Suppose a product was using a technology before a patent ?

In article <GAOJe.2660$zr1.227@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
Hello Winfield,

But, if as Skybuck stipulated, the invention was secretly contained within
the product, not advertised or discussed by the manufacturer in brochures,
manuals, etc., and not apparent to a product user, or to one studying the
product, it's hard to see how it could be declared a publicly-disclosed
prior art, and used to overturn the new patent. This is one of the reasons
for open disclosure of inventions, or alternately for defensive patenting.

That often doesn't stick in a lawsuit. IIRC there was a company that
made golf balls from Surlyn or some kind of special plastics. They kept
the golf ball innards a secret but sold lots of these which constitutes
"noninforming public use". Then Dunlop engineered something similar,
filed a patent for the technology and subsequently sued. AFAIR Dunlop
lost and their patent was declared invalid because of prior noninforming
public use.
Click to expand...
There was also once a suit by a company called USL... :)
 
In article <dd9gnl$2tc$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:GAOJe.2660$zr1.227@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Hello Winfield,

But, if as Skybuck stipulated, the invention was secretly contained
within
the product, not advertised or discussed by the manufacturer in
brochures,
manuals, etc., and not apparent to a product user, or to one studying
the
product, it's hard to see how it could be declared a publicly-disclosed
prior art, and used to overturn the new patent. This is one of the
reasons
for open disclosure of inventions, or alternately for defensive
patenting.

That often doesn't stick in a lawsuit. IIRC there was a company that
made golf balls from Surlyn or some kind of special plastics. They kept
the golf ball innards a secret but sold lots of these which constitutes
"noninforming public use". Then Dunlop engineered something similar,
filed a patent for the technology and subsequently sued. AFAIR Dunlop
lost and their patent was declared invalid because of prior noninforming
public use.

Wieeee, there is a god ;) :)
Click to expand...
Wie is a minor. Hands off.
 
Don Lancaster wrote:

Sigh.
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp
Click to expand...
Much of what you say in those articles is absolutely true as it applies
to the Midnight Engineer crowd, however, taken in a general context, I
can find counter-example to many of your broad claims. For example, in
the article about "busting" any patent, you state:

"Show failure of due diligence–I’m not sure I follow this
potent busting tool fully, so do check this out with your
patent attorney. But as I understand it, slashing away at a
sudden target of opportunity is a no no. It seems you have to
aggressively police the industry for violators. You also have to show
continuous intent to both license and enforce.
Apparently if there has been significant and widespread
infringement of your patent in the past, and if you have
done nothing about it, you cannot suddenly single out any
one particular perp. Especially if they have been blatantly
(love that word) doing so for a long time.
Use it or lose it."

In this case we have the counter-example of the AmazonCom lawsuit
against Barnes & Noble claiming infringement of Amazon's *patented*
"one-button" something or another web ordering methodology. Barnes &
Noble was not the only known infringer, Amazon, and the industry in
general, were aware of several other infringers, but because B& N was
such serious competition, Amazon decided to single them out for
enforcement purposes. And Amazon won as you may recall.

My impression is that your audience is mainly hackers, and their focus
is on low level nerd stuff that they develop with no consideration of
potential market value. This is completely backwards and a waste of nerd
talent. You first have to define a market and then bound the nerds to
produce a solution. A good example of a small start-up, not far from you
actually, that did everything right is Ionatron. These people
transitioned a well-known phenomenon from near laboratory curiosity into
a fielded product in short order, and quite the working product it is:
http://www.ionatron.com/default.aspx?id=1
 
In article <dd8la1028i9@drn.newsguy.com>, Winfield_member@newsguy.com
says...
Keith Williams wrote...

There are IP "Journals" that are used for exactly this purpose.
The idea you wish to protect is published anonymously so your
competitors can't figure out what you're up to.

