Re: PC or Mac?

[Greg Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com>]

In article <a3gnce$bto$1@merope.saaf.se>, Paul Schlyter
<pausch@saaf.se> wrote:

> In article <020220020720347310%gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com>,
> Greg Weston  <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
> >In article <u5ldr9itgqhg9a@corp.supernews.com>, Matthew Russotto
> ><russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >Was the GUI ever patented?
> >> 
> >> You can't legitimately patent an idea.  Many elements of the GUI have
> >> been patented, however. (including, I believe, the "trash can")
> >
> >Incorrect.
> 
> WHAT is incorrect?  That you cannot patent an idea?  Or that the trash can
> was patented?

That the trash canm as a GUI element, was patented.

Matthew is, if I understand his meaning, correct in saying that you
can't legitimately patent an idea. I presume he means "an abstract
concept." Patent is _supposed_to_ protect a concrete expression of an
algorithm or physical mechanism. It's not supposed to be applied to
anything obvious or to anything for which essentially identical prior
art can be documented. In practice, the USPTO has some failings in
their understanding of computers. I believe it has been largely
corrected, but for an excessive amount of time the PTO required
examiners to have a degree with the word "engineer" in it. Most people
qualified to examine a software patent application in the U.S. have no
such degree - it's just "computer science" or similar. As a result, the
PTO granted a number of truly stupid patents, many of which have not
been overturned because no-one has the chutzpah and money to challenge
them.

G