W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-plugins@w3.org > September 2003

Re: Here's some libellous drivel for you (no holds barred)

From: Hector Santos <winserver.support@winserver.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:50:22 -0400
Message-ID: <000a01c375b3$f401cba0$e31a2343@FAMILY>
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>, <Kade.Hansson@dpiwe.tas.gov.au>

Hear! Hear!  I was going to respond to the poster about his comment, but I
decided it was just a waste of time.  Its a matter of perspective.   Just
imagine if the relaxation of the software patents in 1998 (or was 1996?),
was the original guidelines in the early software days:

- One operating system,
- One Bios,
- One language
- One compiler
- One text editor
- One word processor
- One telecommunications program,
- One Mail reader/Writer
- One File Transfer protocol
- There would be no Bill Gates nor Windows,
- No lotus,  Mitch Kapor would of been sued,
- No Borland,
- AT&T and IBM and Peter Norton would be god!
- One browser,
- Mr Doyle would probably be a bartender,

and on and on and on and on.

I too consider myself very creative and a systems oriented person.  If I
went of a software patent binge today, I would probably dominate a few

I'm afraid we are just seeing the beginning of worst to come as the silly
software patents filings a few years back are starting come out now.  I'm
going to show the world how silly it is with an extensive analyze compared
to my world-wide marketed products dating back into the 80s.  I've been
putting it all together and plan to send the results to the USPTO, the rags,
etc.  I mean, just research BBS systems you will see recent patents issues
for BBS concepts that been around since the 80s.   As you eluded too, there
is simply too much ignorance in the market.


Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.
305-431-2846 Cell
305-248-3204 Office

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Kade.Hansson@dpiwe.tas.gov.au>
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 9:28 PM
Subject: Here's some libellous drivel for you (no holds barred)

> DG wrote:
> >I am suprised at the amount of speculation on this
> >list; apparently few have taken the time to read the
> >patent in detail or the IEEE Visualization paper.
> I think you'll find most have read at least the patent. But few of us (the
> current posters seem to be software developers in the main) are lawyers...
> and neither are lawyers software developers. Which is what I see as the
> problem. All lawyers, judges and juries can do is apply patent case law as
> it existed before software patents to software patent cases. But
> inventions are not comparable to software, at least if by "software" we
> mean "a hazy concept of what something could do." Inventions are clearly a
> specific formulation of an idea, not the idea itself- that Mr Doyle used
> the word "idea" in his testimony in Eolas vs Microsoft when describing
> what he was attempting to patent should have rung alarm bells (and should
> not been glossed over by that judge.)
> Let's not even begin to discuss that Doyle's idea appears at least, on my
> reading of the evidence, to not be original or novel anyway. Indeed, I am
> increasingly convinced by the "obviousness" argument. When you are writing
> a piece of software, there is an enormous amount of creativity involved.
> And yet even someone like me, who prides himself on thinking "outside the
> box" and pioneering new frontiers, is slightly worried that the US is
> granting patents on *ideas*, vague ideas so broad they may encompass my
> creativity. By the way, I am not claiming to be alone, or even in the
> minority here. The world of software demands that we create new and
> interesting things on an almost daily basis. That someone who stops to
> take the time to smell the coffee and think up some wishy-washy words
> could net himself a decision like Eolas vs Microsoft scares the hell out
> of me. Why should the legal beagle triumph over the guys working hard in
> the trenches? What kind of justice is that?
> Someone was bound to come up with plug-ins. Indeed, it seems to me that
> many people came up with the idea in a very short period of time. It's
> like a soap bubble- it's the most energy-efficient configuration for a
> dynamic web browser that needs to deliver a vast array of content types to
> the user. That one person should be labelled the inventor (not even the
> first, it would seem,) and the rest have to suffer for not thinking fast
> enough and running down to the patent office... That's just plain
> disgusting. If the court had a gram of technical inclination they would
> have realised *on the evidence* that the plug-in was an idea ripe for the
> picking at the time of the '906 filing. The ingredients were put in place
> by greater men who did not (could not) patent their true formulations (not
> merely ideas) a la HTTP, Mosaic etc.
> >From my reading of those documents, I think the claim
> >language is straight-forward and clearly
> >differentiates this invention from the earlier work
> >that has been discussed.
> Well, I'm not sure how clear that is. But I don't expect the "prior art"
> to be targeted by the patent, not only because it is not clear it could be
> applied, but because there would be no return on persuing it. Patents
> aren't based on the principle of "use it or lose it" like, say,
> trademarks.
> >I do not believe patents, software or not, are
> >inherently bad.  In fact, I believe they are the best
> >defense the technical community has to ensure that
> >innovation continues against the hegemony of the
> >WINTEL duopoloy.
> In their current form, software patents are, I think, inherently bad. So
> thankyou for giving me cause to characterize them as such. Unless software
> patents are as specific as, say, photographic emulsion patents, where you
> have to describe every ingredient and the manufacturing process in great
> detail, their only outcome will be to stifle innovation. As evidence, I
> cite all the cumbersome workarounds people on this list have been
> scrambling about to provide. The energy of the software developers should
> be at innovating in new fields, not treading over old ground to keep a
> bunch of lawyers happy.
> And this brings me to my last point (cue sighs of relief.) Some have said
> that politics should not play a part in this discussion. However, I have a
> feeling that the reason that the plaintiff was successful was because he
> played on the "guy stepped on by corporate giant" angle. There was a jury,
> for [insert possessive form for preferred deity or philosopher here] sake!
> How can these people keep their judgement impartial in the face of all the
> antitrust hoo-ha that went down in the last few years. Being
> non-technical- and even the judge seems to be suffering here- what hope
> did they have to see that the case was actually about stalling or setting
> back web development for the next couple of years, not about pricking MS
> in the foot with a safety pin.
> Anyway, sorry about that. But with such a vacuum of actual facts, what
> else can you really expect from this list.
> Archer
> End.
Received on Sunday, 7 September 2003 22:50:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:03 UTC