Well, other guys like Henry Coanda and Aurel Vlaicu also developed airplanes and I don't think they patented what they've done. And I don't think they licenced a patent from other inventors in this field.
I don't think Christopher Columbus used a boat that was patented by its creator, or licenced by other creators from the original patent owner.
I also don't know who patented the buildings with more levels, because this should be a very important and innovative idea.
Were the chinese? Or the egiptians?It doesn't matter if some inventions were done a long time ago. That long time ago they didn't care about patenting something, because the speed of information was very slow, and if someone invented something, that person could enjoy the benefits a long enough time before others could steal the idea.
Now the speed of information is very fast, but the speed of life is very fast also, so should be the life of patents.
Octavian----- Original Message ----- From: "James Panes" <jimpanes@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:00 PM Subject: Re: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike Again
Hi Teddy,In fact, all of these things were pattented at one time. So was the Cassetterecorder and the airplane, just to name a few.In fact the reason that airplanes have rear mounted rudder and elevators isthat the Wright brothers pattented their system for twisting the wings to control the plane's travel. The rudder and elevator is a way of doing the same thing and getting around the pattent. For several decades, audio equipment manufacturers had to lisence compact cassette technology from Phillips Electronics. If you do some research, you can find details regarding pattents and their life cycles. Regards, Jim jimpanes@xxxxxxxxx jimpanes@xxxxxxxxxxxx "Everything is easy when you know how."----- Original Message ----- From: "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@xxxxxxxxx>To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:53 PM Subject: Re: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike Again Oh yes, and then why the television is not pattented? Or the radio, the Diesel motors, the glass, the planes, the command line console, and very many other things? Octavian----- Original Message ----- From: "David Engebretson" <davide@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:21 PM Subject: Re: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike AgainYou may want to look at: http://www.jpo.go.jp/seido_e/rekishi_e/rekisie.htm For some description of patents. They date as far back as the 15th century. Cheers, David----- Original Message ----- From: "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@xxxxxxxxx>To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:53 AM Subject: Re: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike AgainYes I've read it, but only partially, because it is too long. Too much theory for very simple things. The patents should not exist, just like they didn't exist 100 years ago, when the world invented very many interesting things. Octavian----- Original Message ----- From: "Jared Wright" <wright.jaredm@xxxxxxxxx>To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 6:00 PM Subject: Re: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike AgainTeddy, did you read anything of the article other than the title? *smile* Google is merely the case study drawn upon by the article. It's general point is much more universal for all software companies. Furthermore, its general point applies to the argument FS is basically making with their litigation. Jared Octavian Rasnita wrote:Well, the Google patents are intelligent things that no other previoussearch 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 thecompetition, and exactly for promoting the competition, other companiesshould 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 AgainI thought this article which I came across yesterday seemed quite welltimed. 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 howthisis in the interest of blind people, forcing a company to spend moneyondefending against litigation rather than on R&D to improve access tomainstream 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 enough to patent. This seems like an example of taking advantage of the magicalnature of assistive technology to the uninformed, and then trying to leverage it in questionable trade practices for corporate gain. Thefactthat GW was never notified of the concern while its product has beenin 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 Again I 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 Wright Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 6:58 PM To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Freedom Scientific's Lawyers Strike Again Hi James, Worked here just now, so I'm not sure what's at fault. The long and short is that Freedom claims GW Micro's implementation of webpage placemarkers in Window Eyes 7 violates their patint on, I guess, being able to 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 their functionality 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__________ 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
