Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9489 misc.int-property:594 comp.unix.bsd:6552 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!stein.u.washington.edu!tzs From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors. Message-ID: <1992Oct14.033523.13036@u.washington.edu> Sender: news@u.washington.edu (USENET News System) Organization: University of Washington, Seattle References: <1992Oct11.043358.5543@netcom.com> <id.6S0U.TRE@ferranti.com> <1992Oct13.055638.23596@netcom.com> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:35:23 GMT Lines: 14 peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >They haven't just harmed individuals. For example, the Pike patent prevents >people from building a window system that uses backing store in a certain >way -- which happens to be the obvious and most effective way. This harms >everyone who uses a computer system running a window system, since it forces >them to use about twice as much RAM or a much faster CPU. If Pike's backing store is what I'm guessing (storing off-screen images of the parts of windows that are obscured by other windows), then if it's so obvious, how come Apple, Commodore, Microsoft, and many others overlooked this technique? The 128K Mac was rather pressed for memory -- I would have expected them to come up with any "obvious" methods to save RAM. --Tim Smith