Major operator error on my part: Bill Ralston's message was sent privately,
not to the group. I should have been more careful in my use of the "reply
all" button and in not seeing the towertalk address come up in the recipient
window. I have already sent him a personal note of apology.
-Paul, W9AC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
To: "Paul Christensen, Esq." <w9ac@arrl.net>; "Bill Ralston"
<n7vm@lgcy.com>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] N4XM Match Info request
> I think we can all agree that lots of patents are issued that may not be
> ideal
> I think we can all agree that lots of "obvious" stuff has had a patent
> issued, and never been tested in court, because most patents never go
> anywhere.
> I think we can all agree that we're free to give opinions about whether a
> device may or may not be patentable, infringing, what have you, but that
> further,
> I think we can all agree that you'd be a special kind of stupid to rely on
> opinions from the internet if you were risking your business or legal
> position on it.
>
> I think that this sort of discussion is actually quite useful. It
provides
> a look into how the system works, so that everyone can see that there's a
> lot of gray areas, and a lot of room for improvement. If 1 out of 1000
> people reading it decide, hey, that's something worth writing my
congressman
> about, then I think the discussion has been exceedingly valuable.
>
> The law and practice in the intellectual property area is mindbendingly
> complex and non-obvious. I think it's good for folks to understand that
> it's not this quaint 19th century system where you troop on down to the
> Patent Office with your working model, pen and ink drawings on bristol
> board, and show it all to the kindly examiner who then goes off and
riffles
> through the acres of file drawers. I think it's also useful to understand
> that, these days, intellectual property rights are a tool of business,
like
> any other, and like other business tools, tend not to be used
altruistically
> for the "good of society", but rather, to "enhance shareholder value".
>
> Personally, having been on both sides of incredibly nasty trade secret,
> intellectual property, patent disputes and so forth; I'd never hope that
I'd
> have to enforce a patent, or for that matter, almost any sort of IP
rights,
> in today's system. It is exceedingly expensive, results in some sort of
> secret settlement agreement which doesn't really resolve the underlying
> issues in the long run, and often doesn't accomplish your goals (unless
> you're in an industry that provides services to such disputes:
> stenographers, etc.). One spends an incredible amount of time on
something
> that is not your core job (i.e. doing the inventing in the first place,
> etc.). This is probably the primary reason why I now work where I do (Jet
> Propulsion Lab), as opposed to where I used to (entertainment industry).
>
> The real problem you will face is not the company down the street copying
> your stuff. Their production and marketing costs will be similar to yours,
> and you can probably successfully compete head to head, patent or not. No,
> it's the retailer/wholesaler dealing with the importer, who brings in the
> infringing items by the containerload from countries with very poor IP
> protection. In the overall scheme of things, getting customs to stop the
> importation is pretty low on the priority list compared to checking for
> drugs, explosives, illegal aliens, etc. Unless you're someone like Sony,
> with billions of dollars at stake, you're going to have a hard and
expensive
> time getting any satisfaction, and that time and money might be better
spent
> developing and producing the next "better mousetrap". I note that Sony,
and
> their ilk, haven't been all that successful in reducing the availability
of
> very high quality bootleg DVDs (most of which are imported), and there,
it's
> not even a gray area requiring careful legal examination.
>
> That all said, I heartily encourage folks to apply for patents on their
> inventions, and to get into the habit of writing things down, etc. No
> question that having that patent hanging on the wall is kind of cool, even
> if you never earn a penny from it. Even better, publish your ideas in the
> open literature, for all to use, and to insure that it's well known as
prior
> art.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Christensen, Esq." <w9ac@arrl.net>
> To: "Bill Ralston" <n7vm@lgcy.com>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] N4XM Match Info request
>
>
> > > >In my opinion, the XMatch patent completely fails to satisfy the
> > > [non-obviousness]
> > > >requirement.
> > >
> > > Sounds like a legal opinion.
> >
> > My reply, like yours, is a personal opinion. I assume you skipped the
> > preamble of my reply.
> >
> > <snip>
>
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|