[SATLUG] Patents

[Bruce Dubbs]

Hector Bojorquez wrote:

> I've posted this before..but the power of Engelbart's vision still
> amazes me
> http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/1968Demo.html

I agree.  I first saw this in 1991.

> Who really uses 3 button mice anymore? 

I do.  The middle button is very important for pasting in the command
line environment.  I ordered mice without scroll wheels and with three
buttons explicitly for the Linux/Unix classes at SAC.  IMO, if you are
doing a lot of coding or other command line operations, the scroll wheel
gets in the way.

> BUT... if the innovation fundamentally changes the nature of the
> device...like an optical mouse,  OR a pointing device that is not
> driven by the hand but by eye movements, or by brain waves... then
> those new "mice"  are worthy of a patent.

Perhaps.  It depends if the technology is new or not.  If it exists in
another context, then applying it to a mouse may or may not be obvious.

> I haven't decided what I think of this particular decision...
> but I've seen enough protection of big-business by this court not to
> wonder what precedents  they may be setting in place that may screw
> over the little guy.

It is not screwing over the little guy.  It is liberating him.  The ones
who can afford the costs of a patent are the big guys.  They have been
patenting minor tweaks that are obvious to extend the monopoly
protection of a patent for a long time.

> As far as Engelbart.. .I keep wondering who out there is doing that
> kind of lonely visionary work... neither Engelbart nor Licklidder were
> mentioned in Hackers or in Fire in the Valley--- because neither
> really fit into the scope of those "pop" personnas---   Engelbart is a
> researcher/designer/visionary
> Hell he came up with the idea for linked documents (AND came up with a
> working version) LONG before the development of http.

Ah, no.  The idea was from Vannevar Bush in Alantic Monthly in 1945!

http://www.ibiblio.org/pjones/bush/bush.html

Now that was visionary!  I do think that Englebart did do the first
implementation.

Overall, I think we are in much more agreement than disagreement.  The
patent system was envisioned by the writers of the Constitution as
something to reward the hard work of developing new processes and
techniques in a non-trivial manner.  As the Supreme Court said, they did
this "To promote the progress of science and useful arts".  Allowing
trivial patents hinders progress rather than promoting it.

There will always be edge cases about what is sufficiently innovative,
but that is what courts are for.  Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit (the one that oversees patents), went off track
and was not applying what most people would consider common sense.  The
Supreme Court said that they must consider all inputs when deciding
obviousness and not a rigid, narrow rule they came up with to make their
job easier.

  -- Bruce