Jackpot Federal Court Appeal won

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 11:57:23 +0100, Ian wrote:

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.05.29.03.54.26.45778@att.bizzzz...
On Sun, 29 May 2005 02:09:30 +0000, Ben Bradley wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2005 14:16:49 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:49:59 +1200, Terry Given wrote:
Tim Shoppa wrote:
....
hilarious stuff on bullshit patents. Most things have been thought
of before.

Some years ago, there was a newspaper or newsmagazine article on some
guy who accidentally patented the wheelbarrow. He had applied for one
on some kind of add-on swivel handles, to make it easier to dump, but
the patent office issued a patent for the whole thing.

How can that happen? The application spells out each thing that is
being claimed, how can the patent office issue something different?

Indeed. The "teachings" are a different beast than the "claims". The
teachings _may_ have described the wheelbarrow, but that doesn't mean
that a patent was issued for a "wheelbarrow". I want a cite here (a
patent number will do). This makes no sense at all.

I *think* this was Dyson (of vacuum cleaner fame), and what he patented
was the ball-barrow, where the wheel was replaced with a sphere with an
axle through it.

No, the one I'm talking about, the thing with the swivel handles to
make it easier to dump, was done before Dyson was a gleam in his old
man's eye.

Is this the Dyson who invented the vacuum cleaner that "accelerates
the dirt to a hundred thousand times the force of gravity"? Some idle
rich boy, no doubt. Imagine, getting a patent on the wheel!

Maybe I should patent fire, and get a royalty every time somebody
turns on the gas grill! Yeah! That's it! ;-P

Jim Thompson's grill will be safe, though, because charcoal/mesquite burns
without an open flame. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 23:22:16 +0000, Ben Bradley wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:50:26 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 10:19:14 -0700, Walter Harley wrote:
"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message

Ok, USD341635 is pretty weak (though I think Mr. Potatohead is prior art
. I don't see anything that comes close to telling one how to "grow
brocolli" (sic):

Are invalidated patents kept in the database and remain searchable?
This is the story I was thinking of. Perntinent quote: "Patent
#5,968,567 (along with #5,725,895 and #5,968,505) gave the JHU Drs. sole
rights to Broccoli Sprout production."

http://www.sproutpeople.com/print/broc.html

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,968,567.WKU.&OS=PN/5,968,567&RS=PN/5,968,567
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,725,895.WKU.&OS=PN/5,725,895&RS=PN/5,725,895
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,968,505.WKU.&OS=PN/5,968,505&RS=PN/5,968,505

And, if you want to try for yourself, visit http://www.uspto.gov .

Cheers!
Rich

 

[keith]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:24:53 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 11:57:23 +0100, Ian wrote:
"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.05.29.03.54.26.45778@att.bizzzz...
On Sun, 29 May 2005 02:09:30 +0000, Ben Bradley wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2005 14:16:49 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:49:59 +1200, Terry Given wrote:
Tim Shoppa wrote:
...
hilarious stuff on bullshit patents. Most things have been thought
of before.

Some years ago, there was a newspaper or newsmagazine article on some
guy who accidentally patented the wheelbarrow. He had applied for one
on some kind of add-on swivel handles, to make it easier to dump, but
the patent office issued a patent for the whole thing.

How can that happen? The application spells out each thing that is
being claimed, how can the patent office issue something different?

Indeed. The "teachings" are a different beast than the "claims". The
teachings _may_ have described the wheelbarrow, but that doesn't mean
that a patent was issued for a "wheelbarrow". I want a cite here (a
patent number will do). This makes no sense at all.

I *think* this was Dyson (of vacuum cleaner fame), and what he patented
was the ball-barrow, where the wheel was replaced with a sphere with an
axle through it.

No, the one I'm talking about, the thing with the swivel handles to
make it easier to dump, was done before Dyson was a gleam in his old
man's eye.

Ok, come up with the number. I'm interested in such foolishness, if it
indeed is. A USPTO number works...

Is this the Dyson who invented the vacuum cleaner that "accelerates the
dirt to a hundred thousand times the force of gravity"? Some idle rich
boy, no doubt. Imagine, getting a patent on the wheel!

The marketeering is certainly suspect, but the product does as advertised.
It's a cut above the crap we've bought before.

Maybe I should patent fire, and get a royalty every time somebody turns
on the gas grill! Yeah! That's it! ;-P

Jim Thompson's grill will be safe, though, because charcoal/mesquite
burns without an open flame. ;-)

Talking through your ass again? Watch the flames!

