Author: Timothy J. Frohlick
Date: 23:36:43 01/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
Slater, Your free advice is worth little. The Staunton piece set is patented as are many other things relating to chess. I think that you need to be careful in being meddlesome. If I know Ed then I believe he will tolerate your initial efforts to strip him of a cash source. Be careful, TJF 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
This page took 0.02 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.