Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 06:36:44 01/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2004 at 09:31:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > True , other than the opening position being different , I dont see anything great in this. (If you ignore the piece set, extra smooth marble finish , etc ;) - which is not related to chess as such ... ) If challenged , any decent patent lawyer would be able to throw this patent out in a court of law ! Mridul >> >>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 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.