Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (
More info?)
In article <408D1D37.B14046E3@Early.com>, NoSpamForWalt@Early.com
says...
Hi Walt!
> A patent needs to be constantly renewed over its possible
> life time, and that costs money. Typically, if a patent doesn't
> bring in revenue from the start, a lot of people will not spend
> the money to constantly renew, and the patent "dies".
Sure, but that's a relatively recent thing. Did you note the
"legal status" of this particular patent? It seems there is some
jockeying for profit going on here.
> Also, just because one has a patent, doesn't mean it is
> automatically enforceable. The Patent Office doesn't guarantee
> anything. The Patent Office doesn't defend the patent either.
Of course not. Only the courts can determine ownership. That's
sorta our entire legal system. Asking the PTO do do anything
different is rather odd.
> The patent itself is only one "stake in the ground". When one
> goes to court to defend a patent (another costly endeavor and
> rarely done on a patent which doesn't hold much worth), one
> really needs to be ready to prove a LOT of things.
No issues here. One has to line up all sorts of ducks, with the
full knowledge that the other guy is loading his duck-gun (see:
SCO vs. IBM).
Again, the only question is how stupid a Jury can be. So far,
we've seen that they can be pretty damned stupid.
--
Keith
===============================
> KR Williams wrote:
> >
> > It does, if it can be proven the applicant knew of the violation
> > and did nothing to defend its use. "Submarine" patents are also
> > highly frowned upon these days. Patent law is stupid, but not
> > this stupid. ;-)
> >
> > Then again, who know how stupid a court will be?
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram