Author: Chessfun
Date: 20:13:24 01/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2004 at 21:48:12, Christophe Theron wrote: >On January 08, 2004 at 12:41:21, Ed Trice wrote: > >>Hello Christophe, >> >>> >>>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. >> >>Umm...no. The patent received an initial rejection, called a 102 or 103 >>rejection, I forget which. > > > >Is the fact that an initial version of the patent proposal has been rejected >supposed to convince us that the patent is valid now? > >The US Office of Patents registers crap. Your first version must have been worse >than crap. Congrats. > > > > > >>It is said they flat out reject 90% of the patents just for the hell of it. >> >>They cited Gollon from 1977 showing an 80 square board (Capablanca's) then I had >>to prove mine to be unique. >> >>I am not sure where you get your misinformation, did you just make that up? >> >>:) > > > >When you wrote this I'm sure you thought you had a point (BTW this sentence has >been patented in 2002 by Chessfun, and I am using it without permission - Oops >she's gonna sue me now). I think you modified my original "I'm sure you thought you had a point when you posted." Sarah (tm) just enough that this time I won't be contacting my lawyer. However please be aware that I am monitoring all posts, this includes all foreign languages. Best ..opps anyone have that?. Sarah.
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.