Re: [Fsfe-uk] Bromcom undead ?

[Ralph Janke]

James Heald wrote:

> Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > My understanding was that the bit that was upheld was some specific and
> > fairly obscure protocols that were implemented in the original systems.
> > This means that general purpose wireless networking was OK, but you
> > couldn't use the specific protocils BromCom "invented". Not much of a
> > problem since I know of no-one who needs to use these.
>
>
> My impression was also that the general claims for trasfer of pupil 
> data by wireless were struck out, but that some aspects of Bromcom's 
> protocols were left standing.
>
> Are we reasonably confident that common-or-garden WiFi couldn't be 
> interpreted as making use of the Bromcom patented protocols ?
This statement is true. According to the verdict claim 1 and 2 which 
describe the general principle of using wireless technology and or a 
management system for student attendance were struck down.

Claim 7 was upheld which describes basically the slotted alloha protocol 
and how to use it with specific tranceivers. And a very specific way of 
neogtiation protocol. I am still not 100% sure how far this can be 
stretched. I am quite comfortably sure that bridging a network via a 
wireless bridge would not be violating this claim, however using tablet 
pcs or palms using this specific protocol might.

In constrast, I still don't understand the judges argument that it was 
not obvious to use slotted alloha protocol for wireless transmission, 
since a normal school IT technician would not have the knowledge to do 
so. Fact is that slotted alloha was long before use on cable as well as 
wireless (satellite communication) and therefore the claim is either 
obvious, definatly not novel and should be struck down as well..

However this point will either stay to be a secret of the judge, or if 
one of both sides will continue legal proceedings, maybe we will see 
clarification. However, I don't know how Dfes should appeal this point, 
since the wrong decision is probably based on a wrong judgement of  
facts, not a matter of law. Therefore appeal seems unlikely. However, if 
a particular school would use wireless technology and would be suit by 
Bromcom (Frontline Technology), Bromcom would have to prove that the 
school is using the identical way of protocol and negotiation. IT seems 
very unlikely that they will ever be able to do so.

Mr. Clarke's statement is IMHO a typical statement of a boneless 
politician. Never take one. He wants to play it both ways, not offend 
any companies that this government is in bed with, however don't want to 
be seen as wasting tapayers money through the schools. I find it very 
disturbing that in the end the Governors and the Headteacher are made 
responsible for the mess that this Government and the EU are creating 
with the continous insistence that can obtain a Government protected 
monopoly for every trivial thought put as algorithm into a physical 
device. No software ever runs without a computer, no algorithm ever 
achies anything without an implementation. Therefore the statement that 
they do not allow software patents are ridiculous....

P.S. I am planning to move to Canada, the only country in the western 
world I know of, that has not followed the stupid idea of allowing 
software patents......

Ralph