Julie Reardon
prosoft6 at hotmail.com
Wed Sep 12 08:02:29 CDT 2007
Jack, Such an interesting post. Thank you so much for you insight and your comments. We have all learned a lot, I am sure! I know that I did. Julie Reardon PRO-SOFT of NY, Inc. 44 Public Square, Suite 5 Watertown, NY 13601 Phone: 315.785.0319 Fax: 315.785.0323 NYS IT Contract#CMT026A NYS Certified Woman-Owned Business www.pro-soft.net -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Hale, Jim Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:17 PM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [AccessD] Database Patent Jack, It may be instructive for you to review the case history around Timeline's patents and their resulting gunfight with Microsoft. This dispute sounds very similar to your case, i.e. the patent office granting a patent on a database idea that was intrinsically obvious. Timeline worked very hard trying to force people to pay fees on what I thought at the time were fundamental database design concepts. I am not sure how much they ultimately obtained. Very interesting case as I recall: "Timeline's US Patent # 5,802,511; US Patent # 6,023,694; and US Patent # 6,026,392 (herein collectively the '511 patents) have been termed pioneer patents in the design and use of data marts and data warehouses. The '511 patents can apply to stand alone software products or combinations of software products." HTH Jim Hale Houston -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jack Stone Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 1:03 PM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [AccessD] Database Patent All, Hello, my name is Jack Stone, new to this forum. I am the patent, trademark, and copyright attorney that Rocky referred to that has the client who got the subject patent, and on whose patent my name is listed as the attorney of record. First, I want to express how extremely impressed I am, not only with the vast wealth of knowledge you guys collectively have, but also with how you are all so willing to take the time to share it, for which I am very grateful. As a patent attorney, I am certainly no expert in databases. I just represent a client before the Patent Office with whatever invention he/she has, and do my level best to get a patent for them. And with all the prior art that is apparently out there, I guess I did a good job with this one. So while I may not be an expert in databases, after reading the myriad of email responses that this patent has elicited, I am starting get the distinct impression that just maybe the Patent Office granted a patent that should not have been granted (it would not be the first time). However, in the defense of the Patent Office, when deciding on novelty (and "non-obviousness"), all the "prior art" they generally consider, or have the resources to consider, are other patents at the Patent Office. Hence, what some responses have alluded to as many people not pursuing patents when they could have, and as a result, the Patent Office not being fully aware of all the technology out there when granting a patent is, unfortunately, correct. If an inventor is aware of any prior art, he does have a duty to disclose it to the Patent Office, but my client was evidently not aware of any (he needs to join your forum). Having said all that, if the invention/technology is out there, but is not in the public domain, i.e., is kept as a trade secret, then it may be possible for a second inventor to get a patent on the invention if he/she subsequently independently develops it, and then charge the earlier inventor using it as a trade secret with infringement. Classic example is if someone independently comes up with the formula for Coca Cola, they could get a patent on it and shut down Coca Cola (that is, if they didn't have an "unfortunate" accident and end up face down in a ditch somewhere). But it sounds like the prior technology has not been kept as a trade secret, so my client may be SOL on that count. But the patent may still have some nuisance value, that is, even if it could ultimately be invalidated, it may cost a defendant a million dollars to do that, and so such a defendant may instead settle for $250,000 to be rid of it or even buy it. Who knows? I have seen stranger things happen. In this case, the client defaulted on payment of about $40,000 to our firm, and we obtained a court judgment against him for that amount. The client says he cannot pay us, so maybe we would be trying to squeeze blood from a turnip, which ain't gonna happen. So we were considering obtaining title to the patent, if it has any value. If it did, and any of you could help us distill that value from it, we would be pleased to let you keep whatever we can get for the patent in excess of the $40,000, or maybe work out some other arrangement if you would prefer. BTW, FWIW, my client is actually using the patented idea at http://www.webmusicdb.com, not exactly another YouTube. Re Drew's comment below, he is absolutely correct (except for a "design" which can sometimes be copyrighted), i.e., "You can't copyright an idea. You can copyright code, at any time, or a book (Actually, the text within the book). But an idea or design must be patented." But the problem with a copyright, especially on code, is that it is much more narrow than a patent, and so is generally easy to design around, and so is generally of little value. So we almost always advise clients to seek a patent on a function performed by code, and rarely ever advise someone to seek a copyright on code. Jack Stone Scheef & Stone, L.L.P. 5956 Sherry Lane, Suite 1400 Dallas, Texas 75225 Direct 214.706.4207 Main 214.706.4200 Fax 214.706.4242 jack.stone at scheefandstone.com *********************************************************************** The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. As a recipient of this email, you are responsible for screening its contents and the contents of any attachments for the presence of viruses. No liability is accepted for any damages caused by any virus transmitted by this email. -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com