|
|
| PubPat Wins a Reexamination of Cotransformation Patent |
 |
|
Monday, May 10 2004 @ 01:26 PM EDT
|
PubPat is beginning to show results for its work. Their request for a reexamination of a patent Columbia University obtained on a key patent on cotransformation, a process for inserting foreign DNA into a host cell to produce certain proteins, has been granted. The press release says the USPTO isued an Order granting the request because they found that PubPat's request raised "a substantial new question of patentability" regarding every claim of the patent.
This patent has to do with pharmaceuticals, not computers, but the Public Patent Foundation has also more recently filed a formal request with the USPTO, as you may remember, asking them to revoke Microsoft's patent on the FAT file system because, they say, it's causing significant public harm. "Microsoft is using its control over the interchange of digital media to aid its ongoing effort to deter competition," the request stated. With the request, they filed some prior art to demonstate that the patent was obvious and shouldn't have been granted in the first place. That is the process, and it's good if we all become knowledgeable about the way this process works, since everyone seems to think this will be the next battlefront. Happily, the USPTO has been so profligate in issuing patents, there is some relief possible, and this is how you get it.
Migeul de Icaza adds to the chorus today, warning about patents being the next cancer we will have to deal with. He also contributes some links to pictures in a comment responding to an objection someone had that people in third world countries can't afford computers even at a $300 price: "In regions where this is not possible, governments have
started the adoption of community sites where people can
use computers for free, the equivalent of going to the
post office to send mail. Brazil has the telecentros in
Sao Paolo and Rio Grande do Sul.
"Spain has Andalucia and Extremadura, and the trend is
catching up.
"Pics: http://www.telecentros.sp.gov.br/destaques/capaannh.jpg
http://www.telecentros.sp.gov.br/destaques/ceuperamar2.jpg
http://www.telecentros.sp.gov.br/index.php?t=147
"Or go and browse them all:
http://www.telecentros.sp.gov.br/index.php?t=147
"Miguel."
He says something intriguing about Longhorn and prior art: "Ximian met with Microsoft executives a few months ago -- as part of a symposiuym -- and it's not a secret that Microsoft is aware of the Mono developments. Miguel explains: 'If there is indeed a new technology that Microsoft holds a patent to and they do not explicitly allow us to use, we will remove that code, or rework the code in a way that does not infringe the patent. We do not like the current patent environment in the US, but we have to play by the rules.' Miguel also gave us a number of technical examples around Corba having technologies for years that Microsoft only now starts to be using in their products. 'Longhorn's Indigo or Avalon, all was done before by us and others', said Miguel. 'Most of the new technologies in Longhorn have existed in the past in one way or another, but they failed to get shipped with a vehicle as Microsoft Windows to users, so they live only on CVS repositories, old research papers, and old systems.' He has so many such examples it that makes him sleep tight at night and not worry about such things." Prior art is legally valuable, and published papers count. Here is PubPat's press release in full. *******************************
PATENT OFFICE GRANTS PUBPAT REQUEST TO REEXAMINE COTRANSFORMATION PATENT:
Order Finds "Substantial New Question" of Patentability for Entire Patent
NEW YORK -- The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an
Order granting the Public Patent Foundation's Request for Reexamination of a
key patent on cotransformation, a process for inserting foreign DNA into a
host cell to produce certain proteins that is the basis for a wide range of
pharmaceutical products, including EpogenR for anemia, ActivaseR for heart
attacks and stroke, AvonexR for multiple sclerosis, and RecombinateR for
hemophilia. In its Order, the Patent Office found that PUBPAT's request
raised "a substantial new question of patentability" regarding every claim
of the patent.
The patent holder, Columbia University, now has the opportunity to make an
opening statement to the Patent Office, to which PUBPAT has the right to
make a response. After opening statements, the Patent Office will proceed
to determine whether the patent is indeed invalid in light of the new
questions raised by PUBPAT's request. Third party requests for
reexamination, like the one filed by PUBPAT, are successful in having the
subject patent either narrowed or completely revoked roughly 70% of the
time.
"We are obviously very pleased with the Patent Office's decision to grant
our request to reexamine the Axel cotransformation patent," said Dan
Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director and Founder. "This is the first step
towards ending the harm being caused to the public by this patent that never
should have been issued."
