Author: Amir Ban
Date: 16:28:20 01/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2004 at 04:50:31, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On January 08, 2004 at 22:09:18, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On January 08, 2004 at 12:03:28, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>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. >>> >> >>Ha ha! This would be nice if true. Lots of patent attorneys would be seeking >>other employment, instead of charging you $200 an hour. >> >>Unfortunately the opposite is true. The PTO initially rejects all patents. The >>examiner does some searches for prior art and throws the patent back at you. >>I've never seen a patent that is granted at first submission. >> >>You then modify the patent, explain and argue. If you convinced the examiner, he >>will relent and grant it. This process normally takes two years. >> >> >>>They leave the task of deciding if the patent is valid to the courts. >>> >> >>The court treats the PTO like an expert appointed by him. It's like a policeman >>that writes you a traffic ticket. You can go to court and argue about it, but >>unless you bring strong evidence, the court will believe the policeman. >> >>In the case of patents, you should set aside $1 million in lawyer fees before >>going to court, so as a practical matter an issued patent is law. >> >>Amir >> > >The situation was definitely different in the U.S. as of 10 years ago. I worked >at Texas Instruments and later a startup named Triada and we never had any >problems getting patents through, even in one case with a glaring mistake in the >patent itself. It was clear that nobody had really checked it, our law firm >included. > Maybe you didn't see the back-and-forth between the PTO and your patent attorneys. AFAIK you can patent complete nonsense and it's not a concern of the PTO if the stuff actually works, as long as you don't claim anything you don't deserve. Many patents are nonsense. Amir >Also, while it's true that legislation is expensive, you can also use that in >the other direction. You can knowingly and willingly violate a patent or break >the law in some other way, figuring that it will be too expensive to prosecute >you. For example, compare Microsoft Visual Studio with Borland C++, it's a total >copy. And MFC is a total copy of the Borland class-oriented stuff. But I guess >in court you start having big debates and splitting all sorts of hairs and >Borland decided it wasn't worth pursuing. > >Vas > >> >>>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 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.