Author: Steven Schwartz
Date: 05:58:28 02/24/98
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 1998 at 00:56:10, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On February 23, 1998 at 21:38:03, Steven Schwartz wrote: > >>There have been only two piece-recognition >>boards ever commercially available: the TASC >>Smartboard and, earlier, the Mephisto Bavaria. >> > >I just read on the London Chess Center web page that >there is a piece recognition board being marketed for/with >Fritz. Have you heard of that one? > >Do you know if the judgement against TASC prevents it from >selling Smartboard entirely? > >This is a perfect example of why patents need to go to people >who either exercise them, e.g. through manufacturing, >or to people who profit them by selling rights. > >Having a patent go to one person who then doesn't allow it to >be used for the betterment of its domain is not what the patent >was really meant for. > >What a shame. It also shows that the patent system does not >conduct a truly comprehensive search else it would have found >the trivial counter example cited by Hyatt of Thompson's board. > >--Stuart The $500,000+ judgment was against TASC in a U.S. Federal Court. It is now up to Brehn to attempt to collect the money in Amsterdam. Since we were released from the suit prior to the actual court date, I was not present, but it is my understanding that TASC (and/or their lawyers) did not show up at court, and thus the judgment was awarded. Since patent infringement involves triple damages, TASC stands to lose three times as much as it gains by continuing to sell Smartboards with this particular piece-recognition technology. I have heard of a DGT board, but I have no details. However, before we would get involved with any other piece-recognition board, we certainly will consult our patent attorneys and Bruce Bogner (Brehn). For all I know, the DGT board incorporates Brehn's technology WITH Brehn's permission. I just do not know at this time. When we were still immersed in the lawsuit, I had several email conversations with Bob and Ken with respect to what Ken had invented back in the late 70's, but since Brehn was ostensibly going after TASC and not us, we felt that it was not worth the time and money to pursue that defense. I did inform Wil Sparreboom of TASC about the information that I had gathered. I suppose he chose not to pursue it either and he had a lot more to lose than we did! I believe that Bruce Bogner had every intention of "selling" his idea. -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.