It sounds outrageous, however the critical date is when was the GeoWorks invention made and the patent applied for, not the date patent was issued. (Sorry if this information was contained on "slashdot.org" site it wouldn't work for me) Jeff

 

> You bring up a good point, but truthfully the USPTO never > heard of a Palm IV if one is to agree with your position > below. In closing, I would agree that the patent system > has some flaws and defects, but it does cost money to > research and design new products - one must place some faith > in the USPTO. Why must I place some faith in the USPTO? Time after time they have shown they they are incompetent and issue patents that do satisfy the requirements being non-obvious. Of course this is nothing new. People like Thomas Edison complained about bad patents being issued, and incompetence in the USPTO two centuries agos. As Edison complained, that if he didn't patent his ideas, others would copy his work, then get a patent and sue him. If he did patent it, then others would copy his patent. He could sue them, but by the time he would eventually win, the offender would often be out of business, and there'd be nothing to win in damages, and the time he spend fighting could be better spent improving his product. I think we'd be better off if all patents were eliminated. Mark Blunier Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the company.

 

Hello List, The most "smart" patent would be "inhalation of air to provide biochemical reaction in human being body"... "Hayek rulez", as liberalists speak here... BTW, I heard recently Schneider has got patent for DDE... So, it looks like a wave of "patentism"... Hm... What is the issue? Economic crisis we try to prepare? regards, Vladimir

 

Hi Mark: In some industries your Edison may have a stronger argument, but the pharm industry would be dead in this country along with hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Just my opinion.

 

Hi Clever play on words. I think that employees of the USPTO might differ with you on your position. In some respects, large companies have the ability to create patents because of its larger workforce. It would appear by Schneider's many patents the company also re-invests its profits into patenting its ideas and products to support its continued growth. Just my opinion. > No wonder so many ridiculous patents get issued. > The USPTO is not only dyslexic, they have little current knowledge of the technologies they are supposedly working with. > > Somebody must have some prior art that would invalidate this thing before all the little guys get taken to the cleaners by the giants. If the "industry leaders" really did show technology leadership (rather than holding back the industry)then this patent issue would not be necessary, even under its "we're trying to be the nice guys" guise. > I am sure I am not the only one a little hot under the collar about this issue. > > Mr PatentEnforcer says : > > You bring up a good point, but truthfully the USPTO never heard of a Palm IV if one is to agree with your position below. In closing, I would agree that the patent system has some flaws and defects, but it does cost money to research and design new products - one must place some faith in the USPTO. >

 

Hi I have looked at the patents that Schneider has been issued (not just the subject of this thread). I also showed these to people involved in this industry for up to 30 years. The consensus opinion is that these patents were issued because the investigators may not have had all the information at their disposal. Most of the "inventions" were being used in the industry for years before the application for patent. Is it then, who gets to the USPTO first who gets the "prize"? Or who has the resources to get it through the process? There are some other descriptions which I cannot put in a public forum. In cases such as this, would it be appropriate to send the application out (just prior to approval) for public review the same way that ANSI standards are sent out for public review? Erwin Icayan

 

If I remember correctly, this would be a similar situation to that between Tesla and Marconi (I think it was Marconi). Marconi beat Tesla to the patent punch, which resulted in part in Tesla's destitution. (The other part would be Bell's obsession with destroying public faith in Tesla's AC power.) Based on that and other things I've seen, as a patent layman, I would say it seems reasonable to believe the following: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The first inventor to USPTO wins. Of course, in order to go to USPTO, I would also expect that the inventor already has a complete design in hand. You just can't patent an idea, you have to patent a design. The first inventor to show up might (should) get denied the patent if his design is not complete. A second inventor could show up after and win the patent despite the first inventor's efforts. (Excluding situations of provable dishonesty, I would hope.) Of course, it is up to the USPTO to determine whether a design is sufficiently complete. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There is something else that I think has gone unsaid: patents can be granted for inventions that are improvements on previous patented inventions. Schneider could have gotten patents on their technologies because they improved the design or functionality. There is _nothing_ wrong with this. In fact, I should think that improvements are expected, and hence the limited term for a patent (I think something like 20 years, correct me I that's wrong). Anthony Kerstens P.Eng.

 

At 01:50 PM 2/26/01 -0500, Anthony Kerstens wrote: >If I remember correctly, this would be a similar situation to that >between Tesla and Marconi (I think it was Marconi). > >Marconi beat Tesla to the patent punch, which resulted in part in Tesla's >destitution. (The other part would be Bell's obsession with destroying >public faith in Tesla's AC power.) It was a lot more complicated than that. Tesla actually demonstrated remote control by radio before the turn of the century. The US Supreme Court overturned Marconi's radio patent in 1943 in favor of Tesla. This didn't do him any good since he had died about nine months previously. Tesla also ran into some other problems that caused hes destitution: 1) He waived his $1/horsepower license fee covering AC motors to George Westinghouse when the company got into financial trouble, and did not collect any royalties even when the company became successful. 2) He ran into trouble with financial backers when they found out that his ultimate goal was to distribute power worldwide for free. 3) He had a hard time getting the patent examiners to understand what he was doing. I have all Tesla's patents and patent wrappers (the correspondance leading up to the issuance of the patent). In may cases, Tesla threw out what he was really trying to get patented, and accepted whatever the patent examiner managed to understand out of the application. 4) Tesla also had Edison as an enemy, as Edison was pushing DC power. Tesla was way ahead of his time. And like most geniuses, he was more interested in playing with his toys than locking up the rights to them. Sic transit gloria mentis. Hardly anyone even remembers who Tesla was today. Regards, Willy Smith Costa Rica

