Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
Search
CPNC and Patents
|
Ron Ginger
I have read the notes about patent issues and am now concerned. I know
there are a few cases of crazy patents being taken seriously- like Amazon.com patenting the use of cookies. I know this group is not a source of real legal advice, but are we at any risk if we start a public project to do a conversational program? Is there any company doing a conversational program and not paying royalties? ron |
|
Brian Bartholomew
I have read the notes about patent issues and am now concerned. INearly all of the patents in the software field are crazy, and whether you'll be prosecuted depends on how much money you have to take. Non-profit groups who don't challenge the powerful have historically been mostly ignored. For further analysis, see . Brian |
|
Matt Shaver
From: Ron Ginger <ginger@...>From what I can tell, no. 1. Read this: 2. If you like, put my name in the README as the person to contact regarding patent infringement issues and then Hurco/IMS can sue me if they like. a. I'm basically poor (the "no blood from a turnip" defense). b. Once you read #1 above, you'll see why I think this is a dead issue. c. IP law exists to promote invention, not squelch it. I want to see this program developed to benefit the user community. 3. I want to help plan/organize/write this program, I'll try to post some relevant stuff soon. Matt |
|
Jon Elson
Ron Ginger wrote:
I have read the notes about patent issues and am now concerned. I knowApparently, Haas didn't pay, and has been vindicated in court. I don't know whether it was determined that the Haas product doesn't infringe, or that the Hurco patents were overly broad, which sounds awully likely. But, that doesn't mean that the court made that determination. Jon |
|
Brian Bartholomew
It makes claims almost as outrageous as Hurco, implying a vastWhat conspiracy? It's front and center in the USPTO's press releases. The USPTO has been reorganized to run as a business. Its tax funding has been reduced to only partially cover its budget, and a profit motive established to encourage serving its customers. The USPTO views its customers as the patent applicants who pay them filing fees, not the general public concerned with the progress of science and the useful arts. ----- [...] The PTO has evolved into a unique government agency. Since 1991-- under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990-- the PTO has operated in much the same way as a private business, providing valued products and services to our customers in exchange for fees which are used to fully fund our operations. The primary services we provide include processing patents and trademarks and disseminating patent and trademark information. [...] ----- [...] Performance The mission of the patent business area is to help our customers get patents; its performance goal is to grant patents to inventors for their discoveries. These were established to help us direct our efforts toward providing our customers with high-quality service, one of the PTO's two strategic goals. [...] ----- PRESS RELEASE #00-21 CONTACT: Richard Maulsby March 29, 2000 Maria Victoria Hernandez 703-305-8341 PTO BECOMES PERFORMANCE-BASED ORGANIZATION Today, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) becomes the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), a Performance-Based Organization (PBO). The new status results from the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, which reformed the U.S. patent system in a number of ways. The PBO is a concept created in March 1996 by Vice President Al Gore and the National Partnership for Reinventing Government. In fact, the USPTO will now be only the second federal agency in history to be a PBO, after the Education Department's Office of Student Financial Assistance. A PBO is a results-driven organization that delivers the best possible services to its customers. A PBO also commits to accountability for results by having clear objectives, specific measurable goals, customer service standards and targets for improved performance. In exchange for this commitment to accountability, a PBO is granted managerial flexibilities to achieve these goals and operate more like a business with greater autonomy over its budget, hiring, and procurement. The USPTO's new status will be celebrated this Monday, April 3, 2000, at a ceremony in front of the main headquarters building at 2121 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Va. The program will begin at 10:30 a.m. "As a PBO, the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves to the forefront of reinventing the federal government by becoming a results-driven organization with a renewed focus on customer service," says Q. Todd Dickinson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. "Having sufficient resources to operate effectively in this new environment," he continued, "is now more important than ever." # # # |
|
Tim Barnard
The judge said that Hurco's patents were based on PC technology that was
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
available at the time the were formulated. Since Hurco did not revise their patents to keep up with the changes in the technology, they were null and void. TAB -----Original Message----- |
|
Tim Barnard
Most companies figured it was less costly to pay Hurco than to fight them in
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
