"... I think it's a little obnoxious to automatically assume that because these people are receiving funds from Microsoft, their conclusions are hopelessly biased in its favor...."
It is not automatic. It is a result of careful investigation has produced evidence sufficient for a reasonable person to draw this conclusion.
Christopher Cox is on the board of AdTI, received $11,000 of documented contributions to his congressional campaign funding.
Greg Fossedal signed his name to a fraudulent science hoax report in 1994, and there is evidence that passed due process of law in the tobacco conspiracy trials that proves he is a dirty conspirator.
Becky Norton Dunlop has a whole dossier of front organizations she sits on the boards, including several prominent in the coordinated felony conspiracy against Linux and Open Source. She is director of AdTI (which is proven to be M$ funded) and Vice President of Heritage Foundation (proven to be M$ funded) which also has a M$ VP sitting on its board. Dunlop schedules the seminars and events at Heritage, and was responsible for scheduling some "Hate Linux/O.S.S" events.
They committed FELONY criminal conspiracy -- they got caught -- get used to it. Some interns at these tanks are PAID to post doubts online -- they are the "getaway drivers" for career criminals.
Corrupt AdTI has committed felonies in the past and the present -- they got caught -- now the public is trying to understand the deliberately confused smokescreens these professional career criminals have used to accomplish their frauds.
Much documentation is online: http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01. html http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/AdTI_Villians.htm http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Pelosi.html http://www .ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html http://www. ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html http://www.ecosy n.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html http://www.ecosyn .us/adti/Stohrer-Singer.html http://www.ecosyn.us /adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html http://www.ecosyn.us/ adti/Heidelberg-Appeal.html http://www.ecosyn.us/ adti/Confronting_AdTI.html http://www.ecosyn.us/a dti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.htm l http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Becky_Norton_Dunlop_A dTI.html
There are a sort of organized crime familes of billionaires, each head of each family has some think tanks on a close leash, by stacking the board of directors, for example. Then a spread of tanks receives monies from other crime families, so that there is overlapping.
I call them crime families because they are into FELONY CONSPIRACY to defraud, which is a crime. Thre are often additional crimes, such as illegal unreported money transfers (above the $10,000 limits instituted to halt drug lords, but also applies to these guys too). Money laundering, is a federal crime. Then there are the crimes of illegal lobbying of congress -- many tanks do this in the guise of "reports" and "white papers" or "books", which are given free to lawmakers, given free publicity in news media lawmakers read, and with seminars and events hosted for lawmakers and their staffs. This too is crime under present laws, but tanks ignore it because "everybody does it".
One crime family is headed by convicted felon Sun Myung Moon, whose Washington Times newspaper is used to distribute illegal lobbying fraud materials to the whole legislative branch on a daily basis. Do a google search of your favorite conspirator and WashTimes...
Murdoch's Fox news (Murdoch was director of Cato think tank AND Philip Morris Tobacco at the same time a couple years ago) also passes the free propaganda that would cost hundreds of Millions of dollars to buy the air-time to deliver it as commercial ads (which it is).
Killer David H. Koch sits on the boards of Cato, CSE, Reason, Aspen, and several other institutes. (brother Charles co-founded Cato.) Killer Koch has one of the worst records of pollution spills and toxic dumping records in American history -- it is small wonder that these tanks bang the drum loadly to eliminate the EPA, eliminate SUPERFUND, eliminate regulations on environment, eliminate Endengered Species Act (often used to fine companies polluting protected habitat). Killer Koch has contracts with Russian Mafioso Yukos: google reports 84 items about "Yukos" and "Koch Industries", including one on Koch Industries own website. Koch Industries is of course fopunded on Koch OIL, so it is not surprising that the Koch brothers have donated more than the $12,000,000 that ExxonMobil has to the think tank network -- actually, the Koch's get ExxonMobil's donations to add to their's and Scaife (GULF OIL) to defeat any attempts to regulate CO2 pollution through think tank crminial conspiracy.
