Suppose a product was using a technology before a patent ?

Sigh.

They are conditions for "loss of right to patent." Section a) refers to a context of publication by print, patent, or some other means from which a reasonable inference could be made that the invention is well-known to practitioners of the art. The phrase "known by others" does NOT refer to those select few who maintained secrecy of their invention. The Miller analogy would be secrecy is to publication as intelligence is to skybuck flying.

Really? And whose lawyer would say that? Certainly not the lawyer for the applicant, so it must be the lawyer for the trade secret. Assuming the application has passed muster with novelty, usefulness, and non-obviousness, the attorney is then left with no recourse except to paragraph g) subparagraph 2). Interference does not apply because no patent exists for the trade secret.

Your inability to comprehend the words has nothing to do with the actual law. All you need to concentrate on is "or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it." The interference refers to conflicting rights between two patents. Since the trade secret was not patented, there is no interference. But 2) does apply in the case of a manufacturer who made no attempt to suppress or conceal his invention and is actively using it. It is the concealment that deprives the trade secret from recourse to a cause of action under

That must be one of them there phone-etic misspellings ... but "mist" ? See a dentist, toothless Bush supporter...

There was also once a suit by a company called USL... :)

Wie is a minor. Hands off.

within

brochures,

the

reasons

patenting.

Wieeee, there is a god ;) :)

Seems like a worthwhile endeavor. How much of their stock do you own?

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Much of what you say in those articles is absolutely true as it applies to the Midnight Engineer crowd, however, taken in a general context, I can find counter-example to many of your broad claims. For example, in the article about "busting" any patent, you state:

"Show failure of due diligence?I?m not sure I follow this potent busting tool fully, so do check this out with your patent attorney. But as I understand it, slashing away at a sudden target of opportunity is a no no. It seems you have to aggressively police the industry for violators. You also have to show continuous intent to both license and enforce. Apparently if there has been significant and widespread infringement of your patent in the past, and if you have done nothing about it, you cannot suddenly single out any one particular perp. Especially if they have been blatantly (love that word) doing so for a long time. Use it or lose it."

In this case we have the counter-example of the AmazonCom lawsuit against Barnes & Noble claiming infringement of Amazon's *patented* "one-button" something or another web ordering methodology. Barnes & Noble was not the only known infringer, Amazon, and the industry in general, were aware of several other infringers, but because B& N was such serious competition, Amazon decided to single them out for enforcement purposes. And Amazon won as you may recall.

My impression is that your audience is mainly hackers, and their focus is on low level nerd stuff that they develop with no consideration of potential market value. This is completely backwards and a waste of nerd talent. You first have to define a market and then bound the nerds to produce a solution. A good example of a small start-up, not far from you actually, that did everything right is Ionatron. These people transitioned a well-known phenomenon from near laboratory curiosity into a fielded product in short order, and quite the working product it is:

IIRC that was was settled.

Regards, Joerg

Hello,

There always was. Some people believe in Him, some don't. (I do)

Regards, Joerg

An atheist is just a guy who has plonked God. ;-P

Cheers! Rich

You should take statements in newsgroups like this as hints, often quite valuable hints. It's not advice. Then take what you heard and present it to a good patent attorney. That's were you get actual advice.

Regards, Joerg

Now, that's good advice :-)

Regards, Nick Maclaren.

God isn't dead - He just got the Hell out of here.

Ken

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:19:15 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" quoted:

..and how successfull they've been.

Gates isn't an intel freak at all. M$ and I$ have never gotten along that well together, and the SJ thing is another stick in Billy's eye.

...and who cares which end of the egg is cracked?

Hmmmmm

Apple in trouble ? ;)

" Did Microsoft Invent The iPod?

By TechWeb News

If you think Apple Computer's Steve Jobs invented the technology behind the Apple iPod, don't bet your 60GB, 15,000-song model on it. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, patent applications that cover much of the technology associated with the iPod were submitted by Microsoft, which has been on a patents tear recently filing thousands of patents.

If the patents hold up on appeal, Apple could be accountable for royalties on the spectacularly successful iPod. Jobs and others associated with Apple filed for patents covering the technology in October, 2002, but that application was rejected by the patent office last month. AppleInsider.com reported the rejection this week.

Apple won't take the matter lying down. "Apple invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application cited by the (patent) examiner was filed," said an Apple spokesperson in a statement. Apple also noted that the firm has received other patents for technology relating to the iPod and in addition has other patents pending on the iPod.

The documents in the Patent Office do not mention the iPod by name. The documents describe a "portable, pocked-sized multimedia asset player" that can manipulate MP3 music files.

Microsoft's claim appears to center on the work of John C. Platt, a senior researcher in the Knowledge Tools Group at Microsoft Research. According to media reports, on behalf of Microsoft, Platt applied for the patent in May of 2002 some five months before the Apple filing. Platt's application was rejected in December 2004, but he amended it in April of this year and Microsoft's pending patent was subsequently approved.

According to a citation on "Platt's home page, he and other colleagues at Microsoft developed a paper in the 2001-2002 timeframe discussing AutoDJ, "a system for automatically generating music playlists based on one or more seed songs selected by a user."

Apple's iPod dominates the MP3 player market. The NPD Group has reported that Apple has shipped nearly 22 million iPods. Predictions that Apple's strength in the MP3 market would slip haven't borne out, and Apple accounts for about 75 percent of MP3 players sold in the U.S.

So far, Microsoft hasn't been able to dent the Apple iPod dominance, although the software giant has said it is working on music playing devices that it plans to introduce later this year.