Subject:
|
Re: Gateway patent using Lego
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:46:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
626 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Miguel Agullo writes:
> If I am reading this correct, they are trying to steal Ldraw right from
> under our noses. I am most definitely very worried about this.
It's not the same as LDraw, in fact it's something quite different, but clearly
anticipated by Fred Martin and others.
Don't worry, Lego is way out ahead of these guys at Gateway in claiming
intellectual property rights. But do worry, it will take a lawyer to figure out
what all this stuff means. I have come to realize this after trying very hard
to understand the issues.
LDraw may not be prior art, despite the fact that it is, because: there is a
lack of printed publications. Your book starts the clock at late 2002; however
the land grab at the patent office began years ago (applications are made
public 18 months after receipt, so use your rear view mirror.) From cases I
have checked, oral testimony of expert witnesses about prior art is not worth
very much, unless it is about a marketed product, and I have not found an
example where any Internet publication counted. The USPTO petition process for
entering prior art summarily dismisses anything not composed of printed
publications and patents. (Fun quote: "Novel and non-obvious means: whatever
the patent office doesn't know about yet." --Patent It Yourself, NOLO Press.)
LCD cannot be prior art, because Lego applied for a patent on it before it was
even described here (much less published in print), but I don't know what
conditions Lego's patent assumes. Their patent describes the prior art circa
1995 (Apple 3DMF used as example) as adequate to support modeling and LCD, then
Lego claims all such systems based on integer grids as original. LDraw uses
floating point, so, maybe, there is no conflict of interest at all. But it
would take a lawyer to figure it out.
-Erik
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gateway patent using Lego
|
| (...) Thanks for the clarification. I did not know that internet documents did not classify as prior art (bewildering in itself - are these the people we trust to sort out the legalities of technology?). If it helps, there is at least one other book (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gateway patent using Lego
|
| If I am reading this correct, they are trying to steal Ldraw right from under our noses. I am most definitely very worried about this. Please take note that the LCD (Ldraw connection database) is probably a better example of prior art than Ldraw by (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
