Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!rutgers!labrea!glacier!jbn
From: jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.misc
Subject: Re: patents
Message-ID: <17179@glacier.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: glacier.17179
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Sep-87 06:46:35 EDT
References: <1372@osiris.UUCP> <441@polyslo.UUCP> <686@sugar.UUCP> <1490@epimass.EPI.COM> <25@nl.cs.cmu.edu> <597@rocky.STANFORD.EDU> <3996@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 28
Keywords: patent
Xref: mnetor sci.crypt:558 comp.misc:1278


    The book "Advanced Legal Strategies for Software Protection" is a good
way to get an idea of how software patents work in practice.  It is definitely
possible to patent an algorithm that can be expressed in custom hardware.

    Patents are taken much more seriously today than a few years ago.  One
reason is the Kodak-Polaroid legislation, where Kodak was held to be 
infringing on Polaroid's instant color film patents.  The judgement was
that Kodak was 1) ordered to get out of the instant photography
business within thirty days 2) ordered to offer to buy back every Kodak
instant camera ever sold 3) ordered to pay damages to Polaroid in the 8-figure
range.  All these things were done.  This shook up a lot of businesses that
assumed that if they were found to be in infringement they would just pay
some damages and be done with it.  When you have to factor in the possibility
of being kicked out of a business and writing off a few hundred million in
now-useless manufacturing facilities, patent infringement looks very risky.
Being responsible for a debacle like that can result in a severe career
setback.

    More recently, jurisdiction over patent, trademark, and copyright cases 
has been centralized; all such cases now are heard by a Federal court
specializing in such matters, rather than by the regional district court.
Turnaround time has improved; the queue is separate from the general
docket of Federal civil cases.  The new court is considered pro-patent-holder.

    Being a free-lance inventor, I think that all this is just great.

					John Nacs!u