The Federal Circuit was created, in part, to handle patents as a fast track system. (They also handle cases where the U.S> government is a party, indian treaties, etc). The problem is that if a case is brought, nad a countersuit is filed involving a patent, if the orignal case does not involve a patent, the Federal Circuit does not have jurisdiction.
A submarine patent is where you keep the patent in it's application phase, then at some later point, after being rejected several times and requesting re-examininations, adding specifics based on the current state of the market. Then you get to see how an industry shapes up, but you still get the benefit of the early patent applicaiton date.
Patents are good for 20 years from the date of applcation now, an attempt to keep submarine patents from getting too out of hand.
One other FYI, you generally only have about 6 years after you find out someone is infringing on your patent to begin litigation over the infringment. To just sit on it for more than 6 years exposes you to defenses of laches.
Would it really be in the public interest for PubPat to go after this patent? It seems like the all the parties to this have enough money to get things settled, whether it's an invalidation of the latent of licensing.
but you can't just say that someone did it before microsoft, you have to have some written documentation, even if it's an affidavit from an author of a book stating that he published the idea in his book in 1990.
Actually, Microsoft filed a provisional patent apoplicaiton in april 2000.
If you can find documented prior art before this you may be able to get it revoked. (35 USC 102.a & 102.e)
Even better, if you can find a patent application from more than 1 year before april 2000, you have your killer prior art.(35 USC 102.b)
There are good reasons for not patenting something. The tradeoff to patenting something is that you tell you have to tell the world how to make your invention, but Congress gives you the sole right to profit from your invention for 20 years from the time the patent application is filed.
On the other hand, you can keep something a trade secret. That means you can pofit from your invention for as long as you can keep other people from figuring out how to reproduce it. Trade secret law covers your employees selling the secrets, but your competitors may be able to legally reverse engineer your invention.
And you don't want to start fining poor patent examiners. These are usually recent grads with a tenuous grasp of the English language from crappy schools. Don't forget, they ARE government employees.
It's the process of getting patents granted that's the problem. Most patents get rejected the first time. However, an applicant can purchase an unlimited number of re-examinations, chagning the wording of the patent slightly every time. Patent examiners only get credit for examining a patent the first time, and when they finally close the patent. You bother them enough, and they'll eventually grant your patent, or part of it at least.
As for fining those with dodgy patents, if there's a real question of whether or not a patent is valid, it'll end up in court. And what happens when Microsoft starts threatening some Mom & Pop operation with having a patent overturned and massive fines? How easy would it be for Gates & Co. to say "We have thousands of lawyers, and if you try to stop us from infringing on your patent, we'll get your patent invalidated. If we do, you'll go bankrupt."
The mobile habitat runs into the same problem that toasted the rovers. It may suck crashing your moon buggy off a crater lip, but imagine wrecking your entire mobile-Moon-house.
My first job in software was for a small software company. It was mostly offices with a few cubes in larger rooms. I remember my first office was just large enough for a desk, bookcase, and chair, but I loved it. It didn;'t have any windows,and I was able to disconnect the ooverhead floursecent light, was there wasn't even a light switch.
Later, during the dot-com boom, the company moved to "nicer" facilities. It ended up being a large room with 90 cubicles inside. Less than 6 months later, all of the programmers good enough to be hired somewhere else were gone. (I was out in 3 months). It was noisy, the flourescent lights were terrible for programming, and hard to get any work done.
My last job had some problems also. I had a nice office with no windos and even a door. THe problem is that it was the offices-in-a-ring- with-cuges in the middle plan. Programmers had offices, and testers and phone support had the cubes. After having that office for several months, I got tired of hearing 45 year old women running tupperware businesses out of their offices, or complaining about how their 5th newborn kid was making their boobs sore from nursing. I ended up going into my office and closing my door all day.
People claim that communication is key to a productive office. Go all out and buy everyone their own phone. You can even be magnanimous, and let everyone have email!
It's irriating as hell to be working on a difficult project and some jackass is calling over a cube wall to asking why there are lines under some of the letters on the windows menus. I actually prefer getting up and moving around, and have no problem walking over to someone's office to see if they can answer a question, or shooting an email to them if their door is closed.
Programmers have to concentrate. Let them. Put the sales jocks at the other end of the building where they can have conference calls with their doors open all day long if they want.
The problem with hiring more stringent patent examiners is that it is, after all, a government agency. A lot of the examiners are hired as recent college graduates. The government doesn't exactly pay very well, so you tend to get people that aren't very good. All the best graduates in each of the fields are snapped up by private corporations. And the best examiners leave after a few years to go make the big bucks in the private sector.
In addition, there are problems with the way the patents are examined. Each patent application is assigned a category so it can be assigned to the group that should have the most experience in the field. The problems arise when an application combines one or more fields. An examiner with expertise in Computer software may not know much about finance, so a software patent implementing a new financial model could cause trouble.
I'd also like to point out that there a lot of people who make a lot of money from how screwed up this system. Combine that with the fact that the PTO is a government agency, and nothing is going to change fast.
Regarding the money, there are about 200,000 patents granted every year, and that number will probably be 250,000 per year very soon. Even if each patent only costs $10,000 in fees, that means the PTO brings in $2 billion dollars a year. In defense of the PTO, they are not self funded, they just bring in more money that they are budgeted. And even though they are a governmental agency, they do have some expectation of efficiency, getting as much work as possible done with as few resources as possible.
I would argue that the PTO needs to spend some money now on creating efficiencies that will help make the entire process more efficient. Examiners need to be able to find prior art easier. They also need to be able to examine the applications more closely.
Right now, it takes about 4 years to get a patent through the process. That indicates that there are just not enough people at the Patent office. That's not something that can be fixed with technology, a permanent increase in staffing levels is needed.
Basically, it all comes down to money. The PTO needs more money to overhaul the Patent process in all areas.
Actually, the PTO is one of the few government agencies that brings in more than it spends. The problem is that that extra money is not used to upgrade what's there, it's put into the general coffers. Call your senator and tell him to help stop fee diversion.
Let me add something - The way the patent office works, Patent examiners get one "point" for opening the patent file, and one more "point" when the file closes. Sometimes, an applicant just keeps resubmitting the application until the examiner gives up to make them go away.
I guess the point sytem is the government's way of keeping track of how much "work" their employees are doing.
My understanding is also that patent examiners can't even do Boolean searhing on their own patent database. This has to make things much harder when trying to find prior art analagous to the patent they are examining.
The patent system is horribly screwed up, visit PubPat to find out more about what you can do to help.
Even though the application was only 200, it's the invention date that matters, specifically, the "reduction to practice" of the patent, or when you figured out how to actually make it work. The applcaiton date is generally the presumed invention date, but the inventor can file an affidavit stating that he concieved of the invention some time before. Also, how do you prove that the tulane prior art was invented before the Microsoft app?
I've actually read this MS application, and it is VERY narrowly worded.
Take a look at 35 U.S.C.S. -
102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
(c) he has abandoned the invention, or
(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or
(g) (1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
It's $2500 for an ex parte reexamination, where you just request the re-exam, and $9000 to request a inter parte re-exam. Even if the the work is done pro bono, it quickly gets expensive to go after anything but the most injurious patents.
In addition, it generally can cost quite a bit to get a pantent approved. it cost about $1000 to do the initial filing. Most patents actualy get rejected the first time they get submitted. However, you can keep resubmitting it ad infinium. You pay every time you resubmit. YOu generally only have 3 months to respond to a rejection, but you can buy up to 3 one month extensions to respond. It ends up costing close to $4000 just to get all 3 one month extensions.
However, even if it costs $30K to get a patent issued, it's a drop in the bucket for MIcrosoft, IBM, Motorola, et al.
I actually spoke to an engineer at Motorola about doing an internship during my undergrad. One of the interesting tidbits he told me is that part of his job description was to submit at least 3 patents a year, no matter what they were about.
And about that prior art. Even if you an applicaiton that someone patents later, you have 2 problems - Can you prove you actualy wrote it 5 years ago? The patent holder can frequently show his inventors notebook showing that he "conceived" the invention several years before the patent application was submitted.
Also, most software programs aren't patented, the methods for handling things are. And since the patent holder can reword his patent claims, he can probably design around your prior art if he knows about while the patent is being examined.
Anyone notice that the EFF announced that they were going to be challenging bogus patents 2 days after PubPat announced that they had submitted a request to have Microsoft's FAT patent re-examined?
First, It's not a legal battle. It's just a request that the USPTO take another look at the patent in light of the prior art. If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft has the right to rebut the request, and PubPat doesn't gat to respond to Microsoft.
Second, If it wasn't a bogus patent being weilded for compeitive advantage, no one would have requested a re-examination.
They are currently just requesting reexamination of the basic FAT patent. It takes forever to draft the re-exam requests, so I think they're just trying to get a foor in the door on the FAT patent nonsense.
from dictionary.com:
original:
Preceding all others in time; first
And IIRC, patents don't have to be original, an invention can improve significantly on another invention and be patented. There have been something like 300 patents for the paper clip granted.
I seem to remember ads in 1994 you that could fit an ENTIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA onto just one CD-rom, and that it would also include movies, interactive pictures, etc?
For bound encyclopedias, it's a cost/benefit analysis. For $1400, you can get 2 1/2 years of high speed internet access, with pretty much all the information you can handle. Encyclopedias are just too expensive for what you get.
I quit my job programming - not in anticipation of getting fired or outsourced, but because I got tired of it.
7 years of being asked why our software couldn't make our clients a ham sandwich at the click of a button.
Now I'm going to law school to eventually become a patent/i.p. lawyer.
My first case when I graduate? How about a class action lawsuit asgainst SCO for violation ogf the GPL?
Not neccesarily the best thing for the bank account in the short run, but the Amaerican Bar Association will never let lawyering get outsourced to India.
And yeah, I know, everyone thinks lawyers suck. That always seems to change when a person gets their car rear-ended by an company driver though...
They don't use beachsand, that's silicon dioxide (SiO2), also known as quartz.
Pure silicon chunks are actually made from condensing a very pure Silicon gas called Silane. The chunks are broken up, and melted in a very hot furnace, with a crucible made out of quartz(usually). Any doping, or impurities to give the silicon it's different electrical properties are added at this point. Boron (B) is fairly common.
Then, a nice perfect seed crystal of silicon is dipped into the molten silicon which starts to crystalize around the seed crystal. The growing crystal is turned and slowly pulled out of the liquid silicon as it grows to help keep it regular. The result is called a boule, or "the bologna looking thing"
As a side note, the doping is usually too high at the top of the boule, and too low at the end of the boule, so only about the middle 25% is used.
ProCD, Inc v Zeidenberg
United State Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 1996
86 f.3d 1447
Step Saver v Wyse is workable too, and it's from 1991.(939 f.2d 91)
A "Shrinkwrap license" that stated that use by commercial parties was subject to a different price structure.
Do you actually think microsoft hasn't had their attack lawyers go over their win2k3 server license enough that they think they're binding?
Slashdot Mirror
The Federal Circuit was created, in part, to handle patents as a fast track system. (They also handle cases where the U.S> government is a party, indian treaties, etc). The problem is that if a case is brought, nad a countersuit is filed involving a patent, if the orignal case does not involve a patent, the Federal Circuit does not have jurisdiction.
A submarine patent is where you keep the patent in it's application phase, then at some later point, after being rejected several times and requesting re-examininations, adding specifics based on the current state of the market. Then you get to see how an industry shapes up, but you still get the benefit of the early patent applicaiton date.
Patents are good for 20 years from the date of applcation now, an attempt to keep submarine patents from getting too out of hand.
One other FYI, you generally only have about 6 years after you find out someone is infringing on your patent to begin litigation over the infringment. To just sit on it for more than 6 years exposes you to defenses of laches.
Would it really be in the public interest for PubPat to go after this patent? It seems like the all the parties to this have enough money to get things settled, whether it's an invalidation of the latent of licensing.
but you can't just say that someone did it before microsoft, you have to have some written documentation, even if it's an affidavit from an author of a book stating that he published the idea in his book in 1990.
Actually, Microsoft filed a provisional patent apoplicaiton in april 2000.
If you can find documented prior art before this you may be able to get it revoked. (35 USC 102.a & 102.e)
Even better, if you can find a patent application from more than 1 year before april 2000, you have your killer prior art.(35 USC 102.b)
They actually have 4 patents on FAT32. One is over nothing more than having short and long filenames in the same filename directory structure.
There are good reasons for not patenting something. The tradeoff to patenting something is that you tell you have to tell the world how to make your invention, but Congress gives you the sole right to profit from your invention for 20 years from the time the patent application is filed.
On the other hand, you can keep something a trade secret. That means you can pofit from your invention for as long as you can keep other people from figuring out how to reproduce it. Trade secret law covers your employees selling the secrets, but your competitors may be able to legally reverse engineer your invention.
And you don't want to start fining poor patent examiners. These are usually recent grads with a tenuous grasp of the English language from crappy schools. Don't forget, they ARE government employees.
It's the process of getting patents granted that's the problem. Most patents get rejected the first time. However, an applicant can purchase an unlimited number of re-examinations, chagning the wording of the patent slightly every time. Patent examiners only get credit for examining a patent the first time, and when they finally close the patent. You bother them enough, and they'll eventually grant your patent, or part of it at least.
