Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 05:31:21 01/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2004 at 01:48:21, Slater Wold wrote: >To Ed Trice, and others with concern to 'Gothic Chess': > >In reading some of the threads below, I was appalled by your (and your lawyer it >seems) claim that you somehow 'own' the game of 'Gothic Chess'. > >It seems that you do hold a patent to a 'Method of playing a variant of chess', >and it can be seen in its entirity at >http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,481,716&OS=6,481,716&RS=6,481,716. > >This patent is absolute garbage. The USPTO made a huge and ignorant mistake by >ever granting you this patent. Here's why: > >This game variant was discussed in MANY publications dating back to 750AD! And >according to 35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of >right to; A person shall be entitled to a patent unless — >(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or >described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the >invention thereof by the applicant for patent. > >Now, before you say that Knighted Chess, Capablanca's Game, Dasapada, or even >al-Khalil b.Ahmad differ from Gothic Chess, let's read one more paragraph; 35 >U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter. >(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically >disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the >differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art >are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time >the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which >said subject matter pertains. > >Your patent is not valid. Plain and simple. > >Tomorrow, under Section 302 of 35 U.S.C., I will be asking the USPTO to >reexamine your patent, with more than enough proof to sustain that you do not >'own' the variant, nor the method. I still find it disgusting that you quote >Capablanca in your Backgroud, yet give no mention of his ideas on changing the >game. > > >Let me make a few suggestions to you, Mr. Trice: > >#1. Return the money to those who you have licensed Gothic Chess to. >#2. Let people ENJOY Gothic Chess, and help it flourish, without monetary >involvment or threats of litigation. >#3. Turn your message logger off. >#4. Fire your lawyer. >#5. Call your lawyer back, and fire him again. > > >All my best, > > >-Slate Hmm, I'm not sure about this, but I have to admit my first thought on reading about Gothic Chess was that rearranging the initial position of the pieces of Capablanca's Chess is a miniscule modification (though a necessary one, if one believes Mr. Trice's website). Perhaps his lawyers relied on the proven incompetence of the USPTO, who grant such idiocies as the Amazon one-click patent. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see where Gothic Chess is in 10 years. If anything, it sounds like the increased tactical nature of Gothic Chess will make it _easier_ for computers to dominate. Personally, I rather enjoy the fact that Chess as a game changes its flavor in the ending: The King who has cowered in his castle suddenly marches forth in search of a new Queen . . . anthony
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.