More information about the Request for Reexamination, including a copy of
the Patent Office's Order Granting the request, can be found at
http://www.pubpat.org/Protecting.htm.
Contact:
Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director, Public Patent Foundation: 212-545-5337;
info@pubpat.org; www.pubpat.org.
About PUBPAT:
The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") is a not-for-profit legal services
organization working to protect the public from the harms caused by the
patent system. PUBPAT provides the general public, particularly those
persons or businesses otherwise deprived of access to the system governing
patents, with representation, advocacy, and education. To be kept informed
of PUBPAT News, subscribe to the PUBPAT News List by sending an email with
"subscribe" in the subject line to news-request@pubpat.org. To be removed
from the PUBPAT News List, send an email with "unsubscribe" in the subject
line to: news-request@pubpat.org.
###
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 01:27 PM EDT |
Please put all my mistakes here, so I can correct easily. Thank you for
helping.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pb on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
AFAIK, MS's patents relate specifically to VFAT (LFN
extensions) and not FAT itself... I remember PubPat's
press release did not make this fact clear at all, so I
hope their formal request and evidence is a bit more solid
than that. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
| ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: risacher on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
I'd just like that guy (Daniel Ravicher) to quit infringing on my name. It's
patently obvious that it's a derivative work.
<wink/>
-Daniel Risacher
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
I realize this is a hair off subject but I think this is important. I was
wondering if PJ or some of the other knowledgeable people here could tell me if
I do in fact own the software I buy. I was having an interesting conversation
concerning this on zdnet and wanted to get a better answer. According to these
guys http://www.saveateagle.com/firstsale.html I do in fact own the software
regardless of what the EULA says.
I look at Software in the same way I do a music CD. Someone wrote and produced
the songs put them on a CD and sold it to me. I can then go home listen to the
CD for as long as I like, yet still turn around and sell it as a used item.
Software is the same thing in my book. Someone wrote the software, put it on a
cd and sold it to me. I can then go home and use the software, yet should be
able to sell it once I am done with it. This is also assuming that I remove it
from my system, just like assuming I didn't copy the CD before I sold it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Probably not - Authored by: tangomike on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 01:58 PM EDT
- Probably not - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:12 PM EDT
- Probably not - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:36 PM EDT
- Probably not - Authored by: Uncia on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:22 PM EDT
- Probably not - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:37 PM EDT
- license does not grant ownership - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- Probably so - Authored by: mitphd on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:27 PM EDT
- A related question - Authored by: cricketjeff on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:50 PM EDT
- Forgot to login - Authored by: arrg on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Copyright - Authored by: MathFox on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:55 PM EDT
- Copyright - Authored by: Optimus on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:05 PM EDT
- Copyright - Authored by: reuben on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:21 PM EDT
- Copyright - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 09:24 AM EDT
- Even in the U.S., it depends where you live - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:21 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:05 PM EDT |
Back in 1978 the Radio Shack TRSDOS Operating System used a disk space
allocation scheme very similar (identical) to the FAT system that MS has
patented. RS called the allocation units "granules." MS uses the
term "Clusters."
I am not a lawyer or patent expert, but this does appear to be prior art.
prteacher[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- FAT File System - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:21 PM EDT
- FAT File System - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- FAT File System - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 04:13 PM EDT
- FAT File System - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:40 PM EDT
- FAT File System - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 09:29 PM EDT
- FAT File System - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 06:36 AM EDT
- FAT File System - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 06:42 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
Here's a new article by Rob Enderle on the coming battle between Linux and
Longhorn:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/commentary/33707.html
I actually found it a rather good article, not that I agreed with everything he
said.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:00 PM EDT |
| It would not shock me if one of the most important contributions of open source
is defense against software patents. It is undoubtably true that the majority
of software patents being granted today were not first invented by the
organization getting the patent, but the fact that the original invention was
almost certainly done in a closed-source enviroment make has four devastating
problems:
It is difficult to prove that the prior invention did indeed
occur first
For prior art to be used to invalidate a patent, that prior art
would have to be public. Now, I believe that it is possible for closed-source
software to be valid prior art, but you would have to prove that your public
product software used the invention privately. It would be difficult.
It
is impossible for the community-at-large to search for prior art in closed
source programs.
The company that invented the technique oringally might
not be interested in fighting the patent.
Each of these problems will
be obviated by a strong open source community, especially as open source moves
beyond operating systems into more applications areas.
