6 ms·

Circa 2000 I and another developer at my company implemented two systems which are very good examples of prior art for this patent. Both of those systems are st

Circa 2000 I and another developer at my company implemented two systems which are very good examples of prior art for this patent. Both of those systems are still in use today, and I consider the mechanism to be a standard design pattern for robust SOA components. Reading the claims, the only ones that don't match what we did are the claims that say the system is implemented in Java; ours are C++ and Perl. That should be sufficient to invalidate the patent though, at least in a reasonable world.

jacquesm 16y ago
Was the code published?
- DougWebb 16y ago
  Not externally, but there's plenty of documentation and version control history internally, and many witnesses who can attest to the accuracy of those records. That may or may not be sufficient evidence of prior art. For the Perl implementation, the basis of the design came from the book "Network Programming with Perl" by Lincoln Stein. I'm pretty sure he covered the basic "accept a connection and fork" pattern, and in the Perl world the big benefit of the pattern is the pre-loading and compiling of modules/classes that the forked process is going to need. So that book probably contains sufficient published prior-art.
kragen 16y ago
It's possible to invalidate only certain claims of a patent with prior art. In theory you would think that if there's lots of prior art of people doing XYZ, then someone doing XYZ in Java because their project uses Java would be obvious and therefore not patentable. In practice the Federal Circuit has taken an absurdly narrow view of "obvious".
- nooneelse 16y ago
  I guess that might also answer something I've been wondering since this began (well actually before, but this case has brought it back up in my mind). If you take some people skilled in the relevant art, and just describe a problem to them and tell them that someone did solve it but not how it was solved, you lock them away to do a clean room implementation of something that solves that problem, and then their solution happens to be the same as in some patent... then isn't that a bit of evidence that the solution in the patent isn't non-obvious?
  - CERTIORARI 16y ago
    Exactly. In fact not only could you say it isn't non-obvious, you might go as far as to say it is obvious.

jacquesm 16y ago

Was the code published?

DougWebb 16y ago
Not externally, but there's plenty of documentation and version control history internally, and many witnesses who can attest to the accuracy of those records. That may or may not be sufficient evidence of prior art. For the Perl implementation, the basis of the design came from the book "Network Programming with Perl" by Lincoln Stein. I'm pretty sure he covered the basic "accept a connection and fork" pattern, and in the Perl world the big benefit of the pattern is the pre-loading and compiling of modules/classes that the forked process is going to need. So that book probably contains sufficient published prior-art.

kragen 16y ago

It's possible to invalidate only certain claims of a patent with prior art. In theory you would think that if there's lots of prior art of people doing XYZ, then someone doing XYZ in Java because their project uses Java would be obvious and therefore not patentable. In practice the Federal Circuit has taken an absurdly narrow view of "obvious".

nooneelse 16y ago
I guess that might also answer something I've been wondering since this began (well actually before, but this case has brought it back up in my mind). If you take some people skilled in the relevant art, and just describe a problem to them and tell them that someone did solve it but not how it was solved, you lock them away to do a clean room implementation of something that solves that problem, and then their solution happens to be the same as in some patent... then isn't that a bit of evidence that the solution in the patent isn't non-obvious?
- CERTIORARI 16y ago
  Exactly. In fact not only could you say it isn't non-obvious, you might go as far as to say it is obvious.