 

The US Patent law stands alone in the world when it comes to who did it first. Most countries set the invention date as the date when the patent application is filed. However, the United States has a complex system of determining the "invention date" In simple terms, it the date when the invention is "perfected" -- that is the invention is reasonable complete and determined to work as it is supposed to. The patent applicant then has 1-year to file a patent application after that date if the invention is disclosed, offered for sale or otherwise made known. Of course, you can keep it a secret bu then you run the risk of letting someone else "steal" your invention. Problems arise when two or more people apply or receive patents for the same, or very similar invention. The courts have to determine when the invention was "invented" and whether or not the inventor worked diligently on the invention from the time of conception to the time of perfection. Thus accurate records need to be kept for any developmental activity, photos lab books, witnesses and the like are good things to do. Tesla hardly ever kept notes. The marconi / tesla case was even more complex in that it brought in foreign law. Mr. Kerstens is correct to say that the first to file may not be awarded a patent. If you don't have RECORDS you can easily be blown out of the water in a patent office "Interference proceeding" (where conflicts are initially resolved or in Court (where the unresolved conflicts end up if there is no clear winner. The basic rule is KEEP RECORDS. Even if you do, the Patent process really runs into big $$ when there is a conflict. Also keep in mind that a patent merely gives you the right to sue the person who infringes on your patent. No government agency will do anything for you in this regard. That costs $$ too! Jim Busse

 

So basically, this is why you often see "Patent Pending" on the literature for many products? Anthony Kerstens P.Eng. Jim Busse wrote: > The US Patent law stands alone in the world when it comes to who did it > first. Most countries set the invention date as the date when the patent > application is filed. However, the United States has a complex system of > determining the "invention date" In simple terms, it the date when the > invention is "perfected" -- that is the invention is reasonable > complete and......

 

Maybe. Patent Pending usually means that someone has applied for a patent. But in the U.S., consider the 1.) Patent might not be issued for any number of reasons, 2.) The patent may be issued then challenged and found invalid, 3.) the challanger may have filed first but drew a stubborn patent examiner thus lengthening his time, 4.) someone else could have "invented the thing first but filed later, 5.) two patents for the same thing might be issued, etc. So just because someone has a pending patent doesn't mean they will ever be issued a patent nor does it mean the patent is defendable if challenged (and just about all patents are challenged in countersuits). I think patent pending is a hold over from early last century. It puts others on notice that something is up. Right now, you just don't know what patents are being applied for because the patent process is confidential. There is new law causing the disclosure 18-months after filing but I know very little about it. It was part of the recent patent act implemented last November. On the other hand, patent pending might be advertising that says "contact me and I'll cut you a license."

 

Hi PatentEnforcer, I admit, I didn't believe you, so I spent some time on the USPO site. You're absolutely right, the search engine finds nothing with Lantronix. But some companies take the position that keeping things secret is actually better than a patent, so maybe that's Lantronix' philosophy. Remember that a patent only gives you the right to defend your property. Some find that it's easier to defend using the method of secrecy rather than the legal club. Regards, Willy Smith

 

Why, what did you expect to find? We are an innovative company who believes in thinking up new ideas and doing them better than our competitors. That's how the Ethernet/Commercial world runs - fast forward. Such a company doesn't need to hide behind an artificial barrier to competition because their Engineers cannot implement an idea correctly. (I also don't need to hide behind a 'hotmail.com' account, shame on you!) Regards Lynn August Linse, Senior Product Application Engineer 15353 Barranca Parkway, Lantronix Inc, Irvine CA 92618 [email protected] www.lantronix.com Tel: (949)300-6337 Fax: (949)453-7132

 

Patent pending (or even Patented) can also just mean "we've filled a trivial patent on how the screws 'innovatively' hold down our PCB and therefore cut production costs, but we hope the term 'patent pending/patented' fools people into thinking we have a product so innovative that we are patenting it." Forgive me for being a bit cynical about patents, but when I was making data comm isolators in Singapore we had a US company try to pull this trick on us. One of their country distributors (not in Singapore) warned us we appeared to be violating the parent companies patent so shouldn't export to their country "or else". So we had to spend some money to obtain the patent docs and then just saw that the patent related to how the tabs in the plastic case worked - 0% relevant to us. It had just been a poker bluff, but to call that bluff cost us some time & money. regards - Lynn Linse

 

> In some industries your Edison may have a stronger argument, > but the pharm > industry would be dead in this country along with hundreds of > thousands of people around the world. > > Just my opinion. Why? Would the pharmaceutical industry be dead in the entire world, or is the US the only country that does pharmaceuticals? Mark Blunier Any Opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the company.

 

If you believe Rockwell Automation doesn't have the muscle to withstand a rediculous suit from a small company like Group Schnieder, think again. You're research on company strength returned eronious results. Group Schnieder/Modicon is a dwindling company with a product that is dying in the marketplace. Rockwell Automation is the #1 provider of PLC and Drives equipment in the Americas. They are #3 in the rest of the world. They own Allen-Bradley, Rockwell Software, Reliance Electric, and Dodge Gear. Each of these companies are industry leaders despite your research results.

OPC/DDE technology is in no way an infringement on the patent to move data to a particular brand of spreadsheet from an industrial controller. This would be equivelent to someone suing the Gov't for developing TCP/IP because they had a patented concept to move data acrros wires with quick successions of ON and OFF states. (the telegraph?)

Bill
Automation Engineer