Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!scsing.switch.ch!swidir.switch.ch!univ-lyon1.fr!
ghost.dsi.unimi.it!batcomputer!caen!math.ohio-state.edu!
howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!
news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!friedman
From: fried...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss,
alt.technology.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.misc
Subject: Your Opinion on Software Patents
Date: 31 Jan 1994 15:59:06 GMT
Organization: The Life-Sized Plastic Cow Butter Mold Company
Lines: 85
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <FRIEDMAN.94Jan31105906@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Reply-To: lpf-pto-lett...@prep.ai.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu

[I am posting this message on behalf of the League for Programming Freedom.
 Please repost wherever you think appropriate.  Thanks.]

All,

The Patent Office has issued a request for public comments on the
subject of software patents.

The League for Programming Freedom urges all parties interested in
this subject - irrespective of viewpoint - to express their opinions
to the patent office.

The League has established an email address and the following template
to make it easy for you to do this; simply reply to this message.

                                   Thanks,
                                           Chris Hofstader
                                           Director LPF


YOUR OPINION ON SOFTWARE PATENTS
================================

To be Filed out by Companies Only
---------------------------------

Name of Company     :                       Contact Person :
Annual Revenue      :                       Email          :
Number of Employees :                       Phone          :

To be Filed out by Individuals Only
-----------------------------------

Name     :                                  Email :
Title    :                                  Phone :
Employer :

Companies and Individuals
-------------------------

This template has been provided to assist you express your opinions.
It is not intended to constitute a survey.  Feel free to constructively
express your opinions in whatever way seems most appropriate.

Check all that apply:

    __  Consider software patents harmful to your company's interests.

    __  Consider software patents harmful to the software industry.

    __  Consider software patents harmful to the public interest.

    __  Favor making software non-patentable.

    __  Desire specific improvements in patent office procedures.

        State: __________________________________________________

               __________________________________________________

    __  Support a higher standard of novelty for software than that
        applied to other industries.

    __  Support significantly reducing the term for software patents to:

            __ 1 year     __ 2 years    __ 3 years
            __ 4 years    __ 5 years    __ other :

Additional comments:









----
Mail this message to lpf-pto-lett...@prep.ai.mit.edu

[The League undertakes to relay all input it receives to the patent
office.  If you prefer you may choose to send mail directly to
the patent office by using the address comments-softw...@uspto.gov
instead of lpf-pto-lett...@prep.ai.mit.edu]

From: j...@atglab.atg.com (Jerome Schneider)
Reply-To: j...@atg.com
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!
sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!csn!jls
Date: 2 Feb 94 07:17:10 GMT
Message-ID: <1994Feb2.071710@atglab.atg.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss,
alt.technology.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Your Opinion on Software Patents
References: <FRIEDMAN.94Jan31105906@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Distribution: world
Sender: n...@atglab.atg.com (News system)
Organization: Aspen Technology Group
X-Mailer: UUPC/bsnews 2.1 modified
Lines: 30

In article <FRIEDMAN.94Jan31105...@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
lpf-pto-lett...@prep.ai.mit.edu writes:
[...]
>The League for Programming Freedom urges all parties interested in
>this subject - irrespective of viewpoint - to express their opinions
>to the patent office.

After reading various views in the trade journals, I have come to the
following conclusions about software patents.  Not being a lawyer, I
don't know about their validity, but as a layperson, they seem reasonable:

1.  Most hardware patents are classified as either design or utility
    patents.  Utility patents are much like a copyright in that they
    protect the exact implementation of an idea rather than the idea
    itself.  Software patents, if issued, should be mostly give status
    as utility patents.  Only the most novel and unobvious concepts
    should even be considered for design status, and then only when
    the algorithm is closely tied to a hardware process.  Any accidental
    infringement of such utility patents should not have retroactive
    costs or penalties, but should just require prompt alteration of
    any offending occurence in a program.

2.  Prior art is so difficult to search, since the source codes of most
    companies are not available for inspection, that the challenge of
    any issued patent should be made easy to overturn when such source
    codes are presented after the patent has been granted. 

Is there any chance that these issues will be raised by the PTO, or will
it take congressional action to effect a change?

--
Jerome (Jerry) Schneider             Domain: j...@atg.COM 
Aspen Technology Group               UUCP:   {uunet}!csn!atglab!jls
PO Box 673, Ft. Collins, CO 80522    Voice:  (303) 484-1488

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!
think.com!barmar
From: bar...@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss,
alt.technology.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Your Opinion on Software Patents
Date: 2 Feb 1994 19:22:11 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 11
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2iouh3INNb2c@early-bird.think.com>
References: <FRIEDMAN.94Jan31105906@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
<1994Feb2.071710@atglab.atg.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1994Feb2.071...@atglab.atg.com> j...@atg.com writes:
>Is there any chance that these issues will be raised by the PTO, or will
>it take congressional action to effect a change?

