Need more explanation of "what we're looking for"
Posted Apr 25, 2006 17:39 UTC (Tue) by dwheeler
In reply to: The JMRI Project and software patents
Parent article: The JMRI Project and software patents
I agree, we need more explanation of what we're looking for.
The right to create blog entry on this
refers to the KAM letter. I looked at the KAM letter, and the letter focuses on this:
"Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,530, 329 claims a method of operating a digitally controlled model railroad comprising the steps of: (a) transmitting a first command from a first program to an interface; (b) transmitting a second command from a second program to said interface; and (c) sending third and fourth commands from said interface representative of said first and second commands, respectively, to a digital command station."
I would love to see a more detailed posting on WHAT prior art, exactly, they're looking for, so we could all help more directly.
But the above may be a start.
Identifying many previous model train controllers might help to at least some extent, since one of those may very well have the other properties they're looking for.
The notion that you can patent multiplexing when you apply them to model railroads is ludicrous, and points out the problem in the patent system: It fails to work rationally with software.
It's like a painter being told he can't paint, because someone patented the idea of painting big buildings. Software developers go to school to learn a large set of well-known techniques and then apply the techniques to each problem they face. Multiplexing is one of those well-known techniques. The idea of applying a well-known technique to a well-understood problem is immediately obvious to any practitioner of software development, and thus the patent should never have been granted in the first place.
Frankly, the fact that JMRI was first should be enough, right?
to post comments)