Re: [Fsfe-uk] Bromcom undead ?

[Alex Hudson]

On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 20:47 +0000, Ian Lynch wrote:
> > I don't think it's necessarily inventive, but it might be technical 
> 
> I thought patents had to be non-obvious.

As a whole, yes, but not in part. The wireless section is only one part
of their patent, and doesn't have to be inventive on it's own
(obviously, going from wired to wireless is not inventive in general). 

That doesn't mean that the patent necessarily does not apply to wireless
registration systems.

> I gave evidence and while I was there, there was no credible evidence
> given in two days in support of the patent. If this results in an
> impasse it really is evidence of how broken the patent system is. 

The patent was granted though; there's not really anything else they
would be required to do (other than that they would probably want to
refute prior art if they could). 

My guess is that the wrangling is over how broad BromCom can keep their
patent - and, if we're talking about a line which is meaningful (e.g.,
BromCom want it to still cover the vast majority of wireless
registration systems), then I would strongly suspect that we would be
headed back to court unless the DTI caves in.

Cheers,

Alex.