EDTA (was GIFT) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : EDTA (was GIFT)

EDTA 0.0000500

0.0%

Nov 7 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Scott Ozer who wrote (2076)	4/27/1998 8:47:00 AM
From: andy	Read Replies (2) of 2383

I used to be a patent agent about 10 years ago. I decided to take a look at this patent, especially the claims. I noticed a few things: 1) The claims were definitely written by someone trying to cover his ass on all the prior art - any claim that fries brain cells like this one is trying to wriggle through something. 'Information Reproduction Machine'???? - I've had to come up with claims like this when I knew I wasn't on concrete ground. 2) I think that if any restriction is going to be introduced in the claim interpretation its going to be in the realm of shareware - I don't think this patent could ever be applied to the transmission of shareware (i.e. freeware) even if a password is needed. I think the patentee had this in mind. Otherwise, why use the term "point of sale location"? 3) As for software you pay for and receive a key to unlock? I think it definitely covers this and the arpanet is not prior art in this instance. In my opinion, I think this will hold up in court. THATS ONLY AN OPINION - DON'T QUOTE ME OR BUY ANY SHARES ON THE STRENGTH OF THAT. The original patent can be found at: patents.ibm.com (beware this is very slow!) By the way, there are MANY MANY patents with claims that boggle the mind and cover things that you would never dream could be patented. For instance, if you have an electronic organizer, go to the back of it and look up the Licensed Patents. There is a vast amount of money being paid for licenses to this sort of patent. The judge has to be very careful. She knows if the claim is upheld in the area of electronic commerce (keyword being 'commerce' not shareware) then she going to affect an entire industry. On the otherhand, she must be aware that there are a multitude of patents of this type that are being enforced and she cannot arbitarily strike this one down just because many market leading companies do want to pay. Finally, many inventions look obvious with the benefit of hindsight. This would not have looked obvious back in 1983. That's my 10 cents worth.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next