The PTO is actively investigating the software patent issue.  A summary of
a recent meeting with industry was posted yesterday to misc.int-property.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

bar...@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss,
alt.technology.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!
world!entropy
From: entr...@world.std.com (Lawrence Foard)
Subject: Re: Your Opinion on Software Patents
Message-ID: <CKM3po.GBt@world.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <FRIEDMAN.94Jan31105906@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
<1994Feb2.071710@atglab.atg.com> <2iouh3INNb2c@early-bird.think.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 19:34:35 GMT
Lines: 18

In article <2iouh3INN...@early-bird.think.com>,
Barry Margolin <bar...@think.com> wrote:
>In article <1994Feb2.071...@atglab.atg.com> j...@atg.com writes:
>>Is there any chance that these issues will be raised by the PTO, or will
>>it take congressional action to effect a change?
>
>The PTO is actively investigating the software patent issue.  A summary of
>a recent meeting with industry was posted yesterday to misc.int-property.

I hope they choose to include small industry as well as large. The
largest companies will tend to favor software patents since they
tend to give them monopolies and a tool to destroy smaller more
innovative companies.
-- 
------ Call the skeptic hotline 1-900-555-5555 talk to your own personal . 
\    / skeptic 24 hours/day.     Just say no to victimless crimes.      . .
 \  / High quality Linux application development available.            . . .
  \/ The true theory of everything will run on a finite turing machine. . . .

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!panix!
not-for-mail
From: opped...@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss,
alt.technology.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Your Opinion on Software Patents
Date: 2 Feb 1994 17:35:17 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Lines: 25
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <2ip9r5$aka@panix.com>
References: <FRIEDMAN.94Jan31105906@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
<1994Feb2.071710@atglab.atg.com> <2iouh3INNb2c@early-bird.think.com> 
<CKM3po.GBt@world.std.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com

In <CKM3po....@world.std.com> entr...@world.std.com (Lawrence Foard) writes:

>>The PTO is actively investigating the software patent issue.  A summary of
>>a recent meeting with industry was posted yesterday to misc.int-property.

>I hope they choose to include small industry as well as large. The
>largest companies will tend to favor software patents since they
>tend to give them monopolies and a tool to destroy smaller more
>innovative companies.

This is often said, and yet I think there are many small fry who would
disagree.  I have several small-programmer clients who feel that
*without* the patent system they would get stomped on my big companies
-- that *with* the patent system they are likely to be able to stand up
to the big companies.

The patent system is one of very few aspects of the business world that
tends to equalize things between small, new players and large,
established ones.

-- 
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  
Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers)
Yorktown Heights, NY  
voice 212-777-1330  

Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!silverton.berkeley.edu!djb
From: d...@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
Message-ID: <1994Feb521.35.51.29927@silverton.berkeley.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 1994 21:35:51 GMT
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss,
alt.technology.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Your Opinion on Software Patents
References: <FRIEDMAN.94Jan31105906@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
<2iouh3INNb2c@early-bird.think.com> <CKM3po.GBt@world.std.com> <2ip9r5$aka@panix.com>
Organization: IR
Lines: 28

In article <2ip9r5$...@panix.com> opped...@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
> The patent system is one of very few aspects of the business world that
> tends to equalize things between small, new players and large,
> established ones.

Do you have any statistics justifying this assertion? And do you have
any statistics showing that the same alleged tendency is true for
_software_ patents in particular? (I doubt it---IBM owns 1/8 of all
software patents.)

Look at Aharonian's summary of the recent software patent testimony.
There was clear support for software patents from AT&T, Apple, IBM,
StorageTek, Hyperracks, Intel, Iconic, Real, Cole, Exxon, IFIPA, and
at least eight legal firms. Then there was the ``needs improvement''
crowd: Sun, Yoches, Taligent, Microsoft, Glenn, IMA, Boyle, SGI,
Aharonian, Fish & Richardson. And clearly against software patents were
Reasoning, Adobe, Brown, NCD, Autodesk, Wind River Systems, Oracle, and
LPF.

(I'm not sure how to classify Video Discovery, Time Warner, Borland,
WIPTF, SEF, Fernandez, Antoniak, Hollaar, Synopsys, Prudential, and
Time Warner.)

Does this look like the large firms lining up against software patents
and the small firms lining up for software patents? No, it doesn't. How
do you explain this?

---Dan

Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!
panix!not-for-mail
From: opped...@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss,
alt.technology.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Your Opinion on Software Patents
Date: 5 Feb 1994 18:17:29 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Lines: 40
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <2j19e9$8i@panix.com>
References: <FRIEDMAN.94Jan31105906@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
<2iouh3INNb2c@early-bird.think.com> <CKM3po.GBt@world.std.com> 
<2ip9r5$aka@panix.com> <1994Feb521.35.51.29927@silverton.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com

In <1994Feb521.35.51.29...@silverton.berkeley.edu> 
d...@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:

>In article <2ip9r5$...@panix.com> opped...@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
>> The patent system is one of very few aspects of the business world that
>> tends to equalize things between small, new players and large,
>> established ones.

>Do you have any statistics justifying this assertion? 

Can you give an example of a statistic that would satisfy you on this
point?  Somehow I worry that no matter what I offer in support, you
would attack it, so to save me that annoyance, please just tell me the
type of statistic you *would* accept on this subject.

>And do you have
>any statistics showing that the same alleged tendency is true for
>_software_ patents in particular? (I doubt it---IBM owns 1/8 of all
>software patents.)

Given that there is no clear definition of "software patent", I find it
difficult to believe *any* purported statistic about one party's share
of them.

Kindly let all of us readers know what definition you used for the term
"software patent" and the methodology you used to arrive at the 1/8
statistic you cited.

And please understand it will not be responsive for you to say merely
"oh, so-and-so says it was 1/8".  In your post, quoted above, you did
not say that *someone else says it is 1/8*, you said that the actual
figure is 1/8.  So I do wait with great interest to know the definition
you used and how you counted patents meeting that definition, leading to
the 1/8 statistic.


-- 
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  
Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers)
Yorktown Heights, NY  
voice 212-777-1330  

Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!silverton.berkeley.edu!djb
From: d...@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
Message-ID: <1994Feb523.26.14.210@silverton.berkeley.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 1994 23:26:14 GMT
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss,
alt.technology.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Your Opinion on Software Patents
References: <FRIEDMAN.94Jan31105906@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
<2ip9r5$aka@panix.com> <1994Feb521.35.51.29927@silverton.berkeley.edu> 
<2j19e9$8i@panix.com>
Organization: IR
Lines: 28

In article <2j19e9...@panix.com> opped...@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
> In <1994Feb521.35.51.29...@silverton.berkeley.edu> d...@silverton.berkeley.edu 
> (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
> > In article <2ip9r5$...@panix.com> opped...@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
> > > The patent system is one of very few aspects of the business world that
> > > tends to equalize things between small, new players and large,
> > > established ones.
> > Do you have any statistics justifying this assertion? 
> Can you give an example of a statistic that would satisfy you on this
> point?

How about a correlation between some measure of the smallness of a
business and some measure of the effects of the patent system? Not that
correlation alone would be satisfactory---correlation doesn't imply
cause---but I'd be surprised if you have any statistics at all. Why are
you dodging? Why don't you say what statistics you're thinking of, and
let the rest of us evaluate them?

> Kindly let all of us readers know what definition you used for the term
> "software patent" and the methodology you used to arrive at the 1/8
> statistic you cited.

For the sake of argument we can pretend I use the LPF definition---I
don't, actually, but I haven't yet seen any cases where it leads to
different results. Anyway, my methodology in verifying Aharonian's
statistics is called ``scientific sampling,'' aka random spot checks.
The 1/8 figure is within experimental error.

---Dan

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!panix!
not-for-mail
From: opped...@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss,
alt.technology.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Your Opinion on Software Patents
Date: 6 Feb 1994 11:09:15 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Lines: 73
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <2j34nb$9bn@panix.com>
References: <FRIEDMAN.94Jan31105906@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
<2ip9r5$aka@panix.com> <1994Feb521.35.51.29927@silverton.berkeley.edu> 
<2j19e9$8i@panix.com> <1994Feb523.26.14.210@silverton.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com

In <1994Feb523.26.14....@silverton.berkeley.edu> d...@silverton.berkeley.edu 
(D. J. Bernstein) writes:

>In article <2j19e9...@panix.com> opped...@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
>> In <1994Feb521.35.51.29...@silverton.berkeley.edu> d...@silverton.berkeley.edu 
>> (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
>> > In article <2ip9r5$...@panix.com> opped...@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
>> > > The patent system is one of very few aspects of the business world that
>> > > tends to equalize things between small, new players and large,
>> > > established ones.
>> > Do you have any statistics justifying this assertion? 
>> Can you give an example of a statistic that would satisfy you on this
>> point?

