I have just read the claims of the patent you linked. The first 3 claims [1] describe events (basic MVC stuff) as has been used in the wild since at least 1979!!!
The patent has a filing date of May 13, 1994. I had written Smalltalk code in use at Fortune 100 clients using these very same techniques for several years prior to this filing date. At the time, I was clear I did not invent these techniques.
Its my understanding there are penalties for an inventor listed in a patent fraudulently claiming they created the invention. Perhaps its time we started enforcing these penalties. I find it impossible to believe that any engineer at Next or Apple did not understand they were not the original inventor of what is claimed in this patent.
1. In a computer including at least one event producer for detecting that an event has occurred in the computer and generating an event and at least one event consumer which needs to be informed when events occur in the computer, a system for distributing events comprising:
storing means for storing a specific set of events of which said at least one event consumer is to be informed;
event manager control means for receiving the event from the event producer, comparing the received event to the stored set of events, and distributing an appropriate event to an appropriate event consumer; and
distributor means for receiving the event from the control means and directing said control means to distribute an appropriate event to an appropriate event consumer.
2. The system according to claim 1, wherein said distributor means comprises a distributor module for each kind of event possible in the computer.
3. The system according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of event consumers are included in the computer and the plurality of consumers comprise:
broadcast consumers having no relationship with other consumers, the broadcast consumers operating independently of other consumers and of the order in which consumers are informed of the event; and
sequential consumers having relationships with other consumers, the sequential consumers requiring that no other consumer be told about an event while they themselves are processing the event and having an ability to influence when they receive the event relative to the other consumers.
The first three claims are establishing the basis for claims 4 through 9. Likewise claims 11 through 17 depend on claim 10 and claims 19 through 24 depend on claim 18. Though they are written linearly, patents have a hierarchical structure.
What you appear to be doing is mistaking each claim for an independent claim of invention, which is a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. When the claim says "the system according to claim x", it is growing more specific as to what is actually being claimed as the invention. With that in mind it is not surprising that the independent claims (1, 10, 18) would not be novel. You have to read as far as the tail end of each thread to understand what is actually being claimed as the invention.
I can't speak to the content of this patent when read correctly, but I suggest re-examining it with this in mind.
Thanks for the pointers. I have written a few patents. Well, I wrote the invention part and paid supposedly good patent attorneys to clean it up and write the claims and educate me on the process.
I "thought" my lawyers told me the first few claims (1-3?) have to stand on their own and the rest can build on the invention. Meaning, if the first few are not unique inventions, the whole thing fell apart. More info would be useful.
I wouldn't doubt your lawyers! They were probably right in a context that does not generalize exactly.
I am not a lawyer and speak from no authority but curiosity, so I could be completely wrong or misleadingly close to being right, but I think the main point is confirmed by this, from the "Claims" section of the first result for "how to read a patent" (http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtopat5.html): "Each dependent claim must be narrower than the claim upon which it depends." The full example is too long to quote, but I encourage you to read it.
The obvious problem with this is that it is an implicit convention in an otherwise very explicit kind of document. It's no wonder at all that it is not widely understood.
The patent has a filing date of May 13, 1994. I had written Smalltalk code in use at Fortune 100 clients using these very same techniques for several years prior to this filing date. At the time, I was clear I did not invent these techniques.
Its my understanding there are penalties for an inventor listed in a patent fraudulently claiming they created the invention. Perhaps its time we started enforcing these penalties. I find it impossible to believe that any engineer at Next or Apple did not understand they were not the original inventor of what is claimed in this patent.
[1] first 3 claims from http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=L-IeAAAAEBAJ&dq=5...
1. In a computer including at least one event producer for detecting that an event has occurred in the computer and generating an event and at least one event consumer which needs to be informed when events occur in the computer, a system for distributing events comprising:
storing means for storing a specific set of events of which said at least one event consumer is to be informed; event manager control means for receiving the event from the event producer, comparing the received event to the stored set of events, and distributing an appropriate event to an appropriate event consumer; and distributor means for receiving the event from the control means and directing said control means to distribute an appropriate event to an appropriate event consumer. 2. The system according to claim 1, wherein said distributor means comprises a distributor module for each kind of event possible in the computer.
3. The system according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of event consumers are included in the computer and the plurality of consumers comprise:
broadcast consumers having no relationship with other consumers, the broadcast consumers operating independently of other consumers and of the order in which consumers are informed of the event; and sequential consumers having relationships with other consumers, the sequential consumers requiring that no other consumer be told about an event while they themselves are processing the event and having an ability to influence when they receive the event relative to the other consumers.