The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
Reply-To: "Geraldo Sazias"
From: "Geraldo Sazias"
Subject: Re: Overbroad Patent.
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 14:45:43 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:45:43 MEST
"James Beck" wrote in message
> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
> > 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 cellular
> > 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.
> You can get a patent issued for almost anything you can think of. I
> saw a patent where a guy patented a cat entertainment device that emitted
> a beam of coherent light that amused the cat so that when manipulated the
> cat would chase this beam of coherent light.....in other words he
> patented a laser pointer as a cat entertainment device. The BIG trick is
> getting anything to hold up in a court of law. The two biggies to beat
> are prior art and trivial or obvious to someone versed in the field. We
> were warned by a competitor that we may be in violation of one of their
> patents. By law they must inform and enforce EVERY possible violation or
> the patent is null and void. When the papers arrived from the suit (read
> attorney) what the guy had patented was a bunch of "black boxes" that
> performed certain tasks. No info on how those little black boxes worked,
> or even that they have ever worked. Not even a basic schematic or flow
> chart of operation. How he got the patent was just a matter of money and
> time. After a few phone calls and further examination of his paper work
> we determined that he had in fact patented a switch box. Very similar to
> what you would buy to manually swap printers or serial devices. The rest
> of the "system" was off the shelf components that did nothing special.
> We wrote a formal opinion of the patent and filed it with our suit and
> had it sent off to his suit. That was two years ago.
> I am just trying to recall some stats I heard a while back....the
> average patent requires 12 million dollars to properly and diligently
> enforce. That means if you have a million dollar idea you are already 11
> million in the hole.
It's just a waste of time, energy and (taxpayers) money to allow someone to
claim such a patent. The FTC should disallow such useless patents which will
get struck down by a court ruling anyway.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup