On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:57:38 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 1/31/2012 6:37 PM, Larry W wrote:
Something to keep in mind when discussing ideas that do not conflict with
the Gass patents: It has been common for some years now for the Patent
Office to approve patents no matter how ridiculously obvious, over reaching,
plainly derivative, etc. If someone comes up with a different idea, even
if it DOES conflict with one of Gass's patents, the patent office is likely
to approve it anyway. I suppose if that happens Gass and the newcomer can
duke it out in court. As usual, the lawyers will win, though in this case,
Gass, the lawyer, would also be one of the litigants. It would be worth
seeing for that aspect alone IMHO!

You said a mouthful ... I can't believe the software patents that are
being awarded these days, they defy reason, logic, and any sense of
_shame_ whatsoever.

I was co-founder of the very first web based, third party DNS provider
on the Internet in the early nineties. _If_ we could have patented our
method back then, and we tried, my shop would currently be 5,000 sf
instead of 300sf.

That same method of bits and byte manipulation is now highly patentable
in the current patent environment.

Basically, unless you can buy off a politician, you're screwed in the
age of crony capitalism.

I've never been there, but if you look at a lot of the things being
patented now its complete BS. Maybe they need some way of doing 18
-48 month patents as things change so quick and the wide sweeping
patents stifle developement, If your shop is only 300 sf I'm
impressed. I started at 560 sf, added 120 sf and just added 360 sf
and haven't the projects to justify the investment over what you've
done.

Mike M