Note well that this
is strictly an open-source, as opposed to free-software issue.
Thad Beier
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
| And still falling it seems
Yahoo 1 day chart here
couldn't happen to a nicer bunch [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
This is going to seem picky, but I can't seem to help myself. This sentence bugs
me:
"Happily, the USPTO has been so profligate in issuing patents, there is
some relief possible, and this is how you get it."
I keep thinking that you're happy that they have been profligate in issuing
patents! (By the way, you do score points for using profligate. It's one of my
favorites.)
I would suggest:
Although the USPTO has been so profligate in issuing patents, happily, there is
some relief possible, and this is how you get it.
If you disagree, please ignore me like everyone else does![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lightsail on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
In the escalting patent war, we need a weapon:
A resource of prior art, built from established standards and the vast FOSS
software, that would shedd light on what is and is not patentable.
A open resource would provide the Open source community a means to refute
current and future patents.
A mechanism could be created to generate the needed prior art for the patenting
of open source methods as a defense in the current intellectual property war.
Open source patents could be assigned to a pool for the use as a defense. The
needed prior art could be part for the licensing of "GPL" patents.
I think that we must face the need to be able to fight fire with fire. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
I was just going through SCO's insider activity:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=SCOX
I looked up Thomas Ramondi since he's been real busy. I'm not so much surprised
that he's selling but rather under the terms that he's selling under.
He's getting option prices at around $1.00 (understandable), but what isn't
understandable is how when the stock is in the crapper that this guy can sell
his shares at around 10X what he's paying for them and way more than the market
price:
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/83/956.html
What gives that this guy is able to both buy the shares for significantly below
market and sell them significantly above market?
Oh, here's the Forbes profile:
http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromMktGuideIdPersonTearsh
eet.jhtml?passedMktGuideId=136352
I especially liked this part in Forbes "SCO Group ("SCO")
(formerly Caldera Systems Inc.), a Linux-based software company."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: utahbob55 on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
Finally, the press is actually beginning to question McB's credibility. The
headline says it all:
SCO experiences brief moment of clarity; therapists
encouraged
From SiliconeValley.com... Enjoy, I sure did. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
Anybody with time, resources, European connections, please check out
<http://kwiki.ffii.org/?FfiiprojEn> in English
French, German & Spanish versions available.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 06:03 AM EDT |
I love what they're doing, but they have *got* to knock off the Big Business
Bashing. If they are going to challenge on the grounds of prior art or
obviousness, fine and good. Muddying that with meta commentary on the harm that
the patent is causing is spin, and I don't see it impressing the USPTO one whit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
I have heard mention that the USPTO is under funded and relies on fees for
funding. Some 90% of the patents applications are being granted because they
need the funding.
Simple solution is to make it worth more to them to NOT grant a patent than to
grant one. Lay down your non-refundable application fee and a refundable upon
granting deposit (say about 50%). It would encourage them to do a little more
prior art search as well as duh obvious check. Also if they failed a few more
they would not be quite so overworked now would they?
Also what needs to go is granting of patents that are so vague as to not be able
to reproduce what it being patented (lose the deposit on that one too). Not to
mention the interpretation of patents that already stand are a little over
broad, e.g. one click shopping means what exactly?
Leonard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 05:20 PM EDT |
It bothers and puzzles me the way the scope certain words and phrases is
narrowed to the point it's like they aren't even there. "Non-obvious"
for starters, or "limited time" (as in "To secure for a limited
time to authors...."), as I understand it, "moral turpitude"
clauses in executive contracts have become all but unenforceable.
The words were clearly put there for a purpose other than filling space, writing
laws isn't like a third grade book report where you have to fill one page,
single spaced.
If "one click ordering" is non-obvious, what isn't? I don't even know
how long copyrights last anymore, it keeps changing, but a fair minded observer
would have to agree they extend beyond "a limited time" in any
meaningful sense of the word(s). In a finite universe, all time is limited, but
treating the phrase as a mere cosmological fact is no different than removing it
from the constitution with white-out.
For patents I just find it galling that due to patent office understaffing,
underfunding, expedience, or buck passing that the "non-obvious"
requirement is blatantly ignored. It's unfortunate that the patent office can't
be sued for the economic damage their promiscuous granting of undeserving
patents causes; they'd be forced to choose dilligence over taking the path of
least resistance.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
