Author: Keith Evans
Date: 20:44:23 06/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2004 at 23:11:46, Ed Trice wrote: > >>...patent was filed. So if you want to sue someone that does that same thing as >>CapaGnu, then it's an obvious case of prior art. By using the phrase "pre-patent >>exemption" you are implying that CapaGNU is only safe (exempt) since it was >>written before your patent was filed. Saying this is admitting that CapaGnu was >>prior art. > >You can't sling the term "prior art" around like a kid who has found his dad's >gun. It means something in the legal sense, and you are misusing it. Because of >this, I cannot respond to your comments as they are presented. I have friends who have helped to bust patents which are far more valuable than your Gothic Chess patent - like Hitachi versus Motorola. In my opinion the only reason that the Gothic Chess patent won't be busted is because nobody cares enough to spend the money to do it.
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.