Then there is brother Killer Charles G. Koch: sits on the boards of "Institute of Humane Studies, "Mercatus Center" and several other "George Mason University" front operations. At least a dozen high-ranking GMU faculty turned up in the TobaccoDocuments.org files involved in the tobacco conspiracies - not surprising for a tobacco state in the old south.
read more: http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01.ht ml http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/AdTI_Villians.htm h ttp://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Pelosi.html http://www.e cosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html http://www.ec osyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html http://www.ecosyn. us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html http://www.ecosyn.u s/adti/Stohrer-Singer.html http://www.ecosyn.us/a dti/Hazeltine-Singer.html http://www.ecosyn.us/ad ti/Heidelberg-Appeal.html http://www.ecosyn.us/ad ti/Confronting_AdTI.html http://www.ecosyn.us/adt i/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.htm l http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Becky_Norton_Dunlop_A dTI.html
The soldiers of these think tanks serve villianous masters. No one single report will ever fully explain the damage they do. The "junior brownshirts" will respond to exposures of villiany by trying to smokescreen it. It is not needed that everybody get a full education -- some people are just getting the beginning of their wake-up call.
Google Results 1 - 10 of about 5,760 for "When Think Tanks Attack" -- not bad 5,760 links in a week.
http://www.ecosyn.us/SCO_v_IBM_copyright_issues.ht ml
SCO v IBM: SELECTED WEBPAGES CITATIONS OF COPYRIGHT LAW HISTORY RELEVENT TO UNIX SYSTEM V COPYRIGHT CLAIMS STATUS
* NO copyrights for computer programs, source code or machine readable binary were copyrightable in the US before 1980.
* Before 1976, mandatory notices were required on all copyrighted materials in standardized mandatory forms -- failure to adhere to the law regarding mandatory notices on published works forfeited what copyright protection was available.
* Before 1976 copyright was not automatically conferred upon creating a fixed tangible form -- copyright was limited to those works which complied with the provisions of the prior law "The Copyright Act of 1909". Unix was developed and distributed for seven years under this law.
* Distributing works, making one or more copies for sale, lease or loan, constituted publication during the first seven years of Unix development.
* Since 1976, mandatory requirements for copyrighted works have required deposit of copies with the Library of Congress within 3 months of first publication. Unless Unix source code is in the Library of Congress it is not copyrighted. Unless Unix System V is in the Library of Congress, it is in violation of the 1976 revisions. Before 1976 "promptly" depositing copies was mandatory, defined in caselaw as within one year of first publication.
* Unix System V is a collection of modules, mostly public domain through copyright forfeiture between 1969 and 1976.
* It is defined as fraud under the 1909 Copyright Act [ 105] "shall insert or impress any notice of copyright required by this title, or words of the same purport, in or upon any uncopyrighted article" to post-fix copyright notices upon works not qualifying for copyright.
* None of the 1976, 1980, or 1989 adjustments to Copyright laws and the Berne Treaty permitted retroactive copyrights to previously forfeiting or public domain works.
* Unix System V is basically public domain in the catagory of a compilation or anthology. Only new material added after 1976, or after 1980 (when computer programs first became copyrightable) could possibly qualify for copyright status, and only those collections which complied with mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress. Everything else is not in compliance with copyright laws and treaties.
If YOU institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement [to YOUR patent], then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
This means: filing a patent litigation against one revokes all patent licences offered by the Apache Server Licence. ALL PATENT PERMISSIONS ARE REVOKE TO ANY TROUBLEMAKER.
This means: you lose all licence permission for filing a countter-claim against any party to the WORK, even if they sue you first. The original suer also forfeits all Apache permissions as of the date of their lawsuit filing.
This means: anybody, every single body, who provokes a patent fight dragging Apache Server software into court is out of the Apache-user game. Period. No buts, no ifs. No maybe.
It is pretty darned clear. Read it again and again if that's what it takes. It is straightforward simple.
Before a patent is accepted, it's put up for public display, for anyone to dispute. What we really need is a user-powered web site (Another OSDN partner?) that watches patents as they are put up for review, and looks for prior art.
This is simply not true. Patent applications are confidential until the day a patent is issued. "Submarine patents" emerge from the patent secrecy process and have exclusive rights to ideas invented elsewhere afterwards which are in then present use.
The FIRST inventor who "reduces to practice" wins the race. Filing a patent app is a strong example of "reduction to practice", as the teaching of the invention will be published by the patent office itself for all the world to benefit from (eventually when the patent expires).
A patent is never completely new. All ideas come from other ideas. Taking an existing idea and improving on it can easily result in a patentable item.
Patent apps must pass three test. Failure of any one of the tests invalidates the patent application.
(1) The invention must be NEW, that is, not already in use anywhere in the world,
(2) The invention must be NOVEL, that is, not just a paintjob on something else which itself is unpatentable.
(3) The invention must be UNEXPECTED, that is, not mere incremental on prior art as known to the experts in that field. It must be 'surprising" in its application of known elements of prior art.
Failure to meet even one of these tests dooms a patent application.
The patent office is required to notice prior art, not just prior patents. Patent applicants are required to disclose prior art that they are aware of. An oath under penalty of perjury, signed by the patent applicant is required in patent apps.
Bringing up prior art invalidates more than 50% of all patents challenged.
Notifying USPTO of prior art invokes an "interference" which invokes a re-examination if the notification of prior art is significant, and can/does lead to invalidating some or all of the claims of a patent.
Unless the company is selling NEW issue stocks they receive zero dollars and zero cents where two members of the public trade stocks (buy/sell).
SCO does not make any money from the increase in price -- SCO-stockholders do, IF they sell BEFORE the price goes down. All along, this has been called a PUMP & DUMP scheme, meaning pump up the stock price, then dump your shares before the public knows what's the end of the story.
The writer at the top of the thread claims he would be a multimillionaire if he rode that rocket. Others are saying that's been the point all along -- some people with inside knowledge of legal developments and tons of FREE publicity have multiplied their worth 20 times.
By the way, to be a multimillionaire (that is, at least TWO million dollars) on a 20x multiple in value, means that the writer had $100,000 to put down early in the year. I find it hard to believe he has trouble paying his bills.
Priority date can be earlier than application date, due to things like continuations. Priority date is what counts as far as invalidating a patent goes - if anyone else published or publically used the invention before the priority date, or if the inventor published or used the invention more than one year before the priority date, that would invalidate the patent.
True, BUT... Priority, in confidence is trumped by diligently reducing to practice. A patent application (PA or PPA) is a constructive reduction to practice, and usually invalidates earlier confidential inventions which languished under a lazy inventor. I would believe that the whole body of patent law can, and should be, interpreted, such that continuations do not protect the new additions or modifications against exterior interim prior art.
That is why I stated that the M$ long-filenames patents could be be busted, on the basis of prior art and insufficiently original (not NEW, not NOVEL) based on the publically displayed long-filenames prior art from the 1995 Windows 95 public use.
Also, older patents were valid 17 years from date of issue, not from date of application. Newer patents are valid for 20 years from date of application. This helps prevent repeated multiple continuations and resubmissions dragging the patent process out for many years, then finally being granted after its already been re-invented and everyone is already using it. There are also problems with the way the scope of a patent can be expanded in a continuation, keeping the earlier priority date but including newer ideas (including ideas that other people invented after that priority date!).
On this basis, and six books on patents from my public library, I composed the message to which this thread is attached. It appears that I was confused on the facts about patent duration commencement even after getting lawyers answers. Still, regarding the original statement at the top of thread, FAT would be out of patent every which way you might read the law. FAT32 might have SOME current patent status, but only the portion which was patented-applied-for within 365 days of first public use in Windows 95, and additional patents which contain claims for things already in use in Win95 would be subject to invalidation based on prior use (prior art).
My point of posting was to dispell FUD, propagated from M$, that (new) patents on FAT32 modifications somehow give power to M$ over FAT, which they are selling to suckers for a quarter-megabuck a pop. FAT is, was, and always will be, public domain, forever and ever.
My first use of FAT with longer filenames than FAT12 was in 1986 AmigaDOS v1.0 with 32 character filenames. Macintosh in 1984 already had 31 character filenames but I am not certain they used FAT. The Jackintosh Atari ST used FAT12 in 1985, and was disk compatible with MS-DOS FAT12 filesystem diskettes.
