I agree with your general position and I just want you to know I take none of your criticism or remarks personally.
I suspect that if it ever gets a mention on HN, someone will say something like "Jacques Chester tries to patent logins" or "Jacques Chester tries to patent apache weblogs" or any number of things that don't at all describe what I developed.
Part of the trouble is that patentese is hard to read. While developing the technology to be submitted I wrote and refined what amounts to an RFC. It's a few thousand words with about a hundred lines of pseudocode near the middle.
This in turn blew out to about ten thousand words and 5 diagrams with ~200 reference numbers.
When my first examiner's report came back he'd found and rejected two candidates for prior art; in both cases it took me about an hour to make heads or tails of what was described.
Comments
I agree with your general position and I just want you to know I take none of your criticism or remarks personally.
I suspect that if it ever gets a mention on HN, someone will say something like "Jacques Chester tries to patent logins" or "Jacques Chester tries to patent apache weblogs" or any number of things that don't at all describe what I developed.
Part of the trouble is that patentese is hard to read. While developing the technology to be submitted I wrote and refined what amounts to an RFC. It's a few thousand words with about a hundred lines of pseudocode near the middle.
This in turn blew out to about ten thousand words and 5 diagrams with ~200 reference numbers.
When my first examiner's report came back he'd found and rejected two candidates for prior art; in both cases it took me about an hour to make heads or tails of what was described.