From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "David O'Toole" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: strokes-mode and touchscreen patents? was Re: emacs and touchscreen Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:10:21 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87aaj099t3.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1295190639 19210 80.91.229.12 (16 Jan 2011 15:10:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:10:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: joakim@verona.se, emacs- devel To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 16 16:10:33 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PeUFQ-0002B0-2k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:10:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39059 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PeUFP-0003AQ-B5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:10:27 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37906 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PeUFK-0003A1-HY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:10:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PeUFJ-0003wP-N4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:10:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-qw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.216.41]:63185) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PeUFJ-0003wK-JU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:10:21 -0500 Original-Received: by qwa26 with SMTP id 26so3873728qwa.0 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 07:10:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=I/tE9JGiblR36VbwfjDLSPkGXNeEg56ouxTVH2tPbcI=; b=ac46DRqUXTAjOJH52F/tT2+LEyLbPRfDCGAb/Az14pMHFmp1o5MRHMsB5lUiZWzf0z 2kTGLVeTQsVpglvSMF//4RhfuiWL18X9wJ4Ikv3DKV5Du89Laro6qV5TBWRpGi3bCI3P 8ns83HWYsgNxP1Nlv/LeXnPG/SVmPLkYO929s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=poH+iGPei9wDFrXT/dQFpb9LOZYzoKL49Fcv/DhaHzJlS2P5o4BlJsII6my1DH0IAW pzszbgasdU3fSN3bVVCiZXuI2JEINoWoJZm3tExBtEzV9LOBrqvN3//eV+vZapABS+nb /SnxNS/s28/mFnWTNdtPvh8LC6FCEzNpwcxCg= Original-Received: by 10.224.28.70 with SMTP id l6mr2985442qac.49.1295190621135; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 07:10:21 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.220.59.197 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 07:10:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87aaj099t3.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:134606 Archived-At: If I do by some chance strike it rich, I would want to fund prior art resea= rch. On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull w= rote: > David O'Toole writes: > =A0> Something occurred to me today after watching my touchscreen > =A0> strokes-mode video. Could the gesture recognition in strokes.el eith= er > =A0> 1. be threatened by patents that existed prior to 1997 (the first ye= ar > =A0> of copyright listed in strokes.el) or 2. qualify as prior art for > =A0> techniques patented later? > > 1. =A0Yes. =A0But why limit to earlier patents? =A0It infringes patents > =A0 =A0granted afterward, as well. =A0Once a patent is granted, it is the > =A0 =A0defendent's problem to break the patent, not the patentholder's > =A0 =A0problem to justify the patent. =A0This is very costly even if you > =A0 =A0have rock-solid prior art. > > 2. =A0Yes. =A0But see point 1 for why this doesn't really matter to you > =A0 =A0unless you're really rich. > >