>>I think some patents awards have gone way out of line.

I agree with regards to some software patents that have been granted. Interestingly, the PTO may be changing it's position on software patents which is rather significant especially with its "physical transformation" requirement.

This link gives a pretty good overview of the situation.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent.../07/the-death-of-go.html

Tim

I use ViaCAD alongside TurboCAD Pro, which has some stair generation ability already, and I'd taken it for granted that Revit would've already included some. I assume Punch's home design software does it, too. Can a fresh Autodesk patent really be granted for associative recognition of an imported sketch, because all the application really says is that at step 430, arbitrary elements can override a parametric stairset! If a patent application is covering something that's a development of something already in use, it's supposed to be knocked back on the basis that it would "be apparent to someone skilled in the art", and IP law supposedly excludes the possibility of patenting something that's already in the public arena. Autodesk's application looks like an ambit claim to try and corral any user-input-override to parametric capability that might be applied to stairs. Most parametric applications would be capable of stair generation if you turned them to it, so Autodesk is saying that the ability to custom build over a parametric basis is their's alone! Quite a few TC users complain that they have to do so already, but Autodesk's is novel and innovative because it permits you to? I suppose it's worth feeding a few lawyers if they can score a patent monopoly for an existing field that they didn't even establish.
The USPTO's new stance brings it closer to the UK government's point of view. Historically, they've been opposed to software patents in principle.

Thanks for the heads up, Tim. Gotta rush off and offload some Google stock!