Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
more details: patents used to be 17 years from issuance; newly issued are 20 from date of filing > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Connell [mailto:kevin@nw*.co*] > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 4:44 PM > To: Scott Landon > Cc: markg@pa*.ne*; techdiver@aq*.co*; cavers@cavers.com > Subject: RE: JOHNS SCUBA > > > details. make that 24.28 times the useful life > > At 04:41 PM 3/29/2000 -0800, you wrote: > >patents are 17 years. > > > >>From: "Kevin Connell" <kevin@nw*.co*> > >>To: "Mark G." <markg@pa*.ne*>, Technical Diving Mailing List > >><techdiver@aq*.co*>, Cave Diving Mailing List > <cavers@cavers.com> > >>Subject: RE: JOHNS SCUBA > >>Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:09:12 -0800 > >> > >>Precisely! > >> > >>The secret recipe for coke? Not patented folks. And secret corporate > >>business processes aren't patented. > >> > >>And as an aside, patent law was written when 7 years wasn't a > >>technologically long time, and the side affect *was* to allow > the public to > >>benefit from public record of invention. With most high tech > stuff now, 7 > >>years of patent is 10 times the useful life of the technology. > >> > >>At 11:51 AM 3/29/2000 -0800, Mark G. wrote: > >> > >>> > > >>> > Patent law is written to protect the public. > >>> > >>>Not true; The constitution, where our patent system was born, says in > >>>article 1, section 8 "To promote the Progress of Science and > useful Arts, by > >>>securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the > exclusive Right to > >>>their respective Writings and Discoveries"; there is nothing about > >>>protecting anyone but the inventors, and this is done in > exchange for them > >>>promoting their ideas, i.e.. making them public so the rest of > society can > >>>benefit. Note that if you conceal the idea, you will most > likely not be > >>>able to patent it. > >>> > >>> >Patent holders have > >>> > no right to > >>> > stop you from using their invention. They only have the right to > >>> > charge you a > >>> > license fee. > >>> > >>>Also not true; injunction is a standard remedy and you would > be prohibited > >>>from making, using, selling, importing etc. the infringing > product. A fee > >>>is not even a remedy going forward, only looking back for past > infringement > >>>(because you cannot change the past and give a retroactive injunction) > >>> > > >>> > What the rate of that fee is must be negotiated but if you think > >>> > the patent > >>> > holder is asking too much you can take it to court. > >>> > >>>Not true; you cannot "take it (the fee) to court" , but you can seek to > >>>invalidate the patent or prove non infringement, which results > in no fee > >>>paid. If you lose, the court/jury will decide the reasonable royalty, > >>>HOWEVER, this will be only for PAST infringement, and you will > most likely > >>>get an injunction for the future. And if you knew you > infringed and did it > >>>anyway because you didn't like their fee, you may get TRIPLE damages > >>>depending upon the judge (it is proscribed in the law that he > can award up > >>>to triple the damages for willful infringement). > >>> > >>> > > >>> > If a patent holder does not build a device themselves or license > >>> > it, they can > >>> > lose their patent rights. > >>> > >>>This is not true; read the constitution quote above. there is > nothing about > >>>this in the United States law, and it is totally legal to > exclude others > >>>even if you don't build it yourself. See Injunction discussion above. > >>>Patent law in general doesn't care what you do; note it does > not even ALLOW > >>>you do to ANYTHING EXCEPT exclude others from practicing your > invention. > >>>Just because you have a patent does not allow you to practice > the invention > >>>if others have patents on your product. > >>> > >>> > > >>> > In most cases like this competitors don't want to be seen as > >>> > having to use their > >>> > competitors' technology or they simply don't want to pay > the money for a > >>> > license. > >>> > >>>Just about everyone in high tech uses each others patents; no > way to avoid > >>>it. We all license what we can, and fight where we cant. I > just completed > >>>a two year series of litigations Monday which cost about $20M > in legal fees, > >>>where I had to teach the other company a lesson they wont soon > forget about > >>>patent law. They lost their best patents to us, and their > licensing program > >>>was devastated all because they "didn't want to be seen having > to use their > >>>competitors technology". Go figure > >>> > >>>Mark > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Best Regards, > >>> > > >>> > Rick Fincher > >>> > Thunderbird Technologies, Inc. > >>> > rnf@tb*.co* > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to > `techdiver@aq*.co*'. > >>> > Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to > `techdiver-request@aq*.co*'. > >> > >> > >>---------------------------------- > >> Kevin Connell <kevin@nw*.co*> > >> > >> NW Labor Systems, Inc > >> http://www.nwls.com > >> > >> Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest. > >> (A thing is only worth what someone else > >> is willing to pay for it) > >> > >>---------------------------------- > > > >______________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > ---------------------------------- > Kevin Connell <kevin@nw*.co*> > > NW Labor Systems, Inc > http://www.nwls.com > > Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest. > (A thing is only worth what someone else > is willing to pay for it) > > ---------------------------------- > > -- > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aq*.co*'. > Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aq*.co*'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]