| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create)Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create)Posted Apr 21, 2006 4:35 UTC (Fri) by Junior_Samples (guest, #26737)Parent article: Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) Most of us are familiar with the household wall switch which controls a mains outlet, usually for the purpose of switching a lamp on and off. Of course we could use the switch to control a Christmas tree, or a television, or a radio, or an electric blanket, or a model railroad. How is applying a computer to control something patentable, any more than using a traditional switch? I remember the dawn of the microcomputer era when when the typical hobby computer was a single board hand wired unit, without monitor or keyboard. The computer books and magazines of the era were always publishing variations on using an SBC to control a model railroad. Even academic text books of the day used this application as an example. Computer control of a model railroad is a stunningly obvious application, devoid of any "invention".
(Log in to post comments)
WWell, it's less obvious than a light switch... Posted Apr 21, 2006 15:21 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] In fairness, the patent is much narrower than "controlling a model railroad" and goes specifically to how the communications and software are organized. Note that the letter they sent to JMRI specifically pointed out a way the JMRI software could be rearchitected to not overlap the patent while still performing the same function.
It's still probably too broad and obvious, but it's not as obvious as a light switch. The Description section of the patent has a reasonably readable overview of what problem it's trying to solve and how it solves it (but it does manage to misspell CORBA as Cobra).
|
|
||||||||||||