Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
Subject: Re: Overbroad Patent.
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust19.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1032956357 29937 22.214.171.124 (25 Sep 2002 12:19:17 GMT)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:19:10 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:19:17 BST
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 07:07:41 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (klmok) wrote:
> > Please refer to US Patent 20020067282 issued June 6, 2002.
> >Communications system for the disabled.
> >The way I read it the patent says there are many assistive devices
> >that are directly wired for control and can therefore be wired for
> >remote control too. The patentees claim that any form of remote
> >control is covered by their patent if used to by a disabled person to
> >control any device useful to the disabled. These forms of wireless
> >links include radio frequency transmission, infrared, sound,
> >Bluetooth, and they even claim that any standard protocol used in any
> >form of wireless transmission. If someone uses or modifies a
> >telephone, a PDA, a PC or any other platform to operate an assistive
> >device they have a patent protection for the idea.
> >Please tell me something is very screwed up here.
> Don't know about in the States, but such a patent holds no force here
> in the UK. Prior art, trivial and obvious are all reasons to
> invalidate a patent here, no matter where it was framed.
So I take it that a device, which purports to effect a reduction of
charge flow on the presentation of an electromotive force, is out of the
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.