                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of artbotter...@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.46;
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of artbotter...@gmail.com designates 10.68.131.98 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.131.98;
Sender: Art Botterell <artbotter...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Subject: Re: [g-cap-comm] Re: Patent Implications for CAP
From: Art Botterell <a...@incident.com>
In-Reply-To: <23267642.3849.1329917420248.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vblb5>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:14:59 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <45A561A3-1730-4E0D-AE9E-40A2DBB2C...@incident.com>
References: <20712828.7495.1329826769529.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbkl3> <23267642.3849.1329917420248.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vblb5>
To: google-cap-community@googlegroups.com

Most of these various patents really address particular ways that alerts =
(CAP or otherwise) might be disseminated... I haven't seen one yet that =
impinges on the CAP standard per-se.  Indeed the very existence of CAP =
might constitute prior art to a number of them... assuming a challenger =
saw enough profit potential to justify the lawyer's fees.

In any event it's an open secret, I think, that the patent process has =
run amok and is having a crushing effect on innovation, especially by =
small businesses.  And I fear the recent patent "reform" legislation in =
the U.S., with its switch from first-to-invent to first-to-file, will =
only accelerate the rush to file on everything imaginable, further =
overloading the Patent Office's already dubious capacity to evaluate the =
actual merit of applications.

The net effect, I fear, might be called the "Innovators Double-Bind":  =
Only large corporations will be able to accept the risk of defending =
against random patent challenges, but their relatively high internal =
costs will mean that only the most profitable opportunities are pursued. =
 Thus many innovations will become like the so-called "orphan drugs"... =
valuable and even life-saving tools that aren't profitable enough for =
large companies to bother, but with high enough barriers to market entry =
that small "disruptive" ventures can't afford to fill the gap.

Not meaning to draw us off topic here, but only to point out that this =
is simply one instance of a very broad problem with very broad =
implications.  ("When innovation is outlawed only outlaws will =
innovate.")  It's in no way limited to the domain of alert and warning.

- Art


On Feb 22, 2012, at 5:30 AM, Farrel Lifson wrote:

> As a follow up here is another patent  - =
http://www.google.com/patents/US6816878 - which covers much of the =
functionality of a CAP based system.
>=20
> Regards,
> Farrel