[Shacs] Patent Infringement Notics

[Peter Cooper]

Jeremy Binkley,

I am writing to inform you that your use of the phrases "Dr. David  
Burris", "teaching" and "Data Structures"  are an infringement of  
copyright held by 'SCO needs more than 20 lines of code to pursue a  
patent infringement' Inc.,  a wholly owned subsidiary of The  
Criminally Insane Corp.  Your actions in unlawfully referencing  
copyright material without authorization (and payment) will result in  
legal action if it continues.

On a side note, "Sincerely" is also a copyright marketing slogan  
held, we understand by Politicians Inc.  No doubt you'll be hearing  
from them too.

Yours,
Council for the Criminally Inane (Corp)

On Nov 23, 2006, at 12:23 PM, Binkley, Jeremy wrote:

> Dr. David Burris,
>
>
>
> I am writing to inform you that your teaching, use, and required  
> use by students of Doubly Linked Lists in your Data Structures  
> class is an infringement of LSI Logic Corporation’s Patent Number  
> 7028023. Your actions infringe upon all claims included in the  
> patent and you must cease and desist immediately. If you refuse to  
> discontinue said infringing actions LSI will pursue all available  
> legal remedies.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Counsel for LSI
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Here’s the patent:
>
>
>
> http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7028023-fulltext.html  ßPatent Storm
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser? 
> Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO% 
> 2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7028023.PN.&OS=PN/7028023&RS=PN/ 
> 7028023 <--USPTO
>
>
>
> And the /. Article
>
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/23/1546218&from=rss
>
>
>
> If you read through the patent itself I think the /. poster is  
> incorrect in his classification of the claims as a true doubly- 
> linked list. It may still be construed as claiming a type of doubly- 
> linked list, but based on my quick refresher on doubly-linked lists  
> I don’t think that is the case. While *I* think data structures and  
> algorithms should be unpatentable, there are specific tests for  
> such patent applications. For a discussion on relevant case law,  
> see here: http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Sep/1/130274.html. I  
> would imagine these claims could be classified as an abstract idea  
> (and should be).
>
>
>
> While this may seem ridiculous, remember that just because a patent  
> is granted doesn’t mean it is written in stone. Patents are often  
> found invalid by the courts (approx. 45% of litigated patents are  
> found to be invalid).
>
>
>
> Anyway, just thought some of y’all may be interested in this.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Shacs mailing list
> Shacs at shsu.edu
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/shacs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.shsu.edu/pipermail/shacs/attachments/20061123/449a1f9d/attachment.html