Your comments are appreciated, and appear informed and knowledgeable. Care to say more about your yourself, here or private correspondance? As you can see, I am getting more interested in patents in general, software prior art, and bringing out history which protects the public domain from being stolen by corps with too much cash on hand.
Win 95 had long filenames out the door from the get-go.
FAT is not included in those patents at all -- is not patented, never was, would be expired already if it ever had been patented, and wasn't invented by M$ in any case.
They are spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) to sell a public domain property for a quarter-megabuck. Look how many people are discussing M$'s rights to FAT on this discussion... FUD is working...
The long-filenames patents can be busted over "Prior Art" (previous discovery, NOT NEW) or obviousness to anyone in the art of programming filesystems required to have long filenames and remain compatible with a pre-existing FAT.
PRIOR ART, OBVIOUSNESS, INSUFFICIENTLY NOVEL,
Three perfect reasons to void the patents. M$ better never threaten anybody on these patents or they will be busted with ease. In fact, it's time M$ stop threatening anybody if they want to keep any part of their business alive.
Patents are invalid (no good) if they claim invention of anything which is public domain or was already invented. "Prior Art" is the term for "not new" used by the patent office.
A company has one year (365 days) from the time they first sell an invention to get their FAT axes into the patent office and make an application for a patent. If they blow it by even one day, their bright idea is prior art and can never be patented.
Plug in those patent numbers M$ has on their web page and look at the dates. Are they less than 365 days after WIN 95 was released? Or are they more?
Even if M$ ever had a patent on FAT (which they never did), every patent prior to mid 1987 has expired. They have a lifespan limited by law, and old patents before 1995 had 17 years lifespan from the day the USPTO received the patent application. Most patents are not granted until 18 months of examination, so the date of issue is not the date the clock starts ticking. Therefore FAT would be public domain by now even if it ever had been patented (which it wasn't because M$ didn't invent it).
M$ is charging $250,000.00 for something in the public domain. That is legal, but there is nothing illegal about you, or me, selling the same thing if we can find damn fool suckers willing to pay us a quarter-megabuck for it.
Slashdot Mirror
"... I think it's a little obnoxious to automatically assume that because these people are receiving funds from Microsoft, their conclusions are hopelessly biased in its favor. ..."
. html w .ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html. ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.htmly n.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.htmln .us/adti/Stohrer-Singer.htmls /adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html/ adti/Heidelberg-Appeal.html/ adti/Confronting_AdTI.htmla dti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.htm lA dTI .html
It is not automatic. It is a result of careful investigation has produced evidence sufficient for a reasonable person to draw this conclusion.
Christopher Cox is on the board of AdTI, received $11,000 of documented contributions to his congressional campaign funding.
Greg Fossedal signed his name to a fraudulent science hoax report in 1994, and there is evidence that passed due process of law in the tobacco conspiracy trials that proves he is a dirty conspirator.
Becky Norton Dunlop has a whole dossier of front organizations she sits on the boards, including several prominent in the coordinated felony conspiracy against Linux and Open Source. She is director of AdTI (which is proven to be M$ funded) and Vice President of Heritage Foundation (proven to be M$ funded) which also has a M$ VP sitting on its board. Dunlop schedules the seminars and events at Heritage, and was responsible for scheduling some "Hate Linux/O.S.S" events.
They committed FELONY criminal conspiracy -- they got caught -- get used to it. Some interns at these tanks are PAID to post doubts online -- they are the "getaway drivers" for career criminals.
Corrupt AdTI has committed felonies in the past and the present -- they got caught -- now the public is trying to understand the deliberately confused smokescreens these professional career criminals have used to accomplish their frauds.
