Patenting using program A from vendor X with program B from vendor X?

[Guden Oden]

Then sue and win for one MILLION dollars! Or eight and a half actually...

What kind of crazy effed-up world is it we live in when it's possible to patent how to use SOMEONE ELSE'S programs together??? That's insane!

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Is that life?
If it is then I really have to consider killing myself.

 

[_xxx_]

Whadda you know, maybe he worked at MS and patented the algorithm? Or maybe he programmed that as a contractor? Or MS just blatantly stole the idea?

When was his patent filed and where did he work back then?

 

[nelg]

Ha. Old school to the Pharmaceutical world.

 

[Xmas]

What kind of crazy effed-up world is it we live in when it's possible to patent how to use SOMEONE ELSE'S programs together??? That's insane!

He hasn't patented using two programs together. He has patented a technology that Access and Excel use to interact with each other. Now I am against software patents, but if that patented technology is not just some triviality, then at least he has a case.

 

[Guden Oden]

Uhm, what way specifically is it these two programs use that pretty much any two programs would'nt be using in a multitasking computing environment?

 

[_xxx_]

Uhm, what way specifically is it these two programs use that pretty much any two programs would'nt be using in a multitasking computing environment?

Each can work with the other's data format? Import/export, embedding stuff etc. It all needs suitable interfaces and these are in this case probably proprietary.

 

[Guden Oden]

We had shared file formats way back in the late 80s with the IFF standard on the Amiga. Programs could communicate using ARexx ports or OS message passing for example.

I'm sort of wondering what specifically is patentable in this area that isn't already covered by decades worth of prior art... OTOH, it's probably well-known by now that it's possible to sneak the strangest of stuff past the overworked patent clerks in the US, prior art or not... Meh. Damn lawyers, they're the only ones getting rich on stuff like this!

 

[_xxx_]

Seems like the money went to the wrong guy, the one owning the patent didn't even write it!

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32528

This part is cool, though:

"The Australian patent office allowed a patent on the wheel two or three years ago. I wonder if you could patent 2+2=4 by stating it in obscure enough language?

Is that really true?

 

[Simon F]

Seems like the money went to the wrong guy, the one owning the patent didn't even write it!

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32528

This part is cool, though:



Is that really true?

No, it's not "really true".

The Australian patent office introduced a new type of patent that was designed to make it easier/cheaper for a small inventor to get started. This type of patent allowed the inventor to effectively register his patent but it is not immediately examined thus saving the huge up-front fees . He/She could then try to find a big partner whatever to develop the product.

IIRC, unlike normal patents which are effectively assumed to be valid after the official examination, there is no such presumption and they are easy for a third party to challenge. You'd have to look at the details yourself but the system seems reasonably sensible to me.

Some joker submitted one of these patents for a wheel however it would obviously not stand up to any challenge.

 

[_xxx_]

Thanks, I didn't really believe that anyway but it would have been really funny.

 

[Simon F]

Thanks, I didn't really believe that anyway but it would have been really funny.

Having said this, there is a US patent for a novel way of swinging on a child's swing! :smile: Some people have money to burn apparently