Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:03:28 01/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2004 at 09:40:58, Ed Trice wrote:
>Hello Dr. Hyatt,
>
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>If your statement was true, I do not believe there would be any form of
>progress. The airplane was patented by the Wright Brothers, and the jet engine
>by someone else.
>
>Was not flight via an internal combustion engine pre-existing?
>
>What about the microwave oven? Were not conventional ovens exisiting, in some
>form or other?
>
>You are an expert in the artificial intelligence arena, no doubt.
>
>But this does not automatically qualify you for the same tier in the domain of
>Patent Law.
>
>You can all have your opinions, which you can back up with all of the
>convictions you can muster.
>
>The fact remains unchanged.
>
>There is a patent for Gothic Chess.
You should not rest on this.
The fact that there is a patent does *not* mean that it is valid.
It is a known fact that the US office of patents has stopped long ago to check
anything in the patents they grant.
You ask for a patent, they give it to you. They don't check anything.
They leave the task of deciding if the patent is valid to the courts.
The recent technology history is full of fights around patents that have been
eventually cancelled. Just read "Yahoo Technology News" every day as I do and
you will see it by yourself.
Personally if I wanted to use Gothic Chess in any of my products I would do it
without buying any license. You would have to sue me. And you would lose and
have to pay for all the legal fees.
You can claim to have a patent. Having a patent means *nothing*. You'd better
have big money to back up this claim, because you'll need if you want a chance
to defend it. Only money will intimidate people. Your patent will not.
Christophe
>I think we have exhausted this discussion, have we not?
>
>Licenses # 6 and 7 have been issued. Anyone else who is interested, feel free to
>contact me. The Gothic Chess Computer tournament is 7 months away!
>
>>>
>>>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.