Multi-period patent

[Aziz]

Hi,

do you guys know the company eolas?
http://www.eolas.com/index.html

5,838,906: This patent can be weighten with tons of gold.
7,599,985: This too.
6,616,701: And this.

The company is making money in offensing patent infringements. It is expected, that it can make more than 12 billion dollar with this strategy.

[WM6]

do you guys know the company eolas?
http://www.eolas.com/index.html

They patented place patents in advance without imaginations how such patent idea really work.

[mikebg]

Re: Patent US 6,586,938

Hi Altra,
The invention of Paltoglou US 6,586,938 is relatively old. His initial patent pending is made in Australia at end of 1997.
It is published in mid of 1999 by WIPO as WO 09931529. Here is the Front page of WIPO publication.

[Altra]

Hello Mike,

Yes I have a copy of US 6,586,938. I mentioned it in my post, only as another example multi-period TX and sampling. This one was granted after the ML patents where as Carl's example was granted before (prior art). It appears to me a patent is only validated after a legal battle.

Mark

[simonbaker]

Hello Mike,

It appears to me a patent is only validated after a legal battle.

Mark

I think that states the reality of patents and why they really are even more expensive than face value in the long run. However, they may have some value in deterring certain competitors from bothering to develop in an area where a patent exists.

-SB

[ralphm]

Multi-period patent

I have patents and I have read many more. I believe that most patents are not worth the paper they are are written on, including those from some large and well known companies. The basic point is that with knowledge of the field one can usually find ample prior art to destroy a patent. It does not even need to be in a patent court. It is much creeper to just pay the patent office to do a re- examination of the original patent application in light of the prior art you are submitting with you re-examination request. This is also a good way fight and beat a very large company.


The bottom line is, if you are an inventor, study and know the prior art, a good idea before you even apply for a patent. In cases where a you find that a patent truly is innovative and is above the prior art, respect that patent! In the cases where you can clearly demonstrate prior art (most of the time with some effort), don't let anybody's patent slow you down in your technical pursuits.


Regards

[Carl-NC]

I have patents and I have read many more. I believe that most patents are not worth the paper they are are written on, including those from some large and well known companies. The basic point is that with knowledge of the field one can usually find ample prior art to destroy a patent. It does not even need to be in a patent court. It is much creeper to just pay the patent office to do a re- examination of the original patent application in light of the prior art you are submitting with you re-examination request. This is also a good way fight and beat a very large company.

I completely agree with you in cases of mature technologies like electronic circuits. After 21 years working for the big chip companies and going through the patent process many times myself, I am very confident that few circuit-oriented patents would stand up to serious challenge. Patents are most useful in emerging technologies.

I also agree that in the case of a patent challenge, the very first order of business is to file for a re-examination of the patent. A prepared defendant will have thoroughly read the patent wrapper, and go in armed with many many examples of prior art, plus all of their own internal documentation. Also, the courts have recently lowered the bar on "obviousness" making this much easier to demonstrate.

- Carl