Re: PJ's in a snit

[Rjack]

RonB wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 05:16:42 -0600, Rjack <user@example.net>
> wrote:
>
> > So TomTom suing over a software patent is like being just a
> > little bit pregnant?
>
> I guess I'm not like some folks here -- I believe that a
> genuinely specific and unique idea, that has been successfully
> implemented, is patentable. What I don't believe in is patenting
> vague concepts that can be used to patent troll anyone. There has
> actually been a patent granted for "faster than light radio."

What you say is true but there never seems to be a way to filter the
terrific from the trash. The Supreme Court's "anything under the
sun" dogma doesn't help. The Congress doesn't want to draw any lines
for fear of offending some interest group. Most software patents are
granted for ideas that are first expressed in code that is obvious
to a reasonable practitioner in the field. IBM once patented the
brilliant, non-obvious, unique idea of an on screen caps lock
indicator. Crap like that simply retards progress in the arts and
sciences.

So who gets to decide what is meritorious? Is it like pornography
where the patent examiner knows it when he sees it?

> So, if what TomTom is suing the Toyota affiliate for is actually
>  something specific and unique, and something they have
> successfully implemented, then I don't see hypocrisy here.