As for fining those with dodgy patents, if there's a real question of whether or not a patent is valid, it'll end up in court. And what happens when Microsoft starts threatening some Mom & Pop operation with having a patent overturned and massive fines? How easy would it be for Gates & Co. to say "We have thousands of lawyers, and if you try to stop us from infringing on your patent, we'll get your patent invalidated. If we do, you'll go bankrupt."
The mobile habitat runs into the same problem that toasted the rovers. It may suck crashing your moon buggy off a crater lip, but imagine wrecking your entire mobile-Moon-house.
My first job in software was for a small software company. It was mostly offices with a few cubes in larger rooms. I remember my first office was just large enough for a desk, bookcase, and chair, but I loved it. It didn;'t have any windows,and I was able to disconnect the ooverhead floursecent light, was there wasn't even a light switch. Later, during the dot-com boom, the company moved to "nicer" facilities. It ended up being a large room with 90 cubicles inside. Less than 6 months later, all of the programmers good enough to be hired somewhere else were gone. (I was out in 3 months). It was noisy, the flourescent lights were terrible for programming, and hard to get any work done.
My last job had some problems also. I had a nice office with no windos and even a door. THe problem is that it was the offices-in-a-ring- with-cuges in the middle plan. Programmers had offices, and testers and phone support had the cubes. After having that office for several months, I got tired of hearing 45 year old women running tupperware businesses out of their offices, or complaining about how their 5th newborn kid was making their boobs sore from nursing. I ended up going into my office and closing my door all day.
People claim that communication is key to a productive office. Go all out and buy everyone their own phone. You can even be magnanimous, and let everyone have email!
It's irriating as hell to be working on a difficult project and some jackass is calling over a cube wall to asking why there are lines under some of the letters on the windows menus. I actually prefer getting up and moving around, and have no problem walking over to someone's office to see if they can answer a question, or shooting an email to them if their door is closed.
Programmers have to concentrate. Let them. Put the sales jocks at the other end of the building where they can have conference calls with their doors open all day long if they want.
I agree with a lot of what you said.
The problem with hiring more stringent patent examiners is that it is, after all, a government agency. A lot of the examiners are hired as recent college graduates. The government doesn't exactly pay very well, so you tend to get people that aren't very good. All the best graduates in each of the fields are snapped up by private corporations. And the best examiners leave after a few years to go make the big bucks in the private sector.
In addition, there are problems with the way the patents are examined. Each patent application is assigned a category so it can be assigned to the group that should have the most experience in the field. The problems arise when an application combines one or more fields. An examiner with expertise in Computer software may not know much about finance, so a software patent implementing a new financial model could cause trouble.
I'd also like to point out that there a lot of people who make a lot of money from how screwed up this system. Combine that with the fact that the PTO is a government agency, and nothing is going to change fast.
Regarding the money, there are about 200,000 patents granted every year, and that number will probably be 250,000 per year very soon. Even if each patent only costs $10,000 in fees, that means the PTO brings in $2 billion dollars a year. In defense of the PTO, they are not self funded, they just bring in more money that they are budgeted. And even though they are a governmental agency, they do have some expectation of efficiency, getting as much work as possible done with as few resources as possible.
I would argue that the PTO needs to spend some money now on creating efficiencies that will help make the entire process more efficient. Examiners need to be able to find prior art easier. They also need to be able to examine the applications more closely.
Right now, it takes about 4 years to get a patent through the process. That indicates that there are just not enough people at the Patent office. That's not something that can be fixed with technology, a permanent increase in staffing levels is needed.
Basically, it all comes down to money. The PTO needs more money to overhaul the Patent process in all areas.
Actually, the PTO is one of the few government agencies that brings in more than it spends. The problem is that that extra money is not used to upgrade what's there, it's put into the general coffers. Call your senator and tell him to help stop fee diversion.
Let me add something - The way the patent office works, Patent examiners get one "point" for opening the patent file, and one more "point" when the file closes. Sometimes, an applicant just keeps resubmitting the application until the examiner gives up to make them go away.
I guess the point sytem is the government's way of keeping track of how much "work" their employees are doing.
My understanding is also that patent examiners can't even do Boolean searhing on their own patent database. This has to make things much harder when trying to find prior art analagous to the patent they are examining.
The patent system is horribly screwed up, visit PubPat to find out more about what you can do to help.
Even though the application was only 200, it's the invention date that matters, specifically, the "reduction to practice" of the patent, or when you figured out how to actually make it work. The applcaiton date is generally the presumed invention date, but the inventor can file an affidavit stating that he concieved of the invention some time before. Also, how do you prove that the tulane prior art was invented before the Microsoft app?
