more on more on more on Google wireless patents

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: John Shoch <shoch () alloyventures com>
Date: March 29, 2006 7:30:57 PM EST
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Cc: John Shoch <shoch () alloyventures com>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on more on Google wireless patents

Dave,

For IP, if you wish.

I hate to be the one throwing a blanket of reality of this, but the  
argument below regarding "defensive patents" is a little off target:

-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Fleishman <glenn () glennf com>
Date: March 29, 2006 6:25:43 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Google wireless patents

"I thought it worth pointing out that there was Sturm und Drang when
Amazon.com had patents granted left and right on things like 1-Click
and so forth. I was working at Amazon.com from late 96 to early 97
when some patents were written, and drafted instructions for one of
them (but wasn't the inventor). My understanding at the time which
has been born out is that the patents were methods to prevent large,
direct competitors from obtaining a market advantage by describing
technology. Without the patents, Amazon.com certainly would have been
enjoined from all kinds of behavior and would be paying royalties
left and right."
---------------------------

If the writer of this note believes that Amazon (and others) only  
want to protect their own ability to use an idea without paying  
royalties, there are actually a number of ways to protect "freedom to  
operate" without bothering to patent an innovation.

For example, those of us who have been around for a while will  
remember the IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin.  IBM could decide  
that an idea was not worth the expense of patenting, but could  
protect themselves by publishing it in their own Bulletin.  This did  
not give them exclusive rights, but instead served as the published  
prior art which would stop anyone else from patenting the same idea.   
[These journals were filled with both interesting and useless stuff.]

IBM has stopped publishing their own Disclosure Bulletin:
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/disclosures.shtml

But they, and others, now make use of a third party to disclose  
ideas, and to protect their own ability to use them in the future:
http://www.researchdisclosure.com/

If any company claims they "only want to protect their own ability to  
use an idea without paying royalties" they do not need to go to the  
expense of getting a patent.

Your loyal curmudgeon,

John Shoch
Alloy Ventures











-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/