Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:31:21 01/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2004 at 02:36:43, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >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 There is a _HUGE_ difference between patenting a design for a set of chess pieces. That is a manufacturing design issue. IE you could patent a square glass if it wasn't already done. But you can't patent a glass in general, just because your glass is meant to be held upside down. I too, do not believe such a patent is valid. The reasons have already been given. You certainly can't patent something someone else has already done, in some form or another. > >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 0.01 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.