Much documentation is online:
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/AdTI_Villians.htm
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Pelosi.html
http://ww
http://www
http://www.ecos
http://www.ecosy
http://www.ecosyn.u
http://www.ecosyn.us
http://www.ecosyn.us
http://www.ecosyn.us/
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Becky_Norton_Dunlop_
There are a sort of organized crime familes of billionaires, each head of each family has some think tanks on a close leash, by stacking the board of directors, for example. Then a spread of tanks receives monies from other crime families, so that there is overlapping.
t ml
h ttp://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Pelosi.htmle cosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.htmlc osyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html. us/adti/Singer-Nightline.htmlu s/adti/Stohrer-Singer.htmla dti/Hazeltine-Singer.htmld ti/Heidelberg-Appeal.htmld ti/Confronting_AdTI.htmlt i/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.htm lA dTI .html
I call them crime families because they are into FELONY CONSPIRACY to defraud, which is a crime. Thre are often additional crimes, such as illegal unreported money transfers (above the $10,000 limits instituted to halt drug lords, but also applies to these guys too). Money laundering, is a federal crime. Then there are the crimes of illegal lobbying of congress -- many tanks do this in the guise of "reports" and "white papers" or "books", which are given free to lawmakers, given free publicity in news media lawmakers read, and with seminars and events hosted for lawmakers and their staffs. This too is crime under present laws, but tanks ignore it because "everybody does it".
One crime family is headed by convicted felon Sun Myung Moon, whose Washington Times newspaper is used to distribute illegal lobbying fraud materials to the whole legislative branch on a daily basis. Do a google search of your favorite conspirator and WashTimes...
Murdoch's Fox news (Murdoch was director of Cato think tank AND Philip Morris Tobacco at the same time a couple years ago) also passes the free propaganda that would cost hundreds of Millions of dollars to buy the air-time to deliver it as commercial ads (which it is).
Killer David H. Koch sits on the boards of Cato, CSE, Reason, Aspen, and several other institutes. (brother Charles co-founded Cato.) Killer Koch has one of the worst records of pollution spills and toxic dumping records in American history -- it is small wonder that these tanks bang the drum loadly to eliminate the EPA, eliminate SUPERFUND, eliminate regulations on environment, eliminate Endengered Species Act (often used to fine companies polluting protected habitat). Killer Koch has contracts with Russian Mafioso Yukos: google reports 84 items about "Yukos" and "Koch Industries", including one on Koch Industries own website. Koch Industries is of course fopunded on Koch OIL, so it is not surprising that the Koch brothers have donated more than the $12,000,000 that ExxonMobil has to the think tank network -- actually, the Koch's get ExxonMobil's donations to add to their's and Scaife (GULF OIL) to defeat any attempts to regulate CO2 pollution through think tank crminial conspiracy.
Then there is brother Killer Charles G. Koch: sits on the boards of "Institute of Humane Studies, "Mercatus Center" and several other "George Mason University" front operations. At least a dozen high-ranking GMU faculty turned up in the TobaccoDocuments.org files involved in the tobacco conspiracies - not surprising for a tobacco state in the old south.
read more:
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01.h
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/AdTI_Villians.htm
http://www.
http://www.e
http://www.ecosyn
http://www.ecosyn.
http://www.ecosyn.us/
http://www.ecosyn.us/a
http://www.ecosyn.us/a
http://www.ecosyn.us/ad
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Becky_Norton_Dunlop_
Tanks attack free-software, freedom, and nature.
h ttp://www.ecosyn.us/adti/AdTI_Villians.htm/ /www.ecosyn.us/adti/Pelosi.htmln .us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html. us/adti/Singer-Seitz.htmld ti/Singer-Nightline.htmlt i/Stohrer-Singer.htmlH azeltine-Singer.htmle idelberg-Appeal.htmlo nfronting_AdTI.htmli tz_Tobacco_Crimes.htm l
The soldiers of these think tanks serve villianous masters. No one single report will ever fully explain the damage they do. The "junior brownshirts" will respond to exposures of villiany by trying to smokescreen it. It is not needed that everybody get a full education -- some people are just getting the beginning of their wake-up call.
Google Results 1 - 10 of about 5,760 for
"When Think Tanks Attack" -- not bad 5,760 links in a week.
Keep up the good work...
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01.html
http:
http://www.ecosy
http://www.ecosyn
http://www.ecosyn.us/a
http://www.ecosyn.us/ad
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/H
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/C
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Se
http://www.ecosyn.us/SCO_v_IBM_copyright_issues.ht ml
SCO v IBM: SELECTED WEBPAGES CITATIONS OF COPYRIGHT LAW HISTORY RELEVENT TO UNIX SYSTEM V COPYRIGHT CLAIMS STATUS
* NO copyrights for computer programs, source code or machine readable binary were copyrightable in the US before 1980.
