David.
I chose those three cases deliberately
because they were people who pursued their case
since money was more important than life.
I also stated the McDonalds case in the U.K.
where justice came without total ruination.
Look at cases where the "giants" take on
"giants" as in the phamacutical industry
where appeals upon appeals and other
manipulations of the court drag on for years.
Yes, the courts allow the little man to
challenge the big man but he never "wins",
he always loses the most valuable thing
that he has, a major part of his life
in exchange for following his "rights".
In these particular cases quoted it emphasised
the difference in "rights" between the U.K. and the U.S.
which supposedly follow the same system but where one follows the
"intent" of the law where the other follows the
" actual wording" of the law. This places the U.S. descisions
in the same bracket of many threads seen at this site.
Art





"David G. Nagel" wrote in message ...
Actually the man that invented the pushbutton release socket wrench did
win his lawsuit against Sears and won big. Sears then licensed the
patent and are selling pushbutton release socket wrenches again. I still
have my original one and love it.
The intermitent cycle automotobile wondow wiper inventer has has to sue
each and every autombile manufacturer for infringement. He has won every
suit but the lawyers got most of the money. He also lost his marriage.
He is now going without legal assistance in his court cases but is still
winning.

Dave Nagel


Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Dave Shrader wrote in message news:tiMpb.102695$Fm2.88131@attbi_s04...

Richard wrote:

SNIP


The only value of patents is in their being a depreciable asset. In
other words, valuable only to the bean counters to include in their
prospectus.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

There is a second value in Patents: they assure lawsuits!!

Deacon Dave, W1MCE


I would question that statement in the U.S. Dave.
It is not a question of who is right or wrong with
respect to patents, its just a case who has the deepest
pockets and who can make enough money thru a violation
so they may hire a lawyer to manipulate the court so
a ruling is never made. Two cases I remember one the windshields
wiper case and the Sears and Roabucks wrench casewhere even
tho the plaintifs went bankrupt pursing justice those who
violated the law profited imensely. My patents on antennas
as well as the one I am claiming now will be abandond after award
since I could never stop any violation let alone pay the maintenance
fees.
My patent attempt are purely for my own satisfaction.
By the way, in some countries the loser picks up the costs which can
retard deep pocket violators in any court actions over those with
little money.
McDonalds found this out to their cost in the U.K. where their
opponents
had little money and were able to reap huge rewards.
Art