Well, the Google patents are intelligent things that no other previous search engine creators did or think about, so they should be protected.
But well, protected for a limited period, which it shouldn't be longer than 10 years. In those 10 years they have all the time to be much better than the competition, and exactly for promoting the competition, other companies should be able to use those patents, and Google should try to think to something better.
Otherwise... try to imagine now the family of the guy that invented (and patented) the wheel. :-) Or that invented the motors, the ways to produce and store electric power and other things like those...
Octavian----- Original Message ----- From: "Jared Wright" <wright.jaredm@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:08 PM Subject: Re: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike Again
I thought this article which I came across yesterday seemed quite well timed. Note that it reflects only the Patint and Trademark Office's new position and not any legally binding decision, but they are obviously a very powerful voice in these proceedings. Additionally, who knows what impact, if any, these developments could have on this particular litigation that has already gone forward. Still, misguided patent law regarding software development is obviously a hot topic 'round these parts today. *grin*The Death of Google's Patents? http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/07/the-death-of-go.html Octavian Rasnita wrote:I think most of the patents are in the same situation.Very few of them are very intelligent things that others couldn't think about.So the one who's faster and registers the patent is the winner.Is it ok? Of course it isn't. This is a protection invented by the powerful companies in their favour.The registrar of patents should register only and only if much intelectual work or imagination was involved for doing something. If in the moment of the registration, or any time later, if someone proves that patent is a simple thing that doesn't imply a big intellectual effort, that patent should be revoked.Why isn't so? Because as it is now, it is in favour of bigger and powerful companies.Octavian----- Original Message ----- From: "Jamal Mazrui" <empower@xxxxxxxxx>To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:21 PM Subject: RE: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike AgainHi Ken, I suspect you were being tongue in cheeck (and I love your sense ofhumor!). Although legal fights can be entertaining, I don't see how thisis in the interest of blind people, forcing a company to spend money on defending against litigation rather than on R&D to improve access to mainstream software. FYI -- the patent FS claims was violated is described at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%226,993,707+B2%22&OS= I'm amazed that FS thought its placemarker feature was innovative enoughto patent. This seems like an example of taking advantage of the magicalnature of assistive technology to the uninformed, and then trying toleverage it in questionable trade practices for corporate gain. The factthat GW was never notified of the concern while its product has been in beta with public demos strongly suggests that the aim is to damage GW economically, not actually to protect intellectual property. What do others think? Jamal On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Ken Perry wrote:Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:43:30 -0700 From: Ken Perry <whistler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reply-To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike AgainI say let them fight and while they are fighting I hope Saratek is coding.Ken -----Original Message----- From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jared WrightSent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 6:58 PM To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike AgainHi James, Worked here just now, so I'm not sure what's at fault. The longand short is that Freedom claims GW Micro's implementation of webpageplacemarkers in Window Eyes 7 violates their patint on, I guess, being ableto have placemarkers on a webpage. They filed litigation today. Jared Jared James Panes wrote:Hi Guys, Just thought I would let you know that this page is not available. Did FS lawyers have something to do with this? Regards, Jim jimpanes@xxxxxxxxx jimpanes@xxxxxxxxxxxx "Everything is easy when you know how." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jared Wright" <wright.jaredm@xxxxxxxxx> To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:53 PM Subject: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike Again http://www.gwmicro.com/blog/index.php/all/2008/07/24/do_companies_real ly_compete_on_who_has_t Read it and weep, at least if seeing screen readers compete on theirfunctionality for all our general betterment is at all appealing to you.Jared __________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind __________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind__________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind __________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind__________View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind__________View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind__________View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
__________View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
