Author: Steven Schwartz
Date: 14:33:44 02/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>>>I am curious as to who went to the Tasc company with the >>>>smartboard technology originally? >>>> >>>>Is there someone who holds a patent on this technology? >>>> >>>>I thought Ken Thompson and/or David Callenhdar invented >>>>this technology years and years ago? >>>> >>>>On another note, does anyone have one of these Smartboards >>>>and want to sell it to me? >>>> >>>>--Stuart >>>Problem was, none of us thought to patent the idea... so it can't be >>>patented now by anyone, since "prior work" can be proven... A shame >>>we didn't think of it... but it was all for fun with us anyway... >> >>Better tell ICD! I'm told by their 800 line representatives that >>they are prevented from selling SmartBoard because someone in >>New Jersey went to TASC with the original idea before SmartBoard >>indicating that they could not manufacture it but the presenter >>showing the idea wanted to show it. Later, they manufactured it >>anyway. The person sued and this stopped its manufacture. >> >>Imitations like the Novag board do not have the piece-sensing >>technology which is apparently what all the hullabullooo is all >>about. Those boards require the pieces either be started from >>the original opening position or that a new position have each >>piece "programmed" as to what it is by entereting in through the >>keyboard of the device, considerably lessening its utility for >>analysis purposes by players. >> >>This is almost a direct quote of what I was told at the >>ICD number 800-645-4710. >> >>I am curious who in New Jersey is claiming a patent on this device >>and whether TASC knows that there is prior art. >> >>--Stuart > >But in any case, he had this gadget with him in Washington, DC at the >1978 ACM event. It was about 6" high or so, standard width/length... > >So I don't see how TASC can patent something that obviously existed >*before* >there was a TASC at all... Just back from a (WELL deserved) vacation otherwise I would have responded earlier. To follow (after the next paragraph)is a posting of mine in rgcc from June 6, 1996 on the status of the TASC patent infringement litigation at that time. However, I can now report that a couple of months ago the judge in the case awarded a judgment to Brehn of over $500,000. Luckily, ICD was released from the case earlier because we were simply pawns in the chess game between the two companies. Here is the story up until June, 1996.... Hi, Stuart. You heard correctly. Brehn Corporation in New Jersey has a patent (#5,129,654) for piece recognition which was awarded in 1992. The president of Brehn showed the technology to the president of TASC after signing a non-disclosure agreement, and not long after that, the TASC Smartboard was manufactured. Since the Smartboard incorporates piece recognition, and since Brehn Corporation felt that this particular piece recognition was as described in its patent, a suit was filed in federal court in New Jersey by Brehn. TASC denies and has denied any infringement and says that the technology for piece recognition in its boards is different from the patent that was filed by Brehn Corporation and that the Brehn technology is "not workable." TASC also indicated that it was working on piece recognition as early as 1989. Brehn Corporation decided to file suit in New Jersey and named TASC, ICD, and the U.S. Chess Federation as defendants. Since the law states that the manufacturer and those who sell infringing product are liable (whether they are aware of infringement or not), and since ICD and the Chess Federation were the easiest method of getting at TASC (in The Netherlands), with the apologies of Brehn, we were dragged into the argument. Brehn stated from the beginning that ICD and the Federation were really not guilty of anything but being in the middle of what essentially was a dispute between TASC and Brehn. But as luck (and our justice system) would have it, we and the Chess Federation were forced to pay our lawyers to defend us. Brehn felt that pressure from ICD and the Chess Federation on TASC would bring TASC to the bargaining table here in the U.S., and save Brehn the expense of going after TASC in Europe. ICD could have simply not responded to the suit and saved lawyer's fees, and allowed a judgment to be placed against it by the court, but that is an open ended situation because only one side of the story is told with no opportunity to defend oneself. So, having been placed between a rock (Brehn) and a hard place (TASC), we chose to have our lawyers defend. We (ICD) chose first to fight jurisdiction and won. As a result, the case was moved from New Jersey to the Southern District Federal Court in Manhattan. The judge in the Southern District assigned a mediator to listen to all sides in the dispute, and this meeting took place this past Friday. The mediator was excellent but unable to bring Brehn and TASC together. Each side insisting that it was right. Then the issue was directed at ICD and the U.S. Chess Federation. Since it was agreed that we were just "pawns" in a larger struggle and could not possibly know who was right and who was wrong... for the past 1 1/2 years since the suit was filed, I had dozens of conversations with both the president of Brehn and the president of TASC and each insisted on every occasion that the other party was incorrect.. we were given the option of continuing to pay our attorneys many thousands of dollars to defend ourselves, or just simply settling the case and getting out. ICD and U.S. Chess offered to pay Brehn a fee to release us from the case, and we agreed not to sell the Smartboard after July 1st. The fee, ironically enough, was less than 25% of what our attorneys had charged us up to that point! Regards, Steve
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.