I've actually read this MS application, and it is VERY narrowly worded. Take a look at 35 U.S.C.S. -
102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
(c) he has abandoned the invention, or
(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or
(g) (1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
There are several issues here:
It's $2500 for an ex parte reexamination, where you just request the re-exam, and $9000 to request a inter parte re-exam. Even if the the work is done pro bono, it quickly gets expensive to go after anything but the most injurious patents.
In addition, it generally can cost quite a bit to get a pantent approved. it cost about $1000 to do the initial filing. Most patents actualy get rejected the first time they get submitted. However, you can keep resubmitting it ad infinium. You pay every time you resubmit. YOu generally only have 3 months to respond to a rejection, but you can buy up to 3 one month extensions to respond. It ends up costing close to $4000 just to get all 3 one month extensions.
However, even if it costs $30K to get a patent issued, it's a drop in the bucket for MIcrosoft, IBM, Motorola, et al.
I actually spoke to an engineer at Motorola about doing an internship during my undergrad. One of the interesting tidbits he told me is that part of his job description was to submit at least 3 patents a year, no matter what they were about.
And about that prior art. Even if you an applicaiton that someone patents later, you have 2 problems - Can you prove you actualy wrote it 5 years ago? The patent holder can frequently show his inventors notebook showing that he "conceived" the invention several years before the patent application was submitted.
Also, most software programs aren't patented, the methods for handling things are. And since the patent holder can reword his patent claims, he can probably design around your prior art if he knows about while the patent is being examined.
Anyone notice that the EFF announced that they were going to be challenging bogus patents 2 days after PubPat announced that they had submitted a request to have Microsoft's FAT patent re-examined?
I'm starting monday as a summer associate at the Public Patent Foundation. Looks like I know what I'll be doing my summer research on.
First, It's not a legal battle. It's just a request that the USPTO take another look at the patent in light of the prior art. If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft has the right to rebut the request, and PubPat doesn't gat to respond to Microsoft.
Second, If it wasn't a bogus patent being weilded for compeitive advantage, no one would have requested a re-examination.
They are currently just requesting reexamination of the basic FAT patent. It takes forever to draft the re-exam requests, so I think they're just trying to get a foor in the door on the FAT patent nonsense.
from dictionary.com:
original:
Preceding all others in time; first
And IIRC, patents don't have to be original, an invention can improve significantly on another invention and be patented. There have been something like 300 patents for the paper clip granted.
If you're a lawyer-type interested in technology, send them an email.
They have several interesting projects on patent re-examination, commentary on the patent process, etc.
I seem to remember ads in 1994 you that could fit an ENTIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA onto just one CD-rom, and that it would also include movies, interactive pictures, etc?
For bound encyclopedias, it's a cost/benefit analysis. For $1400, you can get 2 1/2 years of high speed internet access, with pretty much all the information you can handle. Encyclopedias are just too expensive for what you get.
The only thing you do most times when you start your own company is go from putting out someone else's fires to putting out your own.
However, I respect you for doing your own thing. Good Luck!
I quit my job programming - not in anticipation of getting fired or outsourced, but because I got tired of it. 7 years of being asked why our software couldn't make our clients a ham sandwich at the click of a button. Now I'm going to law school to eventually become a patent/i.p. lawyer. My first case when I graduate? How about a class action lawsuit asgainst SCO for violation ogf the GPL? Not neccesarily the best thing for the bank account in the short run, but the Amaerican Bar Association will never let lawyering get outsourced to India. And yeah, I know, everyone thinks lawyers suck. That always seems to change when a person gets their car rear-ended by an company driver though...
They don't use beachsand, that's silicon dioxide (SiO2), also known as quartz.
Pure silicon chunks are actually made from condensing a very pure Silicon gas called Silane. The chunks are broken up, and melted in a very hot furnace, with a crucible made out of quartz(usually). Any doping, or impurities to give the silicon it's different electrical properties are added at this point. Boron (B) is fairly common.
Then, a nice perfect seed crystal of silicon is dipped into the molten silicon which starts to crystalize around the seed crystal. The growing crystal is turned and slowly pulled out of the liquid silicon as it grows to help keep it regular. The result is called a boule, or "the bologna looking thing"
As a side note, the doping is usually too high at the top of the boule, and too low at the end of the boule, so only about the middle 25% is used.
Then it gets sliced into wafers. etc. etc.
1996
ProCD, Inc v Zeidenberg
United State Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 1996
86 f.3d 1447
Step Saver v Wyse is workable too, and it's from 1991.(939 f.2d 91)
A "Shrinkwrap license" that stated that use by commercial parties was subject to a different price structure.
Do you actually think microsoft hasn't had their attack lawyers go over their win2k3 server license enough that they think they're binding?