William Chops Westfield wrote:

> On Feb 13, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Danny Sauer wrote:
> 
> 
>>I'm convinced that's taken out only as protection from being sued by
>>someone else who would have eventually patented database lookups
> 
> 
> Well, yes.  A remarkable number of obnoxious patents are probably
> meant to be defensive.  It might be interesting to look up the
> stats and see how many times a "big company" initiated a lawsuit
> or royalty request for violation of less substantial patents.  I'm
> inclined to believe it doesn't happen very often.  The reverse,
> where some inventor manages to cripple a nascent industry by
> wanting inconvenient royalties for a patent they filed but never
> did anything with, is very frustrating (remember token ring?)

Remember Gordon Gould, Patlex, and his notarized notebook from
1956 which successfully got him patent rights on laser applications,
decades after the industry took off?

"Torpedo" patents are getting to be far too common because of
the lax and inept patent examination process.


Robert


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist