all of a sudden, you are not allowed to obtain a patent for such a filter anymore? rather strange.
As for "clear and technical"; do you realize that currently, patents do not need to be implemented at all and thus "clear and technical" is limited to the idea, not the implementation. I beg to differ. From my experience as a patent attorney. And don't flame me for that, that would be too easy.
By drafting 'literary claims' he insinuates that something like this would ever exist. That will never be the case.
Furthermore, he insists that patents cover ideas.
Incorrect.
When I draft a patent claim for an idea, the (European/Chinese/Japanese/...(not-US)) examiner will reject it, I can tell be experience. The claim has to cover novel, inventive, clear and technical subject matter. Basically, structural features have to be mentioned. This prevents ideas from being patented. Sometimes the EPO may let things slip through, but then there is the opposition procedure to put the EPO back on track.
This prevents those hilarious events as in the US. Can anyone name a software patent lawsuit like SCO pulled up in Europe?
But like I said, (most) politicians do not know a pretty thing on software, patents, copyright and connected issues. They mix patents with copyright, in the way Stallmann explained, but also in another way: you do not need patents on inventions you implement using a computer, because you have copyright... That way of argumentation is wrong as well:
When I have a team of ten researchers working five years to develop a video compression circuit, I get a patent. Reason for this is that I spent fifty menyears to bring the world an invention that I am prepared to publish and the invention is technical. But what if a guy in China (US, Europe, Australia, whatever) copies every bit of the circuit in software, I would not have patent protection anymore, whereas I have patent protection on the hardware (silicon). Strange way of thinking...
We ended up in a big mess: industry (me, if you hadn't figured out already :-P), OSS community and politicians. Who's to blame? I'd say the incapable politicians. I am convinced that people who know they are talking about can figure out a solution here, preventing double and single clicking from being patented on one hand and providing a proper (not excessive) return on investment for industry.
I do not know from the top of my head when the next elections for the European Parliament are, but I'll have hard time finding out who to vote for.
Microsoft is now getting one of those giants like IBM who will constantly be bugged by private patent owners (bogus or real) for money. My experience is that though large companies have many patents, the quality of their portfolio is relatively low as they like big numbers. Small companies, on the other hand, have either a completely worthless portfolio or a small but very powerfull portfolio. And a small production, so the backfire risk of a patent lawsuit towards Microsoft is negligible.
But I do not think a (the?) new US patent system backed by Microsoft will solve that problem for Microsoft. It will probably make it worse. Suffer, dudes...
OK, a purist may say that the moon lander does not qualify as a satellite, but I beg to differ here.
Yes, I do know the history of Australia: it used to be a penal colony of the British Empire.
I also know the history of the US: (initially) it has been founded by a couple of religious fanatics, whose decendants still think that the bible justifies the death penalty.
OK, case closed. And I do not want to generalise all US citizens: my boss is from the US and he's a great guy, as well as (most) of my US colleagues.
'nuff said.
So basically, at this moment, the US of A form the largest penal colony in the world.
Perhaps we could state that making interstate trade of wine may make society collapse? ;-)
1. An automated method of graphically representing a plurality of data items, wherein each data item has a numerically quantifiable magnitude and at least one data item is an outlier,
comprising:
automatically determining an outlier threshold value, such that representation of both over-threshold magnitudes and under-threshold magnitudes using a single linear scale would reduce visual differences between under-threshold magnitudes below a predetermined level;
comparing the magnitude of each data item with the threshold value to determine if each of the data items is an outlier;
representing non-outlier data items as images sized to a common linear scale;
representing each outlier data item as a modified image not sized to the common linear scale; and
determining whether there are at least three data items;
. wherein the comparing and the representing each outlier data item steps are only performed if there are at least three data items;
and wherein, if there are less than three data items, all data items are represented as images sized to the common linear scale.
So I'd say it's invalid. Big issue for invalidation, however, is that you should be able to prove it. Not the easiest task. Have you marked you math cahiers with the correct date? Or should we determine the age of your writing with C14? Welcome in the world of the court... But I think some math books will help out. But you still need a very good lawyer/attorney/barrister/whatever.
