Microsoft's C# (Sharp) & .NET -- A Heads Up

[Alex Martelli]

"Stephen Hansen" <stephen at cerebralmaelstrom.com> wrote in message
news:Lgga5.125600$WS3.1101565 at typhoon.we.rr.com...
>     But you can't patent something like: "Something that carries large
> objects from one place to another."

You *shouldn't be able to*.  But, given the way the Patent Office actually
works, you can patent anything you can get away with, and you're likely
to get away with a lot (e.g., patent something easy to prove impossible,
such as "an algorithm to compress bitsequences which will always
reduce the sequence length by at least one bit"; or, patent "some way
that allows web users to order your product with a single click"...).  Maybe
the courts will later reverse it, but meanwhile you've got something to
blackmail people and firms with.

I don't think Sun has patented the general concept of programming
language, but you should do a patent search just to make sure:-).  And,
sure, if they have it's probably invalid (previous art, obvious to one
skilled in the art, etc, etc), but until a court invalidates it the can sue,
or
threaten to sue, they can ask for relief against your "infringement" until
the case is decided, etc, etc.


> You don't patent the concept of the end-effect, you patent the process,
> model, device, etc...

Yes, that's the theory.  The practice of software and business-procedure
patents is a much sadder and grubbier reality, it seems to me.  But with
BT claiming they hold a patent on (any way of implementing) hyperlinks,
and Amazon claiming they hold a patent on (any way of implementing)
one-click orders, etc, that should be abundantly clear these days.

That much being said, if somebody's gotta be sued under these absurd
current practices, then, better it be MS, than me; if nothing else, they can
well afford the lawyers (they, and HP, did manage to win the "look and
feel" suit, didn't they).


Alex