Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!weitek!sci!phil
From: phil@sci.UUCP (Phil Kaufman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Another surreal lawsuit
Message-ID: <15381@sci.UUCP>
Date: 19 Feb 88 16:21:54 GMT
References: <787@imsvax.UUCP>
Organization: Silicon Compilers Systems Corp. San Jose, Ca
Lines: 40
Summary: There is a reason for patents and some are even valid


The author of this article makes some reasonable points about a
patent that would seem to cover the vary obvious idea of using 
key combinations to execute commands rather than just enter characters.
Not having seen the patent, though, it is hard to interpret just what
may be claimed and its validity. However, the author roars on to
discredit the concept of patents and one in particular, the CA patent
on memory allocation and bus interfaces. Now I happen to know this 
particular patent very well - I wrote it! At the time it was written
there was no system that eliminated the need for configuration switches
on plugin boards or the need for specific hard wired slots to configure
a system. That is what the patent covers, it was implemented in the early
'70s, it worked well, and it is clearly a patentable concept and technique.
Should everyone who uses something similar have to pay royalties? - YOU BET!
(By the way I get not a cent since the patent was assigned to my employer
at the time.)

The concept of patents is clearly to encourage people to put their ideas
into public view so that others can go forward developing newer ideas based
upon this knowledge. In exchange for this the inventor is entitled to
royalties for the use of ideas that he first used - regardless of whether
or not someone else developed the same idea independantly at a later date.

I have no idea if IBM Microchannel actually is covered by the claims of my 
patent since I have never seen the Microchannel specs. But, if they do
anything that is covered by a patent claim then everyone has to pay.
This patent and most others do not have anything to do with the Look and Feel
nonsense going on today. It is one thing, in my view, to develop and patent
a technique to solve a problem and something quite different to say that
my box is pink so if your box is pink it has the look and feel of mine.
The idea of patents is the disclosure in a patent application of
techniques that otherwise would be kept confidential and slow the
development of technology overall. Obviously look and feel is not
quite the same since look and feel is out in the open at all times. At
best it is a topic for copyrights, certainly not patents.

When you all debate issues of patents, please don't lump all patent issues
into the same naive box. Lets not move the talk about patents into the
same moral-less arena as the discussions about ripping off software being
ok because it is economic to do and why should some guy make a fortune
on software I need just because he wrote it.