* Before 1976, mandatory notices were required on all copyrighted materials in standardized mandatory forms -- failure to adhere to the law regarding mandatory notices on published works forfeited what copyright protection was available.
* Before 1976 copyright was not automatically conferred upon creating a fixed tangible form -- copyright was limited to those works which complied with the provisions of the prior law "The Copyright Act of 1909". Unix was developed and distributed for seven years under this law.
* Distributing works, making one or more copies for sale, lease or loan, constituted publication during the first seven years of Unix development.
* Since 1976, mandatory requirements for copyrighted works have required deposit of copies with the Library of Congress within 3 months of first publication. Unless Unix source code is in the Library of Congress it is not copyrighted. Unless Unix System V is in the Library of Congress, it is in violation of the 1976 revisions. Before 1976 "promptly" depositing copies was mandatory, defined in caselaw as within one year of first publication.
* Unix System V is a collection of modules, mostly public domain through copyright forfeiture between 1969 and 1976.
* It is defined as fraud under the 1909 Copyright Act [ 105] "shall insert or impress any notice of copyright required by this title, or words of the same purport, in or upon any uncopyrighted article" to post-fix copyright notices upon works not qualifying for copyright.
* None of the 1976, 1980, or 1989 adjustments to Copyright laws and the Berne Treaty permitted retroactive copyrights to previously forfeiting or public domain works.
* Unix System V is basically public domain in the catagory of a compilation or anthology. Only new material added after 1976, or after 1980 (when computer programs first became copyrightable) could possibly qualify for copyright status, and only those collections which complied with mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress. Everything else is not in compliance with copyright laws and treaties.
This means: filing a patent litigation against one revokes all patent licences offered by the Apache Server Licence. ALL PATENT PERMISSIONS ARE REVOKE TO ANY TROUBLEMAKER.
This means: you lose all licence permission for filing a countter-claim against any party to the WORK, even if they sue you first. The original suer also forfeits all Apache permissions as of the date of their lawsuit filing.
This means: anybody, every single body, who provokes a patent fight dragging Apache Server software into court is out of the Apache-user game. Period. No buts, no ifs. No maybe.
It is pretty darned clear. Read it again and again if that's what it takes. It is straightforward simple.
This is simply not true. Patent applications are confidential until the day a patent is issued. "Submarine patents" emerge from the patent secrecy process and have exclusive rights to ideas invented elsewhere afterwards which are in then present use.
The FIRST inventor who "reduces to practice" wins the race. Filing a patent app is a strong example of "reduction to practice", as the teaching of the invention will be published by the patent office itself for all the world to benefit from (eventually when the patent expires).
Patent apps must pass three test. Failure of any one of the tests invalidates the patent application.
(1) The invention must be NEW, that is, not already in use anywhere in the world,
(2) The invention must be NOVEL, that is, not just a paintjob on something else which itself is unpatentable.
(3) The invention must be UNEXPECTED, that is, not mere incremental on prior art as known to the experts in that field. It must be 'surprising" in its application of known elements of prior art.
Failure to meet even one of these tests dooms a patent application.
The patent office is required to notice prior art, not just prior patents. Patent applicants are required to disclose prior art that they are aware of. An oath under penalty of perjury, signed by the patent applicant is required in patent apps.
Bringing up prior art invalidates more than 50% of all patents challenged.
Notifying USPTO of prior art invokes an "interference" which invokes a re-examination if the notification of prior art is significant, and can/does lead to invalidating some or all of the claims of a patent.
Unless the company is selling NEW issue stocks they receive zero dollars and zero cents where two members of the public trade stocks (buy/sell).
SCO does not make any money from the increase in price -- SCO-stockholders do, IF they sell BEFORE the price goes down. All along, this has been called a PUMP & DUMP scheme, meaning pump up the stock price, then dump your shares before the public knows what's the end of the story.
The writer at the top of the thread claims he would be a multimillionaire if he rode that rocket. Others are saying that's been the point all along -- some people with inside knowledge of legal developments and tons of FREE publicity have multiplied their worth 20 times.
