From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-27 12:00:51
"Iain K.Hanson" <iain.hanson_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Thats not possoible imho. It may have expired now, but I remember IBM
> filed a patent (US) in the late 80's oe earlier 90's on Finite State
> Machines, The general form of FSM.
> Such a patent is clearly bogus and the defence of prior art would suceed.
> But I doubt that any boost author wishes to open themselves up to having
> to defend a patent writ.
On the other hand, I imagine that Boost authors generally don't have the
same resources that large companies do. So is it really in anyone's best
interests to attack a Boost author over a dubious patent claim? Isn't that
like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip? In a way, Boost authors may
be protected by the fact that they are single individuals, rather than
corporations. And I imagine that if someone were to unfairly attack a
Boost library over questionable legal issues, there would be people with
a vested interest in Boost that might contribute to a legal defense. But
maybe that's just wishful thinking and unguarded idealism.
It seems to me that the library review process is probably more
comprehensive than whatever review comes up during the patent
process (especially considering the kinds of patents that have been issued
over time). So I find it difficult to believe that an IP lawyer with a bone
pick would have more knowledge of prior art than the entire Boost
community. I would be extremely surprised if anyone could make any
worthwhile legal claims against any user of a major Boost library because
of Boost itself.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk