Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!warper.jhuapl.edu!trn From: trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) Newsgroups: comp.graphics Subject: Re: Pixar's patent on stochastic image generation Message-ID: Date: 30 Oct 90 18:30:39 GMT References: <67527@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <1990Oct29.203607.403@heitis1.uucp> <1456@proto.COM> Sender: news@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Johns Hopkins University Lines: 25 joe@proto.COM (Joe Huffman) writes: >A patent allow the holder to halt distribution of any type, free or otherwise. >A patent is a legal monopoly. You can literal say that no one (within the >domain of your patent) may possess, use, or sell the patented item. Even if >the non-patent holder developed it first or independantly. [...] ^^^^^ That turns out not to be the case. If the non-patent holder can prove he invented the item first, that invalidates the current patent. A patent may only be held by the *first* inventor, not the fastest to the patent office. :-) >Patents should not be allowed for software (IMHO). I have a patent (well >actually a former employer owns it) for a hardware device and have >considered applying for others (my own) for hardware. I think patents are >probably a good thing for hardware but not software even though I do nothing >but write software these days. The problem with patents is that you have to defend them against *every* infringement or you could lose them. Unless you have very deep pockets, this may be too burdensome for an individual -- whether you're talking hardware *or* software. -- Tony Nardo, INET: trn@warper.jhuapl.edu, trn@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu Johns Hopkins Univ./APL UUCP: {backbone!}mimsy!aplcen!trn Quote(s) relocated to my finger .plans