Re: [Fsfe-uk] Bromcom undead ?

[Alex Hudson]

On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 20:29 +0000, Ian Lynch wrote:
> My understanding was that the bit that was upheld was some specific and
> fairly obscure protocols that were implemented in the original systems.
> This means that general purpose wireless networking was OK, but you
> couldn't use the specific protocils BromCom "invented". Not much of a
> problem since I know of no-one who needs to use these.

Well, see, there's the thing - I'm pretty sure what the DTI guidance
used to say was exactly that. But then, El Rag's link into Hansard
showed Fungus the Bogeyman going back on that slightly, and saying that
schools should consult their supplier to see whether or not what they
are doing is "legal". 

> Quite so. Any fair minded person would see that transferring
> registration data over wireless when it was previously done over cable
> is no different from any data that was on cable then being transferred
> over wireless so what is unusual or inventive about it?

I don't think it's necessarily inventive, but it might be technical - so
a registration system as a whole might be patentable, with the wireless
bit forming a technical contribution.

I don't know. It sounds like the DTI are trying to get the patent as
narrow as possible, Bromcom are trying to ensure it still covers
schools. It sounds like little has actually been decided at the moment
(other than that the patent cannot stand as it was originally worded - a
win, but not as substantial a win as we thought).

Cheers,

Alex.