Subject: Re: IC's mystery patent claims
From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:55:55 -0700

And, sorry to reply to myself, but the weakness of this
approach is famous old "blue-eyed islander's" brain
teaser.   Knowing that everyone else can, in principle, figure
out the answer to some question you weren't previously able
to figure out the answer to is sometimes enough information
to figure out the answer.

Still, it's a way to raise questions like "20 years?  Really?
How about 7 -- 7 is pretty generous.   7 not good enough?
Ok, the new offer is 5.  How's 5?  Cause it sure ain't 20.
Wanna try for 3?"    In particular, we can approximately
measure the work of duplicating an invention from the
questions that inspire it, add a % premium, and call that
the term.  This is much closer to a democratic market
selling monopoly rights than the current system.   If the
challengers all give up say "grant" at, say, 6 years -- then
perhaps 6 years is about fair (optionally with additional
conditions such as a fixed price for a public license in a
shorter time frame).

-t


Thomas Lord wrote:
>
> A community patent review shouldn't be limited to putting up
> the patent and asking for prior art or ex-post-facto opinions
> about what is or is not.  
> Instead, when possible, it should be a statement of the maximum
> number of non-patentable aspects of the problem definition and
> a request for people to sketch solutions and/or pony up code.
>
> For example, given just what we know about the IC patent
> application ---
>
> I'd want to look into adapting the bitmap rotation algorithm publicized
> in the book "Smalltalk-80, The Language and its Implementation"
> to convert a UTF-8 stream for bit-parallel processing.   Are there
> other fairly obvious methods?   How hard, really, are any of these
> to reduce to practice?   What about some of the other elements like
> encoding form conversion or lexical analysis?
>
> -t
>
>