Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Try 1988.

   

   Jef Poskanzer, Jan 12th, 2005 @ 6:44pm

   
   

   That's when I wrote and published the first version of "hgrep", which highlights the search terms in the output of a Unix grep command.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Is the Google Patent Valid?

   

   Muse, Jan 12th, 2005 @ 7:42pm

   
   

   I may be missing something, but I thought that you could not patent something that was already patented
   OR already described to the public.
   
   That would suggest to me that:
   1. the IBM patent would cover it
   OR
   2. the the hgrep would be prior art.
   
   See Patent Busting at http://www.eff.org/patent/contest/
   Any comments?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Did you read the patent?

   

   Ed, Jan 12th, 2005 @ 9:47pm

   
   

   It appears to be much narrower than your description. I think patents on specializations of a general concept are common and expected. It also means that this patent would't apply to hgrep.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Is the Google Patent Valid?

   

   David Garamond, Jan 12th, 2005 @ 11:34pm

   
   

   What do you expect when the patent office wants/needs to churn out as many patents as possible per year?
   
   There have been so many ridiculous patents it's not funny anymore...

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   No Subject Given

   

   achacha, Jan 13th, 2005 @ 2:02pm

   
   

   I had added this to a database retrieval software I was working on around 1994 to search SGML and text documents based on a set of word and highlight the words in different color when viewing the results. It's still used in many libraries today. This Google patent is prior art.
   
   The greatest obstacle to progress is going to be USPTO... just watch only the lawyers will benefit.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   USPTO

   

   Angst, Jan 18th, 2005 @ 2:54pm

   
   

   How right you are; but, checkout the USPTO for invidious performances: it is an office charged with limited grant(ing) of a CONSTITUTIONAL right and that charges the citizenry (which holds that right) as much as it can (albeit, by legislative fiat), claiming it operates almost entirely on user fees. When only IBM and its ilk can afford patents, only they will obtain them and the common citizen can go jump. Have you visited your friendly patent practitioner lately to tally the cost of applying for a patent? Between him/her and the PTO, better call DITECH and mortgage the kids.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment