[OSGeo-Discuss] Fw: Re: New Google Mapping Patent

[Ed McNierney]

I would like to strongly second Michael's comments, having spent a lot
of time on patent issues myself (it appears that I'm an engineer who can
communicate well with lawyers <g>).  It is indeed very common to have
folks misread or over-generalize a patent and then conclude that there's
plenty of prior art, when in fact the claimed invention may indeed be
quite novel when understood correctly.

I don't have time to look into these patents right now, but a quick
glance at the "serving tiled images" patent seems to show that it
focuses more specifically on (a) generating tiled images from VECTOR
data (not raster) and (b) on the generation process rather than the
serving process.  I'm not suggesting those claims should be valid or
invalid, but the proper understanding of a patent's claims is a tricky
business.  Remember that patents are for SPECIFIC inventions, so GENERAL
descriptions of them are almost certainly misleading!

     - Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: mail_discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:mail_discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Michael P.
Gerlek
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:43 PM
To: OSGeo Foundation Discuss List
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fw: Re: New Google Mapping Patent

As one who has unfortunately had some exposure the the patent processes,
let me point out that patents can appear to the casual observer to be
very broad, but when you get down to the actual claims -- which are
nontrivial to read! -- you often find what is being argued for is deeply
specific and narrow.  Patent claims and patent law are really designed
for lawyers, not for engineers.

I don't know anything about Google's claims, and I'm not arguing for or
against US patent law, I'm just saying that we need to be careful before
jumping to conclusions.

-mpg

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mail_discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
> [mailto:mail_discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of 
> Landon Blake
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:21 AM
> To: OSGeo Foundation Discuss List
> Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fw: Re: New Google Mapping Patent
> 
> Frank,
> 
> You make some excellent points.
> 
> I was only thinking that a patent might be easier to challenge during
> the application process than after it was granted.
> 
> I know I would probably be better of investing my time on the open
> source projects I work with.
> 
> Still, I find it disturbing that companies like Google feel 
> the need to
> apply for patents on what seems to be to use of pretty basic
> cartographic principles. I'll leave this topic open for more 
> discussion.
> Perhaps I'll throw up a post about it in my OpenJUMP blog this week.
> 
> Landon
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mail_discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:mail_discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Frank
> Warmerdam
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:12 AM
> To: OSGeo Foundation Discuss List
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fw: Re: New Google Mapping Patent
> 
> Landon Blake wrote:
> > I wonder if the OSGeo could set up a group to review US patent
> applications
> > filed for geospatial technologies and applications.
> > 
> > I'm not sure how many of these types of patents are filed 
> every week,
> but it
> > would be nice to have a group of experts looking over the patent
> office's
> > shoulder.
> > 
> > Then again, Autodesk might not be too hot about the idea of 
> the OSGeo
> > reviewing its patent applications for geospatial applications.
> 
> Landon,
> 
> I am not keen on getting too involved in patent related activities.
> 
> For one thing, it tends to be "laywer intensive" which sooner or later
> will
> mean "expensive".  Second, I suspect that customer oriented businesses
> like
> Google or Autodesk primarily file such patents for defensive use.  I
> doubt
> there is much risk of them being used against free software and so
> effort
> spent fighting them is essentially wasted.
> 
> Should we find an open source geospatial project threatened by legal
> action
> from a patent holder of a baseless patent, I think it would be more
> likely
> we might get actively involved.
> 
> Note, I'm speaking for myself, not on behalf of a consensus 
> position of
> the
> foundation.
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------+----------------------
> ----------
> ------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
> warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo,
> http://osgeo.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mail_discuss mailing list
> Mail_discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mail_discuss
> 
> 
> Warning:
> Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed 
> against defects including translation and transmission 
> errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are 
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or 
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you 
> have received this information in error, please notify the 
> sender immediately.
> _______________________________________________
> Mail_discuss mailing list
> Mail_discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mail_discuss
> 
_______________________________________________
Mail_discuss mailing list
Mail_discuss at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mail_discuss