Xref: utzoo misc.legal:9596 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:7603 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!husc6!m2c!jjmhome!cpoint!martillo From: martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Token Ring Patent Summary: Ecrasez l'Islam et le patente de Soderblom Message-ID: <2419@cpoint.UUCP> Date: 5 Jul 89 12:15:17 GMT References: <2377@cpoint.UUCP> <2413@cpoint.UUCP> <2414@cpoint.UUCP> <874@anise.acc.com> Reply-To: martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp., Hopkinton Mass. Lines: 75 In article <874@anise.acc.com> lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes: >In article <2414@cpoint.UUCP> and <2413@cpoint.UUCP> and <2377@cpoint.UUCP>, >martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) writes: >>As usual, the language is totally obscure, and if the actual patent >>is similarly written, I would feel that the patent officer would have >>been negligent not to have rejected the application on those grounds >>alone. >The abstract quoted seems unusually clear. This covers the idea of a >token ring. Really! Soderblom patented a unidirectional digital repeater/transceiver and nowhere mentioned repeater. That is real clarity. Now it is possible that the complete patent mentions that the circuit is a digital repeater, but I doubt it for the very good reason that the concept of a digital repeater is not patentable in 1967. >>However, I doubt either MAU has any circuits borrowed from the >>Soderblom circuit. >The patent does not appear to cover a specific circuit implementation, >but rather, it covers the abstract notion of a token ring. No, it covers a much larger class of digital repeaters against which Soderblom is making no claims because the bogosity of this patent would be obvious. >>Now, I would consider the following scenario analogous to what >>Soderblom has achieved at the patent office. >>It is 1890 and I build the first electric stove which I patent. >>... >>Purporting to owning the concept of cooking with >>electrically-generated heat would seem a bit presumptuous. >This is what the patent process is supposed to do !! Wrongo! You can patent non-obvious extensions to existing ideas. In 1890 the concept of cooking with heat was well-known and the concept of generating heat via electricity was well-known. The concept of cooking with electrically-generated heat would have been practically self-evident to any engineer working in the field especially since chemists were already using electrically generated heat to stimulate chemical reactions (sounds like cooking to me) at this time period. >>There is no obvious justification in granting patent rights over all >>circuits which constitute a class distinguished from a pre-existing >>class of circuits simply through minor extensions >The idea of patents is to encourage inventions by allowing the inventor >sole rights to a new idea for a limited time, provided he publishes the >idea, so (a) everybody can use it now if they pay the inventor, and (b) >everybody can use it later, and can build on it. But that is it exactly. There is nothing at all new in a slightly intelligent unidirectional digital repeater in 1967. Giving a old device a new name to obscure what it really is does not a new idea make. There may be something new and clever in the specific circuit Soderblom invented, and I have no problem with the Soderblom patent covering the specific circuit. >The best patents are always sweeping ideas with many applications. If >you can't come up with any such, you may be able to invent process >improvements or applications. Yes, the digital repeater in the 1950's was a sweeping idea with many applications, but Soderblom did not invent it. >---- >Oh, there I did it; I let myself get baited into an argument with Martillo >(:-(. At least I've redirected followups. >/ Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 > ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only > My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!