court. Gene Haas had a different opinion. TAB -----Original Message----- |
|
Tim Barnard
For what I could find out, it cost around $200,000 to fight Hurco. About
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
half of what Hurco wanted to settle out of court. TAB -----Original Message----- |
|
Brian Bartholomew
For what I could find out, it cost around $200,000 to fightWow, that's cheap. Panels on IP law appear from time to time at computer conferences, and the minimum price they report for an innocent company to either defend their patent, or defend themselves against an illegitimate patent, is "most of a million dollars". Do you know if Haas recovered the $200K from Hurco? Brian |
|
John Guenther
I have been following this thread this morning and have a real problem with
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
all this patent stuff. Sure people have a right to protect their designs but if you come up with a new way to build your widget in the current climate you might as well keep it to yourself. There is nothing new in the world, only new ways to use existing technology. If you take this seriously then any form of machine control not manufactured or sold by one of the patent holding corporations should be pulled of the market. THAT'S A BUNCH OF BULL!! What I am hearing is that our patent laws and the corresponding legal system are only designed to prevent new development and invention, not promote it. I guess Dan Mauch should go out of business, Tom Kulga should not have developed his DRO board and none of the low cost CNC solutions should exit. In fact from what you have all been saying NIST should stop the EMC project because that too violates some patent somewhere. Here we are, one of the greatest nations in the world but we can't develop anything new because of the damn lawyers!! Ok, I am off my soap box for now. John Guenther -----Original Message-----
From: Brian Bartholomew [mailto:bb@...] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 7:23 AM To: cad_cam_edm_dro@... Subject: Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CPNC and Patents > For what I could find out, it cost around $200,000 to fight > Hurco. About half of what Hurco wanted to settle out of court. Wow, that's cheap. Panels on IP law appear from time to time at computer conferences, and the minimum price they report for an innocent company to either defend their patent, or defend themselves against an illegitimate patent, is "most of a million dollars". Do you know if Haas recovered the $200K from Hurco? Brian ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Welcome to CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@...,an unmoderated list for the discussion of shop built systems, for CAD, CAM, EDM, and DRO. Addresses: Post message: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@... Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@... Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@... List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@..., wanliker@... Moderator: jmelson@... [Moderator] URL to this page: FAQ: bill, List Manager |
|
Tim Barnard
As far as I know they did not. Please remember that Haas is in court all the
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
time for one thing or another. They have a law firm on retainer to handle these type of problems. If it had been a one time deal then the cost would be more toward $500,000. TAB -----Original Message-----
From: Brian Bartholomew [mailto:bb@...] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 4:23 AM To: cad_cam_edm_dro@... Subject: Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CPNC and Patents For what I could find out, it cost around $200,000 to fightWow, that's cheap. Panels on IP law appear from time to time at computer conferences, and the minimum price they report for an innocent company to either defend their patent, or defend themselves against an illegitimate patent, is "most of a million dollars". Do you know if Haas recovered the $200K from Hurco? Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your money connected @ OnMoney.com - the first Web site that lets you see and manage all of your finances all in one place. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Welcome to CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@...,an unmoderated list for the discussion of shop built systems, for CAD, CAM, EDM, and DRO. Addresses: Post message: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@... Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@... Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@... List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@..., wanliker@... Moderator: jmelson@... [Moderator] URL to this page: FAQ: bill, List Manager |
|
Tim Barnard
You are correct. If the patent holder wishes, they could shut down everyone
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
you mentioned plus many more companies. It just depends if the patent holder knows that the other companies exist and if they are taking sales away from the patent holder's company. They also must look to see which company has more cash. You can go out of business trying to protect your patent. A patent is a legal right to sue ! TAB -----Original Message-----
