IEF 5.7 ? Patent Pe...
 
Notifications
Clear all

IEF 5.7 ? Patent Pending ?

24 Posts
13 Users
0 Reactions
3,216 Views
(@mscotgrove)
Prominent Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 940
 

Are software patents really moral? Stealling trade secrets is illegal (I hope). Doing something in a similar way to someone else is evolution/flattery. Developing a tool to solve the same problem is a commercial choice. It also helps the whole community to advance.

If the F1 key as a general 'Help' key was subject to a patent, the whole world would be a sader place.

A patent takes a long time to be granted - by which time the world has moved on. Also, the application will also have moved on. The replacement for tablets and iPads might be common place by then. The PC might be 'dead'

Why should a process to be subject to a patent? A few years ago I was involved in a potential patent application that would have stopped my old product being used. The application looked like the application manual for my product that had been in the market for 15-20 years, and concepts that were not totally new when I developed them in the mid 1980s. The application disappeared, but should never have been started.

Patents have their place in the world, but I don't think they are part of software packages.


   
ReplyQuote
(@angrybadger)
Estimable Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 164
Topic starter  

Jad
Thanks for the trial offer. We use IEF a lot here, infact I was alerted to the 'Patent Pending' notice from the banner when I first fired up version 5.7.

I'm curious to see what the patent is for, IEF is carving records, what can be so novel for it to be a) worth patenting b) not prevent others from developing their own carvers.

Computer forensics is a discipline that lives and dies on the plurality of the tools available to the investigator and there are a finite number ways of carving records from a computer.

How will patenting an algorithm not affect this?


   
ReplyQuote
jmburns27
(@jmburns27)
Active Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 5
 

sigh, really people…..IEF is a great tool, leave it at that )


   
ReplyQuote
(@angrybadger)
Estimable Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 164
Topic starter  

http//www.faqs.org/patents/app/20130166517

Abstract

A system and a method for locating application-specific data that has been previously deleted and located in an address of the data storage device marked as being available for storing new data. The method includes accessing unidentified data from at least one data storage device; examining the unidentified data to detect at least one application-specific data pattern associated with at least one application; for each detected application-specific data pattern, executing an application-specific validation process to determine whether the unidentified data includes valid data associated with a corresponding application; and if it is determined that the unidentified data includes valid data associated with the corresponding application, then recovering the valid data.


   
ReplyQuote
(@joachimm)
Estimable Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 181
 

http//www.faqs.org/patents/app/20130166517

Abstract

A system and a method for locating application-specific data that has been previously deleted and located in an address of the data storage device marked as being available for storing new data. The method includes accessing unidentified data from at least one data storage device; examining the unidentified data to detect at least one application-specific data pattern associated with at least one application; for each detected application-specific data pattern, executing an application-specific validation process to determine whether the unidentified data includes valid data associated with a corresponding application; and if it is determined that the unidentified data includes valid data associated with the corresponding application, then recovering the valid data.

I would say there is a lot of prior art that falls in this description.


   
ReplyQuote
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5133
 

I would say there is a lot of prior art that falls in this description.

Yes, I would say the same, but I would like someone native English speaking (with some knowledge of patent jargon) to "translate" this sentence (last one in the patent application)

While the above description provides examples of one or more apparatus, systems and methods, it will be appreciated that other apparatus, systems and methods may be within the scope of the present description as interpreted by one of skill in the art.

in a simpler English.

I simply cannot understand what it means in layman's terms. 😯 ?

jaclaz


   
ReplyQuote
(@joachimm)
Estimable Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 181
 

Alas can't help you much there Google translate does not have an option for "legalese" to "English" 😉


   
ReplyQuote
(@mscotgrove)
Prominent Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 940
 

I think my description of data carving could be much simpler


   
ReplyQuote
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5133
 

I think my description of data carving could be much simpler

Well, the patent specialized firms/attorneys/whomever have to produce something in exchange for the money they get for writing the application. don't they?

For once in my life I need not to create a brand new carpenter's comparison 😯
http//inventors.about.com/od/firststeps/a/application.htm

For example, when describing your invention you write "part A is nailed to part B", somebody else may be able to patent a very similar invention by claiming, "part A is glued to part B." It would be safer to use the word attached or attached by a variety of fasteners.

If I read attached by a variety of fasteners I would imagine something that is not only nailed and glued but at least also bolted together. ?

Back to my earlier question, the sentence I posted seems to me like negating the originality or uniqueness of the process/procedure, which is really puzzling me, but that's the US patenting system, so I guess that anything is possible.

jaclaz


   
ReplyQuote
 KenF
(@kenf)
Active Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 6
 

Yes, I would say the same, but I would like someone native English speaking (with some knowledge of patent jargon) to "translate" this sentence (last one in the patent application)

While the above description provides examples of one or more apparatus, systems and methods, it will be appreciated that other apparatus, systems and methods may be within the scope of the present description as interpreted by one of skill in the art.

in a simpler English.

I simply cannot understand what it means in layman's terms. 😯 ?

jaclaz

In plain English, what this is sentence is intended to say is that the inventive CONCEPT is broader than the specific EXAMPLES of apparatus and/or methods (referred to as "embodiments of the invention") disclosed in the patent as means to practice the inventive concept.

What is covered by a given patent is defined by the claims – the often-awkward, run-on "sentences" at the end of the patent. Usually – but sometimes not, depending on how crowded the particular field of technology is – the claims will be broader than the specific disclosed embodiments and will cover other ways of achieving the same goal. For example, if the description portion of the patent shows a device with a screw holding parts A and B together, the claim may refer to parts A and B as being held together by a fastener. So even though the fastener in the disclosed embodiment is a screw, the claims – and hence the patent – would also cover situations where the fastener is a nail, a staple, solder, etc. (There are limitations on this principle, e.g., if the applicant makes statements during the examination process that limit the interpretation of the claim language, but in general it holds true.)

As for original post, the patentability of software/methods is currently in a state of great flux in the U.S. and elsewhere, so people will need to wait and see what happens in the future. . . .


   
ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3
Share: