Quoting Thomas Plunkett <thomaskplunkett at gmail.com>: > Luis, > > My answer to your question... > > The BlueJ/Microsoft issue was the visible tip of the iceberg. The > prior art was so blatant and had such visibilty amongst the community > that the company had to take action on it. But most applications are > below the visibility level for the community (just as an iceberg is > mostly below the water line). P2Patent will hopefully get the right > people to look at those lower visibility applications and find > relevant prior art. > > Tom A few days ago I decided to play around with googles new patent search engine. Note that I have put the same search words into the USPTOs system really not so long ago, as I do this at least once every couple years, typically more than that. The search pharse I gave google was "Virtual Interaction Configuration", but unlike the past, this time a patent showed up. It was only referencing my work as "other references" and I have not yet had the chance to really read through the patent. But it is my intent to rewrite the patent claims and whatever else in terms of common since, common direction of anyone skill in the art of applying "the point of computing", to be of non-novel,... in term of abstraction physics, etc.. I think this will be a good example of how abstraction physics can be applied in two different ways to describe in essence the same objectives. One way in terms supportive of patentability and the other in terms of clear non-patentability. It is such exercizes as this that can be used to educate one on perspectives, how they and differ and how the clever use of abstractions can be used to bias. I mean if you are going to make a judgement of how talented an mathmatician is, whether or not his work is really noteworthy, you kinda gotta mention or otherwise make obvious whether he is applying the roman numeral system or the hindu arabic decimal system. Assuming can easily lead to misdirection and error in understanding. Currently the porblem with judgement regarding software patents is based upon faulty or grealty limited perspective of what software is. To understand this is to know its absolutely no supprise at all that there are mounting problems in the industry of software. And it esculates as I recently read something about how most software today does not take advantage of multicore processors. Meaning reinvention ... can be a race to do that same thing but on a multicore processor... and get the patent.. Anyways, its time for a perspective change, and the place to start is with existing patents and the rewritting of them in terms of what is not patentable. To provide an alternative perspective that will lead to real solutions or resolution to the inevitable mounting problems of a system based upon error in perspective. Before we understood chemistry well enough to even think chemical megaplants were possible, we made errors. The evidence of error in chemistry is far more obvious then errors in a subject matter that is not only abstract but subjective. Hindsight helps to deal with the subjectivity problem and we can apply abstraction in a way intentionally contridicting the abstraction sequence in a patent.. (As was writting a patent in terms of patentability, was also intentional) And any opposition to this is going to do what? bit flip abstractions? ...shrug... T. Rue > > > On 1/30/07, Luis Villa <luis at tieguy.org> wrote: > > Tangent: everyone here should have seen the bluej/microsoft thing that > > went on over the weekend; if not, best summary I can find is here: > > http://271patent.blogspot.com/2007/01/ad-hoc-community-patent-review-and.html > > > > A good question to ask might be- what role would p2patent have played > > had it been up and running before this started? I'm really not sure if > > it is a great question (given the speed with which that particular > > meme moved) but something to ponder, at any rate. > > > _______________________________________________ > p2patent-developer mailing list > p2patent-developer at lists.osdl.org > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/p2patent-developer > -- To protect his social status a roman numeral accountant would have promoted: "Only a fool would think nothing can have value." (re: zero place holder, decimal system)