Facinating, how does one find these journals?
Click to expand...
Try: http//www.ip.com/

--
Keith
 
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:08:38 GMT, the renowned Fred Bloggs
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

These people
transitioned a well-known phenomenon from near laboratory curiosity into
a fielded product in short order, and quite the working product it is:
http://www.ionatron.com/default.aspx?id=1
Click to expand...
Seems like a worthwhile endeavor. How much of their stock do you own?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
 
Hello,

Wieeee, there is a god ;) :)
Click to expand...
There always was. Some people believe in Him, some don't. (I do)

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com
 
Keith Williams wrote...
Winfield wrote...
Keith Williams wrote...

There are IP "Journals" that are used for exactly this purpose.
The idea you wish to protect is published anonymously so your
competitors can't figure out what you're up to.

Facinating, how does one find these journals?

Try: http//www.ip.com/
Click to expand...
Passwords only, it appears, "Subscribe now for unlimited search and
downloads of these technical disclosures for only $1500 annually."


--
Thanks,
- Win
 
In article <ddco9s02fd5@drn.newsguy.com>, Winfield_member@newsguy.com
says...
Keith Williams wrote...

Winfield wrote...
Keith Williams wrote...

There are IP "Journals" that are used for exactly this purpose.
The idea you wish to protect is published anonymously so your
competitors can't figure out what you're up to.

Facinating, how does one find these journals?

Try: http//www.ip.com/

Passwords only, it appears, "Subscribe now for unlimited search and
downloads of these technical disclosures for only $1500 annually."

It is a place to do defensive publishing. I didn't say it was free.
Click to expand...
Actually, I didn't' tknow it was quite that expensive. Then again, I
don't deal with the "pay" end of the business. ;-)

--
Keith
 
Keith Williams wrote...
Winfield says...
Keith Williams wrote...

Winfield wrote...
Keith Williams wrote...

There are IP "Journals" that are used for exactly this purpose.
The idea you wish to protect is published anonymously so your
competitors can't figure out what you're up to.

Facinating, how does one find these journals?

Try: http//www.ip.com/

Passwords only, it appears, "Subscribe now for unlimited search and
downloads of these technical disclosures for only $1500 annually."

It is a place to do defensive publishing. I didn't say it was free.
Actually, I didn't' tknow it was quite that expensive. Then again,
I don't deal with the "pay" end of the business. ;-)
Click to expand...
One can do defensive publishing here on s.e.d., Google dates and
archives the articles. They're public and can be examined anytime.


--
Thanks,
- Win
 
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:18:12 +0000, Joerg wrote:

Hello,

Wieeee, there is a god ;) :)

There always was. Some people believe in Him, some don't. (I do)
Click to expand...
An atheist is just a guy who has plonked God. ;-P

Cheers!
Rich
 
I remain skeptical ;)

You ask for information then argue with the answer?

A possible answer... don't know if it follows the law and is legal ;)
Click to expand...
You should take statements in newsgroups like this as hints, often quite
valuable hints. It's not advice. Then take what you heard and present it
to a good patent attorney. That's were you get actual advice.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com
 
"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.10.19.16.37.473886@example.net...
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:18:12 +0000, Joerg wrote:

Hello,

Wieeee, there is a god ;) :)

There always was. Some people believe in Him, some don't. (I do)


An atheist is just a guy who has plonked God. ;-P

Cheers!
Rich
Click to expand...
God isn't dead - He just got the Hell out of here.

Ken
 
In article <SUsKe.1342$dk5.1102@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
I remain skeptical ;)

You ask for information then argue with the answer?

A possible answer... don't know if it follows the law and is legal ;)

You should take statements in newsgroups like this as hints, often quite
valuable hints. It's not advice. Then take what you heard and present it
to a good patent attorney. That's were you get actual advice.
Click to expand...
Now, that's good advice :)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
Keith Williams wrote:
In article <dd88lv0rjj@drn.newsguy.com>, Winfield_member@newsguy.com
says...

