[SATLUG] Patents

[Hector Bojorquez]

Doh..Vannevar Bush...  this is true..
Librarians (of whom I know plenty) always remind me of him....


On 5/4/07, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> --
> _______________________________________________
> SATLUG mailing list
> SATLUG at satlug.org
> http://alamo.satlug.org/mailman/listinfo/satlug to unsubscribe
> Powered by Rackspace (www.rackspace.com)
>