Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn.com!drilex!dricejb From: dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Patents and Architecture Message-ID: <13096@drilex.UUCP> Date: 30 Jun 90 14:39:26 GMT References: <4742@sunquest.UUCP> <63036@sgi.sgi.com> Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA Lines: 63 In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <63036@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: > >The discussion isn't about patents. It's about bad patents. Strictly true. However, many posters seem to consider all patents which place limits on them bad. >> But even so, usually I think I hear a lot of sour grapes. After the patent >> is issued and after somebody is successful with it, people think "I could >> have done that". Maybe so, but if so why didn't you. > >I don't know about anyone else, but I independently came up with the use of >XOR for rubber band lines when hacking around on an Apple II in the late >'70s. I'm sure that the same basic problem has been *independently* solved >the same basic way thousands of times. It really *is* an obvious solution. Personally, I have been employed as a computer professional, albeit not a graphics specialist, since around the time of the patent. When I first saw the XOR hack demonstrated around 1979, my reaction was "Gee. Does that really work? Let me work it out on paper. Yep, sure does!". It was not at first obvious to this practitioner of the art at that time. I think there may be something special here: once people had bit-mapped screens, the XOR hack wasn't too hard to think up. (Although I believe *anything* involved with XOR is a little magic. :-)) However, before bit-mapped screens were widespread, it wasn't obvious at all. Note: in patent law, unlike copyright law, independent invention gives no relief. There are many cases in history of many people coming up with the same idea at the same time. I believe that the telephone is one instance--another person tried to file a few days after Bell. Indeed, the telephone is a good example of the good and bad of patent protection. The telephone patent was in effect over a period from around 1888 to around 1905 (I could be off by a few years). During that time the telephone went from being a laboratory kludge to a useful tool for many people. Also, A. G. Bell sold out fairly early during that period, and went on to make significant contributions to aviation and hydrofoil propulsion at sea. All of this was made possible by the patent. When the patent expired, a number of other firms got into the telephone business, and made significant innovations. Telephone usage did not really become widespread until this time. In this way, the patent hurt the development of the telephone. There are other lessons from the telephone: Strowger had the patent on the step-by-step exchange (which is the "obvious" way to do the job). This led AT&T to develop the panel exchange, which was a central-control exchange. Although the panel exchange was a mechanical nightmare, the central-control idea is now fundamental to modern telephony. Getting back to computer architecture, I agree with several other posters: the problem isn't with patents, it's with how long they run. Seventeen years is longer than the life of many ideas these days. (The attached- terminal minicomputer, for example.) I think something on the order of seven to ten years would be more appropriate. -- Craig Jackson dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com {bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}