NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> cache counting standards
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> cache counting standards
Karl Zetmeir (kzetmeir_at_gvi.net)
Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:26:13 -0500
Dan Gildor wrote:
>Given then that that is their methodology which they are attempting to patent,
>they're patent is really based on prior art and is therefore not patentable.
>In my opinion, the industry has a right to try and get a hold of the patent
>application and comment on it. Patenting the methodology might lead the
>industry to a situation where you can imagine that we all had to pay a
>license fee in order to use shampoo (in the case that rinse, lather, repeat
>was patented.)
Owning one patent with another currently under application, I know a bit
about the
subject. Patent Pending is NOT a public document. If it were, everyone could
attempt to "design around" the subject and the patent with be dilluted
before it
ever had a chance to see the light of day.
Once a Patent has been requested, it takes several years for the USPTO to
respond. During that time, they make a fairly exhaustive search for prior art.
That certainly does NOT mean they catch it all and occasionally a patent is
issued
which clearly has prior art preceeding it. Prior art may be an esoteric
doctoral
thesis covered with dust at Podunk Univ. or any other publication. It is NOT
necessarily a patent and the USPTO has no way to do a 100% search.
More often than not, the patent request is denied the first time around and the
USPTO provides the applicant with the reasons for denial. The applicant
then has
the opportunity to rewrite the application and refile.
However, once a patent is granted ... it is a VALID patent until someone
takes the
patent holder to task. If the prior art is obvious and applicable without much
strain of the imagination, the patent holder may let the whole issue lie as
patent
litigation is extremely expensive.
Software patents are relatively new. They are essentially methodology
patents as
it's not necessary to submit the code or a working model with the application.
The USPTO has it's hands full trying to structure and compare common grounds to
measure each patent's uniqueness and novelty.
BTW ... IBM sponsors a great patent research site:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/patquery.html
Karl Zetmeir, Pres. (NOT an attorney!)
Interactive Innovations, Inc.
mailto:kzetmeir_at_gvi.net
========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsors:
ICONOCAST, 2CAN Media and TurboAds.com
"This continues to be the 'coolest' and most informative e-mail
newsletter I get." Randy Haldeman, Director of Marketing, TEN-TV
To subscribe, visit http://www.iconocast.com
---
Eisenberg Communications Group, WebRep and IMGIS Co-founder
Ryan Steelberg Partner to Form 2CAN Media, Inc.
Details: http://www.2canmedia.com/mergernews.htm
---
Visit http://www.TurboAds.com to make your ads
more interactive, more transaction enabled and "Richer".
www.TurboAds.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
