[Kedow @ Jul 31st 2007 5:50AM]

Before everyone goes crazy with the "I'm going to patent air! or water!" effect, one should keep in mind that, when the author mentions " [...] violates a patent for synchronized parallel processing with shared memory." their patent merely deals with this subject and does not attempt to patent such a general subject.

The first thing you should do to understand the patent is to read its abstract. This will give you some context for what the patent is about. However, It is not uncommon to read the abstract of the Patent and assume it describes the entirety of the patent. While the abstract is important and gives the reader a general understanding of what the patent covers it does not necessarily define the breadth and scope of the patent. Only the claims themselves can define the actual scope of the patent.

Claim language can be turgid and difficult to understand and follow. This is because it is a form of "legalese". As you read the claim it is important to not interject your own assumptions or prejudices into your interpretation. Claim language is specific and has been carefully thought out by the inventor and the author and carefully reviewed and approved by a patent examiner. Each and every word in a claim has been specifically and carefully chosen To define the exact breadth and scope of that claim. This is why it is important to read a claim with no assumptions.

I wasn't necessarily commenting on the merits of this particular case, merely attempting to infuse some perspective into the arguement.

Many people, including bloggers themselves, are seriously misinformed when it comes to interpretation and validity of patents, this leaves the (usually incorrect) knee-jerk reactions to prevail in most comment boards. Now, I'm not denying there are frivolous suits (as with lawsuits brought in other areas, there are many), it's that it's common for people to now assume all patant suits are frivolous/destroying innovation.

[cduran01 @ Jul 31st 2007 8:26AM]

Just went through and read the entire patent and looked at that diagrams filed with the patent. They describe a text book implementation of a parallel processing system, an architecture that has been used by Cray, Sun Microsystems and IBM for years (even prior to this patent).

[Frankenstein Black @ Jul 31st 2007 12:33PM]

Yea, I read it and the conclusion is the same! Hey Parallel Processing Corporation of Newport Beach, California we hand to you a collective BITE ME/US! YOU FRAKING PATENT TROLLS!!