-----Original Message----- From: Tjaart van der Walt To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Date: Thursday, 13 November 1997 15:55 Subject: Re: Microchip sues Scenix and parallax >Andrew Warren wrote: >> >> Sean Breheny wrote: >> >> > I thought that to obtain or uphold a patent, one had only to prove >> > that their idea was not common knowledge and was not in common >> > useage at the time of the patent application. I didn't think that it >> > mattered if there was prior artwork which was only known to a few >> > people. If this were the case, most patents could be contested >> > because most inventions are "re-invented" by several people and only >> > one or a few ultimately decice to pursue it and get a patent. >> > >> > Interestingly enough, I do know that it is possible for two patents >> > to overlap and therefore, unless the two patent owners work >> > together, neither can produce their idea. >> >> Guys: >> >> This is getting out of hand... I think we're starting to get way >> off-topic for the PICLIST. > >I don't know. Previously it was said that it should be kept in the open, >so everybody can make up their own minds (not by myself though). - You tell em Tjaart! When you suggested going private on a different Scenix issue before, this list gave you hell!! >Anything that can affect any of the PIClisters' perceptions, development >time, development tools, cost, software and hardware sizes must be given >the chance to be fairly discussed. > >Scenix has been plugged as drop-in replacements for PICs which they are >not. It has also been hailed as supplementary to the Mchip line, which >IMHO they are not either. Opinions vary and that is good. > >I cannot immagine someone stupid enough to go and "design" a product >that looks exactly like a big company's pride and joy, stick plenty of >money into the development, only to lose it all after the first suit. Nor anyone investing the big $$$ needed to set up and produce said product. > >On the other hand, it would be stupid of Mchip to NOT sue Scenix at >this point (even if the infringements are immaginary), because they >are also trying to get flash chips into the middle end (sic) market. Yeah. I suspect they, like Intel, do it as a delaying action. I wonder how many million are budgeted for making a nuisance of themselves in the courts? > >Time is everything in our game. > >Bearing in mind the similarities between PICs and the Scenix chips, >having a separate list would only benefit no-one but Mchip. > Its even a useful list for ATMEL. >-- >Friendly Regards MikeS