Author: Roberto Waldteufel
Date: 04:47:57 09/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 1998 at 00:59:55, Richard A. Fowell (fowell@netcom.com) wrote: >Paul Helmering applied for a U.S. patent on his "Chess Maps" software > for displaying chess variations as trees. > >( At http://www.chessmaps.com/cmhis.htm, it says: > "A patent application was submitted in February 1996; the patent is pending.") > >This seems highly undesirable for us - any software sold (or even used) >in the U.S. until the year 2016 that displayed variations as trees would >require Paul's permission (and royalties) if it used any features claimed >by his patent (the details of which are secret under U.S. law until it issues). > >We're already in a similar bind in the U.S. because of an autoboard patent - >many people at CCC have already been hurt by that. As in the autoboard case, >the fact that prior similar examples existed before the patent is not very >comforting. Before a U.S. patent issues, the burden of proof, and fees, are >on the applicant. Afterwards, however, any attempt to invalidate the patent >requires expensive legal fees, and the burden of proof shifts from the >patent applicant to his opponents. There is a strong presumption of validity >in U.S. patents - the last statistics I saw, the patent holders were winning >2/3 of the infringement suits. Keep in mind, too, that the only cases that >became suits were the one's where the alleged infringers thought their >cases were strong enough to pay legal fees to fight rather than settle >out of court. > >The only thing we can do for free is to file a protest before the examiner >makes a ruling. This approach has its drawbacks - the protester only gets >to send in one collection of documents and his arguments why they show >that the invention existed beforehand. After that, the applicant gets to >make his arguments without fear of rebuttal from the protester, who >is barred from the subsequent proceedings. > >Patent lawyers claim it is more effective to wait until a patent issues, >then sue to invalidate it. Their point is, the protester then gets to >respond to the applicants arguments (or is it - they don't get any money >the first way?). The problem is, that would require thousands of dollars, >and it isn't worth that much to me. > >If one of you is willing to pay to sue after issuance, let me know, >and I'll hold off - any references that the applicant successfully >argues past the examiner are largely rendered impotent. > >Likewise, if someone else is better skilled at doing this - I'm no >patent lawyer, though I've spent too much time around them. > >Otherwise, I'm going to give it my best shot (with some help from you folks in >terms of references, and perhaps arguments) > >I'm working on filing a protest to let the patent examiner know about >software that was described in print (anywhere in the world), >or in public use in the United States, prior to February 1995, >that displayed chess variations in tree form.) > >At the moment, my documentation is: > >a) The SmartChess Reader (which has tree visualization/manipulation > features, albeit with a rather ugly, unmarked tree diagram), > >b) How Computers Play Chess" (Levy), Chapter 9 - many varieties of > chess tree representation there. > >I'm only allowed to file a single protest, and if it gets to the U.S. >patent office after the examiner has ruled on the application (which, >alas, may have already happened), it won't be looked at. > >So, timely help would be appreciated!! > >You can post references here, or email me at fowell@netcom.com. >I'm planning to go in to the UCLA research library tomorrow to >search for any relevant papers/articles I can find. I also have >Chess Life going back to 1970, if anyone remembers any references, >or tree diagrams, there. > >Thanks! > >Richard A. Fowell (fowell@netcom.com) You are probably aleardy aware of this, but the latest Chessbase package displays chess trees compiled from a games database, suitable for text in a chess book. Good luck if you proceed - I hope you are still in time. I don't think this sort of patent is healthy for computer chess at all. Best wishes, Roberto
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.