[Discuss] Discuss Digest, Vol 5, Issue 7

[Hsuan-Yeh Chang]

It is the patent CLAIM, not the abstract, that defines the scope of a
patent's "exclusive right."  So, we should look at the claim language
(normally numbered at the end of a patent document) to determine the
scope.  Each and every claim limitation must be read or found on a
device/method to infringe.

HYC

> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:29:03 -0400
> From: Kyle Leslie <fbxxkl at gmail.com>
> To: BLU <discuss at blu.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] more on software patent
> Message-ID:
>        <CAOxrMGh3w-D-P41X1KZZrBAYLs=NLtQkYUv0kAQ5vRW6-A4FpQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> While I don't have a ton of a background in this whole Patent thing, I have
> been reading this thread and trying to form my own opinions and gain
> knowledge. I decided to read the article that Matt posted and in doing so I
> stumbled upon one of the patents that the company is claiming has been
> infringed on.  I found it so interesting because some things look like they
> are just thrown in there for added benefit of blocking other people.
>
> US5546397 - (Abstract)
>
> A high reliability access point for RF communications in a wireless local
> area network. The high reliability access point includes a central
> processing unit (CPU) for handling high level protocol functions and for
> interfacing with the infrastructure of the local area network. The high
> reliability access point also includes at least two wireless adapters. Each
> wireless adapter includes a radio, a media access control (MAC) processor
> for handling low level protocol functions, and at least one antenna. The
> multiple wireless adapters allow the access point to perform self
> monitoring, reduce the effects of multipath interference, reduce some
> occurrences of collisions at the access point and provide infrastructure
> backup in the event of an infrastructure failure. The access points also
> allow for wireless network infrastructure communication for connection of
> one or more remote access points to the infrastructure. *A backup power
> supply for the access point is also shown.
>
> *-------
>
> The last sentence is what I found so interesting.  From everything I have
> read, if someone designed a similar item but included a backup power supply
> then they would be infringing because that is patented.
>
> To prove infringement, the patent owner must establish that the accused
> party practices all the requirements of at least one of the claims of the
> patent. (This is from wikipedia)
>
> You essentially can't have an access point with a backup power supply
> because this patent holds that.  This is my understanding of how patents are
> used to block other people.  Find one small thing that is similar or the
> same and say "No you can't use it or pay me money".  It literally looks as
> if someone was standing over the shoulder of the person writing the patent
> and said "Oh put that in there so you can hold the patent for it".
>
> It was always my understanding that a part of innovation was to build off
> the ideas of other people.  To take what they created and make it better.
>
> If what I am saying is totally wrong then just delete this email.. but if
> what I understand patents to be and how they work correct then how is anyone
> supposed to be inventive with out the penalty of cost?
>
> If a program's algorithms are able to be patented, then software is in
> trouble (from what I read it sounds like it already is). What if HTML code
> were to be patented.  You wouldn't be able to use head or title tags with
> out a fee?
>
> Please let me know if I am stating things here that are correct in theory.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kyle  (Trying to learn about Software Patents)
>