In article <ddtdha$pfs$1@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM>, Scott Moore <samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> writes>boB Gudgel wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:11:18 -0700, Scott Moore >> <samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote: >> >> >>>Joe Butler wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets? >>>> >>>>Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're >>>>out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged >>>>patents should be removed from their position? >>>> >>>>Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing of >>>>dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can have? >>>>If not, it should be. >>>> >>> >>>Let's see. The patent office makes lots of money on issuing patents and >>>maintaining them, so much so that congress is tapping the USPO for funds >>>to run other government functions. If the patent office issues a "bad" >>>patent, such as two patents that clearly duplicate each other (which >>>has occurred often), not only does it take years before such patents >>>are ruled invalid, but the USPO suffers no penalties for issuing such >>>patents. They don't even have to refund fees charged for the invalidated >>>patent. >>> >>>Now, WHY should the USPO care about bad patents ? >> >> >> >> Right on ! The patent system is definately broken. It's good for >> the patent office and the government monetarily, but bad for us >> who have to prove our competition wrong to make them go away >> and stop hounding us. (which I've done before) >> >> BTW, does the patent examiner really look for prior art these days ? >> I think that ~maybe~ they look at ~some~ patents, but I'm not sure >> about prior art and published papers etc... >> >> boB >> > >From what I have seen, patent examiners do a good job. Remember Einstein >was a patent examiner.But where? In the US or Germany? The US system AFAIK is different to the German/UK/Euro ones -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Microchip looses the plot ?
Started by ●August 12, 2005
Reply by ●August 16, 20052005-08-16
Reply by ●August 16, 20052005-08-16
Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> schrubbelte:>In article <ddtdha$pfs$1@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM>, Scott Moore ><samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> writes >>> >> >>From what I have seen, patent examiners do a good job. Remember Einstein >>was a patent examiner. > >But where? In the US or Germany? >Switzerland :-) -peter --
Reply by ●August 16, 20052005-08-16
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:28:31 -0700, Scott Moore <samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote:>I buy coffee from Mcdonald's. In fact, thats about all I buy from them, >their food is atrocious. I figured out rapidly that their coffee is >extraordinarily hot. I never attributed it to anything other than >that Mcdonalds was trying to overcome the typical issue with fast food >restaurants that the coffee temperature comes to you all over the map, >from lukewarm to hot. I think the first time I got it, a slightly burned >tounge was all that I needed to realize that the coffee needed to sit >in the cup holder of the car while it cooled off. > >This lady was handling hot coffee while driving a car. Why didn't she also >sue the car company for not having a warning on the dashboard not to >handle food while driving ?Bone up on the facts a little before you spout nonsense. 1) She was a passenger, not the driver. 2) The car was parked. 3) The woman received third degree burns over more than 6% of her body, requiring a seven-day hospital stay including whirlpool treatments, debriding (look it up), and skin grafts. 4) Before contacting a lawyer or filing suit, she tried to settle with McDonalds for her medical expenses -- about $20,000. Were you aware that contact with the coffee at the temperature McDonalds served it would cause a third degree (full thickness) burn within two to seven seconds? McDonalds was. They had reports of over 700 incidents, several similar to the subject case, and had spent about $500,000 settling some of them. After she brought suit, two mediators recommended McDonalds settle for about $230,000. McDonalds refused. At trial, a McDonalds executive admitted the company knew its coffee was served at a temperature about 20 degrees (F) higher than most restaurants, and that the possibility of severe burns was much greater at that temperature, but decided to do nothing about it. McDonalds knew of the risk and knew scores of injured customers, but did nothing to mitigate the chance of injury. The jury found compensatory damages in the subject incident of $200,000, of which McDonalds was found to be 80% responsible, reducing the award to $160,000. The remaining damages were for the company's "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct." The amount ($2,700,000) was chosen as representing the company's revenue for 2 days worth of coffee sales. The award was reduced on appeal to less than $500,000. And was subsequently settled (secretly) out of court to avoid further appeals. I'm no fan of frivolous lawsuits, but IHMO, this ain't one of them. McDonalds knew there was a problem, had several opportunities to get out from under it, but through corporate inertia (or just plain arrogance) decided not to. Regards, -=Dave -- Change is inevitable, progress is not.