>How about a correlation between some measure of the smallness of a
>business and some measure of the effects of the patent system? Not that
>correlation alone would be satisfactory---correlation doesn't imply
>cause---but I'd be surprised if you have any statistics at all. Why are
>you dodging? Why don't you say what statistics you're thinking of, and
>let the rest of us evaluate them?

You are the one who is dodging.  You asked for statistics, and now you
are unwilling to be pinned down on what statistics would satisfy you.
Your half-response is only that -- it is easy enough to see what you
mean by "the smallness of a business", but what "measure" do you propose
for "the effects of the patent system"?

Reread the thread, and you will see that *you* introduced the topic of
statistics in this thread, not I.

>> Kindly let all of us readers know what definition you used for the term
>> "software patent" and the methodology you used to arrive at the 1/8
>> statistic you cited.

>For the sake of argument we can pretend I use the LPF definition---I
>don't, actually, but I haven't yet seen any cases where it leads to
>different results. Anyway, my methodology in verifying Aharonian's
>statistics is called ``scientific sampling,'' aka random spot checks.
>The 1/8 figure is within experimental error.

Er, I read your response closely and did not see where you said what
definition you used for "software patent".  And I note you deftly
deleted the place where I quoted you making the assertion that 1/8 of
all software patents are owned by IBM.  It looks like you are distancing
yourself from your own assertion, although I am sure that is not what
you mean to do.

Even if you are going to water down your previous assertion from a
statement of fact (which it purported to be) to a mere unattributed
quotation to someone else (now revealed to be Mr. Aharonian) you should
still be able to say what definition of "software patent" you were
using, since you claim to have done a number of "random spot checks".

On the other hand, one might suspect that you simply read what Mr.
Aharonian wrote about "software patents", grabbed his total for all
"software patents", grabbed his total for "software patents" owned by
IBM, and divided one number into the other.  Without bothering to check
to see what definition of "software patent" he used, and without
actually doing the "random spot checks" you claim to have done.  And, in
posting the 1/8 figure as your own, you would essentially be taking
credit for work someone else did.

The easiest way to straighten this out would be for you to let all the
readers know what definition of "software patent" you used in doing your
random spot checks.  And the way you selected the "random" patents to
spot-check.  That way others can do the same thing, if desired, and can
confirm for themselves if your 1/8 figure is indeed "within experimental
error".


-- 
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  
Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers)
Yorktown Heights, NY  
voice 212-777-1330  

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!
uunet!silverton.berkeley.edu!djb
From: d...@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
Message-ID: <1994Feb620.08.12.2374@silverton.berkeley.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 1994 20:08:12 GMT
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss,
alt.technology.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Your Opinion on Software Patents
References: <FRIEDMAN.94Jan31105906@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
<2j19e9$8i@panix.com> <1994Feb523.26.14.210@silverton.berkeley.edu> 
<2j34nb$9bn@panix.com>
Organization: IR
Lines: 62

In article <2j34nb$...@panix.com> opped...@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
> You are the one who is dodging.

Carl, you started this by saying ``The patent system is one of very few
aspects of the business world that tends to equalize things between 
small, new players and large, established ones.''

You haven't said _anything_ to back this up. I asked for statistics; you
dodged. I gave you an example of how such statistics might look; you
continued to dodge. Not only have you said nothing that would convince a
skeptic---you've said nothing at all.

The reason, of course, is that you don't know of any relevant evidence.
All you know is that the patent system has helped a few of your small
clients; but it defies common sense to say that the patent system
doesn't help large, lawyer-happy companies just as much.

> You asked for statistics, and now you
> are unwilling to be pinned down on what statistics would satisfy you.

Absurd. I suggested that you start by pointing out ``a correlation
between some measure of the smallness of a business and some measure of
the effects of the patent system.'' That would satisfy me that your
statement was based on something more than your overactive imagination.

> Your half-response is only that -- it is easy enough to see what you
> mean by "the smallness of a business", but what "measure" do you propose
> for "the effects of the patent system"?

You're the one who said ``tends to equalize''; surely you have some
measure in mind. All I said was ``some measure.'' I'm not proposing
anything in particular.

> Reread the thread, and you will see that *you* introduced the topic of
> statistics in this thread, not I.

Silly me, thinking that ``tends'' implies a correlation.

> > > Kindly let all of us readers know what definition you used for the term
> > > "software patent" and the methodology you used to arrive at the 1/8
> > > statistic you cited.
> > For the sake of argument we can pretend I use the LPF definition---I
> > don't, actually, but I haven't yet seen any cases where it leads to
> > different results. Anyway, my methodology in verifying Aharonian's
> > statistics is called ``scientific sampling,'' aka random spot checks.
> > The 1/8 figure is within experimental error.
> Er, I read your response closely and did not see where you said what
> definition you used for "software patent".