From: John Guenther [mailto:jguenther@...] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 5:14 AM To: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@... Subject: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CPNC and Patents I have been following this thread this morning and have a real problem with all this patent stuff. Sure people have a right to protect their designs but if you come up with a new way to build your widget in the current climate you might as well keep it to yourself. There is nothing new in the world, only new ways to use existing technology. If you take this seriously then any form of machine control not manufactured or sold by one of the patent holding corporations should be pulled of the market. THAT'S A BUNCH OF BULL!! What I am hearing is that our patent laws and the corresponding legal system are only designed to prevent new development and invention, not promote it. I guess Dan Mauch should go out of business, Tom Kulga should not have developed his DRO board and none of the low cost CNC solutions should exit. In fact from what you have all been saying NIST should stop the EMC project because that too violates some patent somewhere. Here we are, one of the greatest nations in the world but we can't develop anything new because of the damn lawyers!! Ok, I am off my soap box for now. John Guenther -----Original Message----- From: Brian Bartholomew [mailto:bb@...] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 7:23 AM To: cad_cam_edm_dro@... Subject: Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CPNC and Patents > For what I could find out, it cost around $200,000 to fight > Hurco. About half of what Hurco wanted to settle out of court. Wow, that's cheap. Panels on IP law appear from time to time at computer conferences, and the minimum price they report for an innocent company to either defend their patent, or defend themselves against an illegitimate patent, is "most of a million dollars". Do you know if Haas recovered the $200K from Hurco? Brian ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Welcome to CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@...,an unmoderated list for the discussion of shop built systems, for CAD, CAM, EDM, and DRO. Addresses: Post message: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@... Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@... Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@... List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@..., wanliker@... Moderator: jmelson@... [Moderator] URL to this page: FAQ: bill, List Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your money connected @ OnMoney.com - the first Web site that lets you see and manage all of your finances all in one place. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Welcome to CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@...,an unmoderated list for the discussion of shop built systems, for CAD, CAM, EDM, and DRO. Addresses: Post message: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@... Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@... Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@... List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@..., wanliker@... Moderator: jmelson@... [Moderator] URL to this page: FAQ: bill, List Manager |
|
Jon Anderson
John Guenther wrote:
I designed a medical device for a customer that resulted in a patent application. While talking to their patent attorney about this, I referenced a US patent held by an Italian firm that seemed to put a nail through the heart of my design. What he had to say was most enlightening. (and the following DOES NOT constitute patent legal advice!) While the main claims in that patent seemed to describe the machine I designed (actually a ground up mechanical redesign/refinement of an existing machine) we got by because we could demonstrate that we differed from ONE of this patent's claims. That was enough that we could then work off the other principles of operation reasonably assured of being able to beat a patent infringement. We'd have had much weaker ground if I'd copied their design but for the one difference, but we had some significant differences, mechanically speaking. Also, I've never ever heard of anyone being sued for patent infringement for copying a patented design strictly for their own use. I'd suspect Ron's program would scarcely draw any notice at all. With all the low cost approaches I read folks working on here, really, how many list members here are seriously thinking about buying a Hurco, or even an AcuRite system? Those outfit would spend big bucks to go after someone that represents NO threat to them. Ron's program MIGHT fall under "look and feel" issues, but again, if it represents no threat and Ron isn't worth more than the legal costs, he's probably all but totally immune to legal action. Even if someone wanted to nail him, there are procedures that must be followed, and a Cease and Desist order is first. I'd love to mess with Ron's program on my MaxNC, and it would certainly help my 70+ dad make parts without learning G-code, but on the business side of my shop, I'll take the commercial package as soon as I can afford it, for the ease, speed of setup, and reliability/support. Again, NO threat to the big boys at all. Jon ps: John, it was no less than a US Patent official who in the very early part of this century proclaimed everything that could be invented, had been invented. The big breakthroughs now require huge budgets and labs, but there is still fertile ground in the mundane world of mechanical improvements. |
to navigate to use esc to dismiss