Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.arch
Subject: Re: 68000 Memory Managment (Bechtolsheim patent)
Message-ID: <7123@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 14-Sep-86 02:23:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.7123
Posted: Sun Sep 14 02:23:16 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Sep-86 02:23:16 EDT
References: <508@elmgate.UUCP> <64@mit-prep.ARPA>, <15665@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 24

> well, when i was a sophomore at caltech in 1981, a guy taking the
> microprocessor lab with me built a 68000 system with exactly this
> memory management scheme. i am sure his project proposal is still on
> file with the professor of that class...

If you have to dig into the prof's files to find out about it, it's not
an issue for Andy's patent.  The intent of the patent system is that you
can patent anything that you invent which is neither well-known nor an
obvious derivative of something well-known, and has not been patented
before.  Whether somebody else claims to have invented it too is irrelevant;
that becomes relevant only if the other person also applied for a patent
(placing priority in doubt) or published the idea (making it well-known).

The one respect in which this might actually be significant is as a minor
item of contributing evidence to a contention that the technique is
"obvious to one skilled in the art", i.e. an obvious derivative of well-
known stuff.  Multiple independent invention by non-wizards might
strengthen such an argument.

Warning:  the above contains serious oversimplifications.  Furthermore,
I am not a patent lawyer; consult an expert before doing anything rash.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry