Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents]
From: Xavier Amatriain (xamat_AT_iua.upf.es)
Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 - 15:50:00 EET
The reason I forwarded the e-mail is that, as opposed to what has been
said in the list, it turns out that stupid patents can be used to win
(also stupid) court trials. Scary!
On dc, 2004-12-15 at 12:03, Pau Arumi wrote:
> > 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
>
>
-- /********************************** ********* Xavier Amatriain ******** ****** Music Technology Group ***** ** IUA- Universitat Pompeu Fabra ** ****** www.iua.upf.es/~xamat ****** ***********************************/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Dec 15 2004 - 15:52:53 EET