At least I'm safe; in Europe, this would (most probably of course, legal people like to cover their a-r-s-e-s) not be patentable as it is an automated (no inventive step) method of presenting information (not patentable as such).
I beg to differ.
The WIPO is a multilateral organisation, whereas the US-Australian deals are bilateral. The WIPO has nothing to do with this. Perhaps you mean WTO, with TRIPs, but that does not apply in this case, either.
Furthermore, I do not know when negotiations between US and Australia have started, but I would be surprised when they would have already started under Clinton.
So, this might very well be a unilateral US thing, with a policy possibly to a large extent dictated by US corporations. Why unilateral? Because when Australia would not comply, they would miss interesting trade deals and seriously loose economy.
So, if there's a politician to blame, it's Bush. When there are companies to blame, they're US.
As for the story: yes, that's the way it goes. IAAPA.
Beat them or join them (to beat them).
Among those, there are companies with enormous patent portfolios.
Only one note: they provide their proprietary knowlegde in another way than they provide the open source (and let it run in a different way). One example is IBM.
Please keep in mind that a lot of those big patent companies are not interested in the open source community. They are only interested in the royalty check and will only sue larger companies for infringement, as this makes royalty collection easier. There's only a few software companies that may pose a patent threat to OS as it currently is.
Trust me, I've been there (I am there) (not with MS!).
Perhaps they should watch Ren & Stimpy more often ;-)
And I wouldn't call Tchaikowski Tom & Jerry stuff... sed de gustibus non disputandum est.
Peculiar that Johann Sebastian Bach does not appear anywhere. Of course considering the popular work of Douglas R. Hofstadther on Goedel, Esscher and Bach.
But also considering the logical build-up of the music. Looking at friends and colleagues, I have a feeling that there are more Bach lovers among beta people than there are among alpha people.
Which parent culture? Only the British Empire? I thought at least Germany (Germans, that is, not the German Empire), France and the Netherlands were involved here as well.
I think your second argument - the states that became the US not being souvereign for a long time - makes more sense. However, all member states have already given up over 50% of the sovereignity with respect to national legisation to the EU, of which this patent directive is a perfect example.
And I sincerely hope that the EU practise (and the constitutional setup) will be more democratic than today (that's the problem, not the willingness to give up sovereignity). And with a different setup than the US, with a system where you can elect the members of parliament directly and the parliament can send home a commissioner/minister home separately and the prime minister/head of state cannot veto a proposal for a law proposed by the parliament.
I don't think it's a good idea to compare both institutions. You compare a intergovernmental institution with a nation. When you want to compare US with EU member states, you have to check whether Negroponte represents the opinion of the majority of the US citizens when he casts his votes in the UN Security Council.
Nevertheless, you are right that this might rock the system, just as much as the EU world was rocked when the fraud by the French commissioner Edith Cresson was brought out. Perhaps nice to know, although off topic, is that the dutch EU civil servant who brought this to the light is now a member of the European Parliament.
There have been a lot of complaints by Dutch MPs that they are unable to control the ministers in the Council of Ministers. But they did not act. So finally, they know now they can control the Dutch vote over there. About time.
And so do cars and politicians ;-P
duh...
I doubt very much whether this is valid.
I have seen people exchange business card information by means of a handshake at least ten years ago.
AFAIK IBM introduced a device with which you were able to store business card data in the heel of your shoe and transmit it by means of your body. In digital form.
Only new here might be the master-slave relationship in claim 1, but I doubt whether this is patentable (I am no US patent attorney...). Dependent claims do not provide substantial subject matter.
The rest seems pretty obvious. I wonder how long this patent lasts. I've not been able to find any related patent rights in other countries. Furthermore, there is no pre-publication of the application (usually 18 months after filing of the first application), which is AFAIK in indication that they did not file outside the US. Apparently, they do not have a lot of confidence in the right themselves.