Re: ripped off by the evil empire

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

     At some point in the early 1990s I thought about patenting it,
    but by then I had written so many articles about it and seen others begin
    to adopt it, that I assumed the idea was well-disclosed. 

It is a good thing for everyone who wants to write geographical
software, that you did not get a patent.  That would have been
one more blow against our freedom to write software.

    1. How is it possible to obtain a patent for something that has been publicly
       disclosed (by either oneself or others) in the literature? (I can cite at
       least 6 papers beside mine that describe something like or derived from QTM)

Legally, it is supposed to be impossible for something to be patented
once a year has elapsed after publication.

Practically speaking, the US PTO is both incompetent and ignorant.
They don't know anything about published papers, and they don't feel
they should try.  Their job is to pass patent applications through.

However, your paper and the others could make this patent (or some of
its claims, at least) legally invalid.  Knowing about these papers
could be very important for anyone who is threatened by Microsoft
using these patents.  It is important to spread the word.

It is also possible that Microsoft could get in legal trouble if it
can be shown that they lied in the patent application about who
"invented" this algorithm.  That would be great fun.  I hope that
lawyers on the list can speak about the possibility.

    6. Is it possible to revise a current patent to include additional inventors?
       (i.e, if I can't beat 'em, join 'em and ask for royalties?)

The existence a patent means we have all lost some of our freedom.
Overturning the patent could restore that little bit of our freedom;
that's something worth doing.

Changing the identity of the owner wouldn't do any good for our
freedom--unless the new co-owner promises to give everyone a
royalty-free license.