Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:


SNIP


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.

SNIP

My point exactly. Patents assure Lawsuits!!

I didn't say the patent holder wins.

Deacon Dave

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

I wounder what they have to say about this.

http://www.fractenna.com/index.html

As I recall, the interval wiper case was begun in the '60s and only
settled recently. So it took the inventor thirty years to win the suit.
And I believe that was only against one auto manufacturer. I seriously
doubt that he's collected a nickel yet. The only reason he prevailed is
that there was such a huge amount of money involved, lawyers were
willing to spend years working on it for a contingency fee.
(Consequently, the inventor will only get a portion of the settlement if
he's still alive when the money actually changes hands.) For something
of more modest value, the inventor will simply be run out of money long
before the case reaches court.

As far as I can tell, patents are of use only for companies large enough
and with enough resources to defend them. They're often used just to
shut out the little guy. For example, Big Company A patents its widget.
Big Company B incorporates the widget into its own products. Big Company
A threatens to sue Big Company B. Big Company B comes up with some prior
art that might void the patent, and threatens to countersue to make the
patent void. (This can be done for a huge number of patents. There are
surprisingly few truly new ideas, and prior art can very often be found
if you've got the resources to look hard enough for it.) Big Company A
backs off, and gives Big Company B a royalty-free license to use the
widget. That way, they both benefit. If the patent had been voided
(which it probably deserved to be), then any old body could use the
widget. By letting the patent stand, either company can sue any little
guy who tries it. Patents are now awarded with hardly any scrutiny at
all, which I'm sure makes this scheme increasingly common. Actually,
what I've seen is big companies freely stealing others' patented ideas,
and not bothering with the formal process I just described. They don't
mess with each other, and that way all the patents stand and the little
guys are effectively locked out.

In my humble and decidedly non-legal opinion, a patent is pretty useless
to a small inventor, unless it's worth so much that the lawyers are
willing to spend millions and years defending it, like in the interval
wiper case. I guess it strokes some egos. But I always think about the
Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna (U.S. patent #6,025,810) when someone brags
about how many patents he's got, just to keep the accomplishment in
perspective.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

David G. Nagel wrote:
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

I'm sure Chip is active off line.

Deacon Dave, W1MCE

Hacksaw wrote:

I wounder what they have to say about this.

http://www.fractenna.com/index.html

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