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote...

Overall, though messier, I think I prefer first-to-invent, as this
assures the little folks--who can't afford to patent everything--the
right to create and use their inventions, without fear of usurpation
down the road by better-funded competitors.

Well, the little fellow can always reveal all in his user manual,
i.e. schematic diagram, software flow-chart, explanations, etc.,
thereby insuring that a later arrival can't properly go obtain a
patent by "disclosing" the invention. This approach also makes
for much easier, less-expensive legal action should a later patent
in fact be granted.


There are IP "Journals" that are used for exactly this purpose. The
idea you wish to protect is published anonymously so your competitors
can't figure out what you're up to.
Click to expand...
And Finnish websites.

Cheers
Terry
 
Hmmmmm

http://www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/168601146

Apple in trouble ? ;)

"
Did Microsoft Invent The iPod?


By TechWeb News

If you think Apple Computer's Steve Jobs invented the technology behind the
Apple iPod, don't bet your 60GB, 15,000-song model on it.
According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, patent applications that
cover much of the technology associated with the iPod were submitted by
Microsoft, which has been on a patents tear recently filing thousands of
patents.

If the patents hold up on appeal, Apple could be accountable for royalties
on the spectacularly successful iPod. Jobs and others associated with Apple
filed for patents covering the technology in October, 2002, but that
application was rejected by the patent office last month. AppleInsider.com
reported the rejection this week.

Apple won't take the matter lying down. "Apple invented and publicly
released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application cited by
the (patent) examiner was filed," said an Apple spokesperson in a statement.
Apple also noted that the firm has received other patents for technology
relating to the iPod and in addition has other patents pending on the iPod.

The documents in the Patent Office do not mention the iPod by name. The
documents describe a "portable, pocked-sized multimedia asset player" that
can manipulate MP3 music files.

Microsoft's claim appears to center on the work of John C. Platt, a senior
researcher in the Knowledge Tools Group at Microsoft Research. According to
media reports, on behalf of Microsoft, Platt applied for the patent in May
of 2002 some five months before the Apple filing. Platt's application was
rejected in December 2004, but he amended it in April of this year and
Microsoft's pending patent was subsequently approved.

According to a citation on "Platt's home page, he and other colleagues at
Microsoft developed a paper in the 2001-2002 timeframe discussing AutoDJ, "a
system for automatically generating music playlists based on one or more
seed songs selected by a user."

Apple's iPod dominates the MP3 player market. The NPD Group has reported
that Apple has shipped nearly 22 million iPods. Predictions that Apple's
strength in the MP3 market would slip haven't borne out, and Apple accounts
for about 75 percent of MP3 players sold in the U.S.

So far, Microsoft hasn't been able to dent the Apple iPod dominance,
although the software giant has said it is working on music playing devices
that it plans to introduce later this year.

"
 
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:19:15 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
<nospam@hotmail.com> quoted:


So far, Microsoft hasn't been able to dent the Apple iPod dominance,
although the software giant has said it is working on music playing devices
that it plans to introduce later this year.
Click to expand...
---
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are cut from the same cloth and they only
differ in what they want to keep secret.

Gates is an Intel freak and Jobs goes for Motorola. Different
address space mentalities, same goals.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
 
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:14:38 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:19:15 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
nospam@hotmail.com> quoted:


So far, Microsoft hasn't been able to dent the Apple iPod dominance,
although the software giant has said it is working on music playing devices
that it plans to introduce later this year.

---
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are cut from the same cloth and they only
differ in what they want to keep secret.
Click to expand...
...and how successfull they've been.

Gates is an Intel freak and Jobs goes for Motorola. Different
address space mentalities, same goals.
Click to expand...
Gates isn't an intel freak at all. M$ and I$ have never gotten along that
well together, and the SJ thing is another stick in Billy's eye.

....and who cares which end of the egg is cracked?

--
Keith
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top