By the way, to be a multimillionaire (that is, at least TWO million dollars) on a 20x multiple in value, means that the writer had $100,000 to put down early in the year. I find it hard to believe he has trouble paying his bills.
True, BUT... Priority, in confidence is trumped by diligently reducing to practice. A patent application (PA or PPA) is a constructive reduction to practice, and usually invalidates earlier confidential inventions which languished under a lazy inventor. I would believe that the whole body of patent law can, and should be, interpreted, such that continuations do not protect the new additions or modifications against exterior interim prior art.
That is why I stated that the M$ long-filenames patents could be be busted, on the basis of prior art and insufficiently original (not NEW, not NOVEL) based on the publically displayed long-filenames prior art from the 1995 Windows 95 public use.
I asked the Patent Forum readers recently about a patent expiration date.. shtml
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Patent/Forum/msg/6163
I received two responses from patent lawyers.. shtml . shtml
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Patent/Forum/msg/6166
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Patent/Forum/msg/6164
On this basis, and six books on patents from my public library, I composed the message to which this thread is attached. It appears that I was confused on the facts about patent duration commencement even after getting lawyers answers. Still, regarding the original statement at the top of thread, FAT would be out of patent every which way you might read the law. FAT32 might have SOME current patent status, but only the portion which was patented-applied-for within 365 days of first public use in Windows 95, and additional patents which contain claims for things already in use in Win95 would be subject to invalidation based on prior use (prior art).
My point of posting was to dispell FUD, propagated from M$, that (new) patents on FAT32 modifications somehow give power to M$ over FAT, which they are selling to suckers for a quarter-megabuck a pop. FAT is, was, and always will be, public domain, forever and ever.
My first use of FAT with longer filenames than FAT12 was in 1986 AmigaDOS v1.0 with 32 character filenames. Macintosh in 1984 already had 31 character filenames but I am not certain they used FAT. The Jackintosh Atari ST used FAT12 in 1985, and was disk compatible with MS-DOS FAT12 filesystem diskettes.
Your comments are appreciated, and appear informed and knowledgeable. Care to say more about your yourself, here or private correspondance? As you can see, I am getting more interested in patents in general, software prior art, and bringing out history which protects the public domain from being stolen by corps with too much cash on hand.
Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
LionKuntz@yahoo.com
Win 95 had long filenames out the door from the get-go.
FAT is not included in those patents at all -- is not patented, never was, would be expired already if it ever had been patented, and wasn't invented by M$ in any case.
They are spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) to sell a public domain property for a quarter-megabuck. Look how many people are discussing M$'s rights to FAT on this discussion... FUD is working...
The long-filenames patents can be busted over "Prior Art" (previous discovery, NOT NEW) or obviousness to anyone in the art of programming filesystems required to have long filenames and remain compatible with a pre-existing FAT.
PRIOR ART,
OBVIOUSNESS,
INSUFFICIENTLY NOVEL,
Three perfect reasons to void the patents. M$ better never threaten anybody on these patents or they will be busted with ease. In fact, it's time M$ stop threatening anybody if they want to keep any part of their business alive.
A company has one year (365 days) from the time they first sell an invention to get their FAT axes into the patent office and make an application for a patent. If they blow it by even one day, their bright idea is prior art and can never be patented.
What is in those four patents that wasn't in WIN 95? Here is the link to the USPTO patent number search page: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm
Plug in those patent numbers M$ has on their web page and look at the dates. Are they less than 365 days after WIN 95 was released? Or are they more?
Even if M$ ever had a patent on FAT (which they never did), every patent prior to mid 1987 has expired. They have a lifespan limited by law, and old patents before 1995 had 17 years lifespan from the day the USPTO received the patent application. Most patents are not granted until 18 months of examination, so the date of issue is not the date the clock starts ticking. Therefore FAT would be public domain by now even if it ever had been patented (which it wasn't because M$ didn't invent it).
M$ is charging $250,000.00 for something in the public domain. That is legal, but there is nothing illegal about you, or me, selling the same thing if we can find damn fool suckers willing to pay us a quarter-megabuck for it.