"He was either incompetant, or willfully neglegent when he granted this patent. If I make a mistake this serious at my job, I can be held seriously accountable for it. So should Mr. Britton."
Well, first off, was it a mistake? From a number of the replies we have seen here, as well as the fact that the patent has not been struck down, it is not OBVIOUS that this patent is invalid. Also, you have to look at the patent as the state of the technology AT THE TIME OF THE INVENTION. Which, in this case, is 1986. Were you aware of the prevelant use of THIS compression (it was not named jpeg at this point) for images?
In addition, Mr. Britton was a very good examiner who faithfully served our patent system for over 40 years. If you would like to make a dispagaring remark against his work, would you please present evidence that it was, in fact, an invalid patent. And would you do so in under 14 hours (this is the amount of time that a primary examiner in this field is alloted to fully examine a patent of this nature).
Our patent system is, without a doubt, flawed. The examiners are asked to do to much in to little time. It is difficult to reconstruct what the environment was like during the time in which the invention was conceived, especially on the so-called "submarine" patents. However, be aware that the examiners working for the office are doing their best in the time given to them to make sure that the inventors are rewarded for their inventions.
Note: IF this patent is valid, it should not be viewed as damaging to the economy as it is protecting the right of the inventor to limit the use of his invention. If you have a problem with this then you have a problem with the patent system in general. In truth, I have a problem with other companies purchasing patents instead of purchasing licenses. It does seem to do nothing more than spawn companies whose sole buisness is enforcing patents instead of developing new technology.
Slashdot Mirror
"He was either incompetant, or willfully neglegent when he granted this patent. If I make a mistake this serious at my job, I can be held seriously accountable for it. So should Mr. Britton."
Well, first off, was it a mistake? From a number of the replies we have seen here, as well as the fact that the patent has not been struck down, it is not OBVIOUS that this patent is invalid. Also, you have to look at the patent as the state of the technology AT THE TIME OF THE INVENTION. Which, in this case, is 1986. Were you aware of the prevelant use of THIS compression (it was not named jpeg at this point) for images?
In addition, Mr. Britton was a very good examiner who faithfully served our patent system for over 40 years. If you would like to make a dispagaring remark against his work, would you please present evidence that it was, in fact, an invalid patent. And would you do so in under 14 hours (this is the amount of time that a primary examiner in this field is alloted to fully examine a patent of this nature).
Our patent system is, without a doubt, flawed. The examiners are asked to do to much in to little time. It is difficult to reconstruct what the environment was like during the time in which the invention was conceived, especially on the so-called "submarine" patents. However, be aware that the examiners working for the office are doing their best in the time given to them to make sure that the inventors are rewarded for their inventions.
Note: IF this patent is valid, it should not be viewed as damaging to the economy as it is protecting the right of the inventor to limit the use of his invention. If you have a problem with this then you have a problem with the patent system in general. In truth, I have a problem with other companies purchasing patents instead of purchasing licenses. It does seem to do nothing more than spawn companies whose sole buisness is enforcing patents instead of developing new technology.