Re: [Patents] info needed

[iriXx <iriXx@iriXx.org>]

Holger Blasum wrote:

> Hello Irixx,


hi!

and thank you for your response and analysis - yes, i was having great 
difficulty with the 'legal-ese' style of writing... and not being a 
programmer i find it hard to see exactly what these patents are claiming 
- which i assume is exactly their intention! yes, holders of patents are 
notorious for claiming things that they 'werent aware' that their patent 
covered ;-(

i suspected it must be something as obvious as this... but couldnt quite 
put my finger on what they were describing.

does anyone know of prior art for this?....
or if the claim would actually be 'genuinely' their invention, or a 
retrospecive claim based on their being no publication of prior art? (i 
believe this one was patented by IBM - but thats just from memory, i was 
chasing up IBM's net patents the other night when i stumbled across it).
i suspect, like most of the other internet/networking patents, this one 
has been snapped up retrospectively, as there wasnt 'published' evidence 
around of prior art...  :-(

thanks again and best wishes

-i


> For me the claim 1 (all what really counts is claims, not the description) 
> basically would cover any CGI application, e.g. when a web form runs a 
> Perl script.
> The other claims can be found here: 
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/bnsviewer?CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=US5761663&ID=US+++5761663A1+I+
>
> The 2nd claim covers doing the things in claim 1 via a authentificated 
> connection. (e.g. .htaccess).
>
> The anatomy of the 35 claims (all valid indepently) is typical of a modern 
> software patent: do some of the claims very broad (though practically 
> unenforceable)
> to get the broadest cover possible (so that the burden of invalidating the 
> patent claim by claim is passed onto the attacker).
>
> Regards,


--
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

iriXx

www.iriXx.org

cat /dev/sda1 > /dev/dsp

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