Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents]
From: Pau Arumi (parumi_AT_iua.upf.es)
Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 - 13:03:18 EET
> Actually, the patent is not on graph-traversal as such, but on graph-
> traversal in context with virtual instrumentation having some kind of
> adjustable front-panel on screen ... It is a "methods" patent that only
> applies when all the ingredients are in place. The prior art shown in
> court was overturned in part because it did not use windows and mouse.
>
At the beginning I thought that Mathworks didn't tried to claim priort art, and as you say I read with surprise that they actually did: pages 8-10 of this pdf [1] (which I think is an overview of the trial process, found here [2] ) They showed two systems Sutherland and MATRIX (I know nothing about them).
[1] http://cafc.bna.com/03-1540.pdf
[2] http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/09/federal_circuit.html
Probably Mathworks did a poor job finding examples of prior art, and they concentrated too much on defending they where not infringing the patent. Anyway, I find this case very sad. Hopefully --like Erik said before-- this is a step towards the colapse of the US patents system...
Pau Arumí
http://www.iua.upf.es/mtg/clam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Dec 15 2004 - 13:08:35 EET