A criticism of the patent system is that computer scientists
are qualified to judge invention in software while the PTO is
not. In his article[26] Kahin
says, the PTO is, awarding patents merely for automating familiar processes
such as ... comparing documents (Patent No. 4,807,182). But
software developers have been routinely automating such
[functions] for years. In fact, the ACM published a refereed paper describing that
(hashcoding) technique for comparing two text files albeit for
source code, rather than document comparison[17]. It seems that the ACM and the
PTO have similar standards of inventiveness. It so happens I wrote that paper, and I brought it to the
attention of the patentholder and (indirectly) to WordPerfect
about 10 months before Mr. Kahin's article was published. Four
companies put on notice about the patent brought the paper to the
attention of the patentholder. This suggests that where prior art
exists which narrows a patent's scope, it is likely to surface. Advanced Software, was founded to develop and market DocuComp
which uses the patented technology. Its inventor, Cary Queen, a
Ph.D in mathematics has filed over a dozen patents in genetic
engineering where he is principal in a startup, Protein Design
Labs. He also used the patented hashcoding technique to compare
genes to identify similarities. Cary Queen reports there is more prejudice against patents in
software than in biotechnology, where hundreds of startups have
been financed, as biotechnology patents are better respected. (Last updated on 10/06/98) Intellectual Property Creators
Document Comparison: An example of prior art
An Obvious Patent?
Intellectual
Property Creators
www.ipcreators.org
101 First St., Suite 425
Los Altos, CA 94022
Voice: 650/948-8350
© Paul Heckel 1995-7