True Type Fonts.

Jarvis, Robert P. Jarvisb at timken.com
Fri Dec 10 19:36:09 UTC 1999


So how many patents have you seen overturned, vs. how many have been upheld?
Just curious...

Bob Jarvis
Compuware @ Timken

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	agree at carltonfields.com [SMTP:agree at carltonfields.com]
> Sent:	Friday, December 10, 1999 1:44 PM
> To:	Alan.Kay at disney.com; squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject:	RE: True Type Fonts.
> 
> Sorry about the commentary.
> 
> >It's the patent office that is to blame > for much of
> > this, in that they have been willing to grant patents on just about
> > anything for the last 30 or so years without vetting them, but simply
> > leaving it up to unsophisticated people in civil courts (or > out of
> court)
> > to resolve issues. This has been/is terrible and needs to be >
> combatted.
> 
> My experience is that the Federal Circuit (however unsophisticated) does
> an excellent job of addressing these questions.  I agree that jury trials
> are nonsensical exercises, and a decent defendant's patent lawyer knows
> when to breeze through the trial court stage to get an appeal ready.
> 
> On the other hand, my experience has been that engineers unsophisticated
> in patent law tend to make wildly "wrong calls" on patent questions as
> often, or more often, than legally sophisticated non-technical laypersons.
> 
> Yes, the office makes wrong calls, no doubt.  And the courts are not
> perfect either.  (And I've defended against some very groty patents even
> in my short legal career, I can tell you.)  I'm not sure, however, that
> any of the generalizations we hear in the great "patent debates" are
> defensible.
> 
> My experience is that there are three kinds of arguments addressing
> software patents:
> 
> 	(1)	Patents are Bad;
> 	(2)	Software Patents are Bad; and
> 	(3)	Bad Software Patents are Bad.
> 
> No one in their right mind would defend against proposition (3), and few
> can really cut a dent in (1) without losing the vast majority of most
> audiences.  The interesting argument is that few can really distinguish
> their arguments for (2) from a (1) or a (3).
> 
> Sorry, this is off-topic.  But, hey, its Friday and I'm feeling frisky.
> (Just about to file a slam-dunk Summary Judgment Motion against a groty
> patent, too!)  :-)
> 
> Regards to all in this holiday season,
> A





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list