[8473] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Multimedia has been patented
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tansin A. Darcos & Company)
Sat Nov 20 04:23:12 1993
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 04:05:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Reply-To: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
To: Dick <stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com>, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>,
>From: Paul Robinson <TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
-----
Dick <stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com>, quotes Barry Shein <BZS@WORLD.STD.COM>:
> BZS> This is government (almost) at its worst, irresponsibly
> BZS> assigning (and intending to enforce) broad and destructive
> BZS> monopolies.
>
> It's worth noting that the government does not enforce patents. It
> is up to the patent holder to take cases to court, where both the
> case and the patent itself are subject to scrutiny. A patent holder
> who does this therefore risks having the patent declared invalid, so
> most patent "enforcement" is based on a judgement that it's cheaper
> to pay up than fight. This tends to keep the fees small.
It is also possible for someone who believes a patent (or a copyright) to
be invalid to file suit to have it voided. Very rare but it has happened.
> If I remember right, a patent can be challenged repeatedly, but a
> single loss in court is final, except for appeals of that case.
Once there is a reason for a patent to be found invalid, it's found
invalid. Unless an appeals court overturns the finding, that's the
end of the issue. (How many times can you be a virgin?)
> The patent office tend to view its role as that of a high-pass
> filter for the courts. The granting of a patent is not so much an
> endorsement as a statement that the applicant was persistent and the
> PO couldn't find a definitive reason not to grant the patent.
If that is the case, then it's time to start arguing that before the Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The CAFC is taking the stand that
most patents are validly issued and the Patent and Trademark Office knows
what it is doing. If it is defaulting on that judgement, it is time that
this be fixed.
> Another way of looking at this is that if they think they will be sued
> for issuance of a patent if they don't grant one, they grant it to keep
> the government out of court and let industry fight it out.
The Patent and Trademark Office is not "ministerial". That term refers to
an office that accepts filings in which it must accept unless there is a
technical defect. A county hall of records is a ministerial office. The
Copyright Office is ministerial; unless there is something missing it will
almost always grant a copyright registration.
> I'd like to see industry fight this one rather than cave in, but the
> usual tactic is to sue one company at a time. Other companies are
> often all too happy to have a competitor burdened with the cost and
> distraction of the lawsuit while they go after its business.
Are you suggesting doing a Schecter? From whom do you raise the money to
fight the case?
For those of you who have little or no history background, Schecter is the
name of a man who ran a small store, who sued the federal government. The
Supreme Court in _Schecter v. NRA_ ruled Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal
to be Unconstitutional. The question has always come up, who bankrolled
Schecter's lawsuit?
---
Note: All mail is read/responded every day. If a message is sent to this
account, and you expect a reply, if one is not received within 24 hours,
resend your message; some systems do not send mail to MCI Mail correctly.
Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
-----
The following Automatic Fortune Cookie was selected only for this message:
Minnie Mouse is a slow maze learner.
