[Discuss] more on software patent

Tue Oct 4 10:53:57 EDT 2011

Ok well to give you the scope of what I am looking at, here are the public
records for the Lawsuit
http://ia600700.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.wiwd.30864/gov.uscourts.wiwd.30864.docket.html

and here is the claim of the patent which is numbered (the very last number)
of this particular patent
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5546397.PN.&OS=PN/5546397&RS=PN/5546397

21. The high reliability access point of claim 2 further including a back-up
power source.

If you look at the court case it doesn't say anything about which parts of
the claim they are acting on it just says they are using these exhibits .
So perhaps its a different part.  It was not meant to be a direct example in
this case but an example of what is possible from this case.

These small business' (and large ones) are being sued because they are
providing wifi internet access.  That means airlines can be sued now right
(and you and I if they so please)?  They provide wifi with internet access.
Now from the looks of it, they aren't going after residential people (I
assume because we don't profit from people connecting to our wifi).  The
thing that confuses me is that these places generally aren't charging you
for the use of the device but the internet that it distributes.  Along the
lines of what everyone else is saying (and Cisco and Motorola have come to
the defense of these companies). These people or companies should not be
paying the bill for using a device they bought a Best Buy.  If I go out and
buy Macrosoft Windows instead of Microsoft Windows but I don't know any
better Microsoft should not be able to tell me that I owe them for the
software they have patents for because I am using it.

Now in relation to software patents, I have become a recent fan of Hardware
hacking I frequent these types of sites all the time.  People are often
times coding inputs and outputs for Arduino boards and so forth.  Now in
essence if they were take these devices that they create and patent them
(which they don't so that they can stay Open Source).  I can't go back and
recreate that or do anything that the has been patented with out direct
permission from (or payment to) the holder of the patent.  Now if Arduino
has created a device that only accepts a particular piece of code and that
is held in a patent, I then lose the functionality I am looking for before I
even had a chance.

In some cases this may work, but I think my issue with the patents is where
do you stop?  There are no lines that can be drawn which creates a gapping
hole in the entire system.  In my example for the wireless AP, this person
literally added a backup power source to the the wireless ap and that can be
acted on as a patent infringment.  No person can make a "21. The high
reliability access point of claim 2 further including a back-up power
source" with out being sued.  That is a humongously broad statement because
if you look at the "Claim 2" this high reliability source is any access
point (from claim 1) is that is wired to a "host network".  Hey (insert
anything here) you are currently infringing on this patent if you have a
wireless AP with a backup power source connected to your wired network.

The worst part is this particular company isn't even the "innovator" here.
They are a company that is looking to make money simply by enforcing a
patent they acquired from Broadcom (who also wasn't the original owner).
The worst part is from the article this person is sueing as many people as
possible with low dollar amounts because it will be cheaper for them to pay
up instead of defend themselves.  That is the most disgusting part because
it shows its clearly a financial gain and absolutely zero other motive.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Hsuan-Yeh Chang <hsuanyeh at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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)
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>