[Patents] Re: [Patents] Patents discussion on Kernel mailing-list.

[Nick Fleming marmalade@x-stream.co.uk]

(Original text truncated for brevity)

>    Elsewhere, Joe Acosta said:
>    
>    "As a former Patent Examiner, I feel that I can shed some light on
:    :
>        Personally I am ammazed at what people today call novel and want
>        patent protection over. Companies want to patent there data
>        structures.. no joke a certain co in a certain northwest state was
>        and probably still is trying this. I had to leave that place cause
>        my waders were not tall enough.

    Personally, Im not amazed. One of the more dubious uses of software
patents is to generate money without doing any legitimate business, (i.e.
actually selling something). Also, since the 'windowing' technique is (a) 
obvious
and (b) has prior art examples everywhere, there can be only one reason why
the U.S allowed this - and this is a problem with software searches in 
general -
Software algorithms are as a rule general purpose and *NOT* application
specific, but the patent office still treats them as such. This is sort of to 
everyones
advantage, but doesnt help clarity - (Right mr Watson ? :0)
 Saying that the windowing technique is ok in Linux because its 'not'
using a database and therefore does not infringe is ludicrous. I thought 
patents
were supposed to be FORM independent ?

NickF.