Well, I didn't want to get into a discussion of this, but I consider a
patent a ``software patent'' if one can turn some (non-infringing)
general-purpose computer into an infringing device by running a program.
As I said, this appears to be functionally equivalent to the LPF
definition.

> And I note you deftly
  [ blah, blah, blah, blah ]

I answered your question about methodology, Carl. I'm not ``distancing''
myself from anything.

---Dan

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!
panix!not-for-mail
From: opped...@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss,
alt.technology.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Your Opinion on Software Patents
Date: 6 Feb 1994 18:17:09 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Lines: 92
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <2j3tpl$bdd@panix.com>
References: <FRIEDMAN.94Jan31105906@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <2j19e9$8i@panix.com> 
<1994Feb523.26.14.210@silverton.berkeley.edu> <2j34nb$9bn@panix.com> 
<1994Feb620.08.12.2374@silverton.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com

In <1994Feb620.08.12.2...@silverton.berkeley.edu> d...@silverton.berkeley.edu 
(D. J. Bernstein) writes:

>In article <2j34nb$...@panix.com> opped...@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:

>Silly me, thinking that ``tends'' implies a correlation.

>> > > Kindly let all of us readers know what definition you used for the term
>> > > "software patent" and the methodology you used to arrive at the 1/8
>> > > statistic you cited.
>> > For the sake of argument we can pretend I use the LPF definition---I
>> > don't, actually, but I haven't yet seen any cases where it leads to
>> > different results. Anyway, my methodology in verifying Aharonian's
>> > statistics is called ``scientific sampling,'' aka random spot checks.
>> > The 1/8 figure is within experimental error.
>> Er, I read your response closely and did not see where you said what
>> definition you used for "software patent".

>Well, I didn't want to get into a discussion of this, but I consider a
>patent a ``software patent'' if one can turn some (non-infringing)
>general-purpose computer into an infringing device by running a program.
>As I said, this appears to be functionally equivalent to the LPF
>definition.

Well, your statement of fact was that 1/8 of all software patents are
owned by IBM.  And now, after being asked -- how many times was it?
three times? -- you have told us what definition you used in "verifying"
Mr. Aharonian's results.  So let's review what you said you did.

You started by plucking two numbers from Mr. Aharonian's work (IBM
patents on Mr. A's list and all patents on his list) and noting that the
ratio was 1/8.  Is that right?

But before you did this, you confirmed that *his* methodology in
building his list was to examine patents to see if they meet your
definition -- that "if one can turn some non-infringing general-purpose
computer into an infringing device by running a program" then the
patent is a software patent.  Right?

I don't think so.  I think Mr. A used some completely different
methodology to decide which patents were or were not on his list.  But
you can certainly clear things up by telling us how you know what
methodology Mr. A used to decide which patents went onto his list.

Okay.  So far we got to how you obtained the 1/8 figure, namely by
lifting numbers from someone else's work.  The next step you took,
according to your posting, was to "verify" Mr. A's two numbers by
spot-checking.  Let's talk about the numbers one at a time.

"number of IBM-owned software patents".  To "verify" this number, as you
say you did, I expect you must have sampled IBM patents that were *not*
on Mr. A's list, and sampled IBM patents that *were* on his list, to see
if any were misclassified by Mr. A.  Right?

How many of IBM's patents that were not on Mr. A's list did you study
to determine whether they did or did not meet your SP definition?  Just
in round figures, how many?

Same question for IBM patents that *were* on Mr. A's list.

After having done all that, you apparently concluded that you had
verified the first of the two numbers in the 1/8 ratio.

Then just say a little about how you "verified" through "spot checks"
the other number -- the total number of software patents given in Mr.
A's list.

How many patents that are not on Mr. A's list did you spot check to see
whether they meet your SP definition?

And how many patents that are on Mr. A's list did you spot check to see
whether they in fact do not meet your SP definition?


You say, above, that you "verified" Mr. A's methodology by statistically
significant "spot checks", so the above questions should take just about
no time to answer.  I assume you still have near at hand the results of
your spot checks.

If you really did what you claim to have done, that is.

Oh, and the part where you explain how it is you know that Mr. A used
the same definition of SP patent that you stated when he created his
lists.  That should be quite easy for you.

If you really have a clue as to how he created his lists, that is.


-- 
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  
Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers)
Yorktown Heights, NY  
voice 212-777-1330  

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/