Author: Steven Schwartz
Date: 07:43:14 02/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>>>>>On February 24, 1998 at 08:58:28, Steven Schwartz wrote: >>>>>>>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). >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi Steve, is Bruce Bogner >>>>>>the father of Hal Bogner >>>>>>who used to run Chess Labs >>>>>>in South Pasadena? >>>>>> >>>>>>If so, I know that they were pursuing >>>>>>this thing a long time! >>>>>>Bert >>>>> >>>>>Hi Bert, >>>>>Yup! Hal is Bruce's son and yes, they have been at this >>>>>for quite awhile. After all, the patent is from 1991 >>>>>and not much after that, Bruce traveled to TASC and not >>>>>much after that, TASC came out with the Smartboard. >>>>> >>>>>Bruce has been on TASC's case (literally) ever since. >>>>>- Steve >>>> >>>> >>>>Of course this is only about 13 years after the technology was >>>>displayed by Ken Thompson in Washington DC, 1978, at the ACM event >>>>that year. :) >>>> >>>>It's a shame no one took up the gauntlet and challenged the patent >>>>based on widely-known prior work by Ken. >>> >>>I could not agree more, Bob, and we would have pursued that >>>had we been the primary focus of the lawsuit. >>>-Steve >> >>Is there any way to go "backwards" and get a patent "ungranted"? >> >>--Stuart > > >from what I know, yes. It simply requires proof that something was a >prior work. The problem then becomes one between the person holding the >invalid patent, the attorney that did the patent search to be sure >nothing >had been done before, and the bonding company that bonded this search. > >In this case, hundreds of people saw Ken's piece recognition in 1978 in >Washington. Years before anyone thought about patenting the idea. The Mephisto Bavaria (the first commercial piece-recognition machine) was never dragged into the Smartboard lawsuit, ostensibly, I suppose, because its technology accomplished piece recognition but did it in another way from what the patent said. Who is to say that the Smartboard uses the same technology as Ken's board? I, personally, have no idea. It would certainly be interesting to find out. Also, I would be tickled pink if the patent was voided, and we could retreive the $15,000 in attorney's fees that we had to spend to "defend" ourselves in a lawsuit in which, morally, at least, we could NEVER be guilty. Unfortunately, U.S. law is such that in patent infringement the manufacturer (who generally knows that he is breaking the rules), the retailer (who generally does not know that the rules are being broken), AND the end user are ALL liable. Yes, the end user too - even though he is likely not to have any idea what is going on as far as patent infringement is concerned. - 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.