Xerox Parc

From: Bob Shannon <bshannon_at_tiac.net>
Date: Wed Nov 6 12:02:34 2002

As far as I know, Xerox did a lot of the PARC development on DARPA
grants, not totally unlike TMI's work
on developing the CM-1 supercomputer. Some grants have stipulations
that can restrict patentability, just as most employers restrict an
engineer from 'owning' a patent for work done on the job (the company
'owns' any such patent).

These arangements can complicate the ownership of any intellectual
property that is developed. To file a patent there are some clear
limitations on the ownerhip and origination of the subject of the
patent. The best example that comes to mind are the many complications
when a patent application has a co-inventor. Its much more complex than
when the application is the work of a single individual, due to the
'proof of origination' documentation.

Lastly, in business its not generall a good idea to patent something
new, unless your about to commercialize it at the same time. A
years-old, but otherwise valid patent is very hard to defend if you have
not exercised your I.P. rights.

It can in effect become an abandon property. Someone later comes along
and makes commercial use of it, and they gain a lot of legal advantage
should you choose to enforce your disused patent long after the fact.
 You cannot 'lay in wait' for a patent voilator to become succesful, and
then try to grab the gold.

So in many ways, a patent is only useful in a limited number of
situations. PARC was not in one of those situations, and even if they
had a crystal ball and accurately saw the future, getting a patent at
the time of invention would have done them little good at all.

Lastly, PARC 'disclosed' their work. I've heard that PARC eagerly
demonstrated what they were doing to many people (not like was shown in
the TV program). This makes sense if the work was grant-based. This
'disclosure' alone would prohibit a patent application.

Hans B Pufal wrote:

> Bob Shannon wrote:
>
>> What your missing is the legal status of the work done at PARC. It
>> was in (large) part done with grant money,
>> so Xerox did not 'own' the resulting technology.
>
>
> Interesting, I have not heard that beforee. Would you care to explain
> further.
>
> -- hbp
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Nov 06 2002 - 12:02:34 GMT