Reply by ●August 16, 20052005-08-16
Chris Hills wrote:> Scott Moore <samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> writes >... snip ...>> >> From what I have seen, patent examiners do a good job. Remember >> Einstein was a patent examiner. > > But where? In the US or Germany?Helvetia :-) -- "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
Reply by ●August 17, 20052005-08-17
Scott Moore wrote:> > From what I have seen, patent examiners do a good job. Remember Einstein > was a patent examiner.O si sic omnes!
Reply by ●August 17, 20052005-08-17
"Dave Hansen" <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:430242ac.358874421@news.ispnetbilling.com...> > I'm no fan of frivolous lawsuits, but IHMO, this ain't one of them. > McDonalds knew there was a problem, had several opportunities to get > out from under it, but through corporate inertia (or just plain > arrogance) decided not to.However, the urban legend charges on. To test this theory, call up your local radio talk show. You can bend any conversation into the topic of the McDonald's lawsuit.
Reply by ●August 17, 20052005-08-17
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:11:09 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote:>"Dave Hansen" <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:430242ac.358874421@news.ispnetbilling.com... >> >> I'm no fan of frivolous lawsuits, but IHMO, this ain't one of them. >> McDonalds knew there was a problem, had several opportunities to get >> out from under it, but through corporate inertia (or just plain >> arrogance) decided not to. > >However, the urban legend charges on. To test this theory, call up your >local radio talk show. You can bend any conversation into the topic of the >McDonald's lawsuit.This is because: (1) there was a concerted 'talking point' effort to make this case into something it wasn't, in some cases for other agendas; and (2) people are generally very lazy, don't want to do research or bother to study facts before coming to conclusions (which I argue were shaped by some with malice aforethought), and (3) they do not take serious responsibility for their own opinions -- thinking in some vague and confused way that "an equal right to an opinion is equivalent to having an equal opinion," which is definitely not true. As I like to remind people, "If you're willing to be selective in the evidence you consider, you could reasonably conclude that the earth is flat." Comprehensiveness is a rare commodity in people. Jon
Reply by ●September 4, 20052005-09-04
Jim Granville wrote:> This in the news: > > "Microchip sues Zilog over 8-pin microcontrollers" ><snip>> 5,847,450 Granted December 8, 1998 > Microcontroller having an n-bit data bus width with less than n I/O pins> Prediction: This silliness will make Microhip a laughing stock in the > engineering area, and probably not make their stock holders too happy > either. > > They are going to have to sue Atmel, Fairchild, Philips ( and others ) > as well..... this will be amusing to follow. [What _was_ Steve thinking?]An Update on this entertainment: Zilog have appointed lawyers [ to waste money on fighting this plain-nonsense ] : http://investor.zilog.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=107835&p=irol-newsArticle&t=Regular&id=748736&ticker=ZILG&script=410&layout=0 but perhaps more significant, is this NEW expansion of the MSP430 family from TI : http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/msp430f2013.html?DCMP=MSP430&HQS=Other+PR+msp430expansion The astute will realise that this moves the 16 bit MSP430, inside the coverage of the '450 patent, as the new members have only 14 pins [10 i/o < 16] ! Now, Microchip will have to sue TI as well !! - they really have bitten off more than they can chew on this path. Also, the WHOLE smartcard market will have to be sued, as they universally have IO pins less than the internal data bus width.... Q: Will this ever actually make it into open court, or will Steve wake up, and quickly move to stem Microchip further embarrasment ? -jg
Reply by ●September 4, 20052005-09-04
In article <431b6b5e$1@clear.net.nz>, Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> writes> >Also, the WHOLE smartcard market will have to be sued, as they >universally have IO pins less than the internal data bus width....The smart cards use the ISO 7816 defined interface. SO Microchip will have to take on ISO. In any event it is just the serial port + power lines+ clock that is on a smart card it is an interface like RS232 or Centronics. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●September 5, 20052005-09-05
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:37:47 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:>In article <431b6b5e$1@clear.net.nz>, Jim Granville ><no.spam@designtools.co.nz> writes >> >>Also, the WHOLE smartcard market will have to be sued, as they >>universally have IO pins less than the internal data bus width.... > >The smart cards use the ISO 7816 defined interface. SO Microchip will >have to take on ISO. In any event it is just the serial port + power >lines+ clock that is on a smart card it is an interface like RS232 or >Centronics.Arn't there some 32 bit MCUs with less than 32 I/O pins ? Wont they also fall under this patent ? Regards Anton Erasmus