Perhaps it would help to discuss actual cases, rather than ranting against
strawmen. I know it makes you lefty-loonies cum ranting against anything
"government", particularly when there is an 'R' in control of *anythign*
(nothing?), but it rarely helps to solve anything. DO keep ranting
though, you'll continue to be marginalized.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:57:40 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

<snip>

It does give the upper hand. The courts tend to believe the USPTO knows
what it's doing. How many judges (or jurrors) know a circuit from a
broccoli?

Actually, except for battles royale between the really big guys who
have money and lawyers to burn, most patent disputes are settled via
arbitration.

Sure. That's exactly what worries me about this silly talk in public
forums like this. The USPTO is indeed badly broken, but it doesn't help
that such nonsense is thrown about by those who are intimitely inovolved.
The biggies want to fix things too, but it would be nice if the "fix"
weren't "in" the next time around.

Personally, I don't see it as a huge fix either, but talking like it's a
waste and should be gotten rid of is rather silly, IMO.

The arbitration panels are typically patent attorneys with specialties
in the area of dispute.

I've served as expert witness on many of these.

One particular case comes to mind where I warned the client that the
panel might ask a certain question. "If they do, I can not lie, and
you're doomed."

You weren't impressed by their "cigar"?

I suggested that the client consider a settlement, but they declined.

Silly. You told them they were doomed.

The arbitrators asked the deadly question, and my clients lost, just as
predicted.

Then I had to threaten suit to get paid ;-)

Did you expect otherwise?

--
Keith

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:52:43 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:24:53 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

[snip]

The marketeering is certainly suspect, but the product does as advertised.
It's a cut above the crap we've bought before.

Maybe I should patent fire, and get a royalty every time somebody turns
on the gas grill! Yeah! That's it! ;-P

Jim Thompson's grill will be safe, though, because charcoal/mesquite
burns without an open flame. ;-)

However propane doesn't ;-)

Talking through your ass again? Watch the flames!

Hey!! Someone hold Grise down and I'll pump him full of propane, then
someone can strike the match near his asshole when we turn loose of
him ;-)

Perhaps it would help to discuss actual cases, rather than ranting against
strawmen. I know it makes you lefty-loonies cum ranting against anything
"government", particularly when there is an 'R' in control of *anythign*
(nothing?), but it rarely helps to solve anything. DO keep ranting
though, you'll continue to be marginalized.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:02:19 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:57:40 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

snip



It does give the upper hand. The courts tend to believe the USPTO knows
what it's doing. How many judges (or jurrors) know a circuit from a
broccoli?

Actually, except for battles royale between the really big guys who
have money and lawyers to burn, most patent disputes are settled via
arbitration.

Sure. That's exactly what worries me about this silly talk in public
forums like this. The USPTO is indeed badly broken, but it doesn't help
that such nonsense is thrown about by those who are intimitely inovolved.
The biggies want to fix things too, but it would be nice if the "fix"
weren't "in" the next time around.

Patent Judges _aren't_ technically incompetent.

Personally, I don't see it as a huge fix either, but talking like it's a
waste and should be gotten rid of is rather silly, IMO.

The arbitration panels are typically patent attorneys with specialties
in the area of dispute.

I've served as expert witness on many of these.

One particular case comes to mind where I warned the client that the
panel might ask a certain question. "If they do, I can not lie, and
you're doomed."

You weren't impressed by their "cigar"?

I suggested that the client consider a settlement, but they declined.

They had a settlement offer from the other side... they just didn't
have the sense to take it.

Silly. You told them they were doomed.

The arbitrators asked the deadly question, and my clients lost, just as
predicted.

Then I had to threaten suit to get paid ;-)

Did you expect otherwise?

We were midway into the thing when I realized that the "big lie" was
in play.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[keith]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:04:19 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:52:43 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:24:53 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

[snip]

The marketeering is certainly suspect, but the product does as advertised.
It's a cut above the crap we've bought before.

Maybe I should patent fire, and get a royalty every time somebody turns
on the gas grill! Yeah! That's it! ;-P

Jim Thompson's grill will be safe, though, because charcoal/mesquite
burns without an open flame. ;-)

However propane doesn't ;-)


Talking through your ass again? Watch the flames!

Hey!! Someone hold Grise down and I'll pump him full of propane, then
someone can strike the match near his asshole when we turn loose of
him ;-)

He's already pretty light-headed.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:18:36 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:02:19 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:57:40 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

snip



It does give the upper hand. The courts tend to believe the USPTO knows
what it's doing. How many judges (or jurrors) know a circuit from a
broccoli?

Actually, except for battles royale between the really big guys who
have money and lawyers to burn, most patent disputes are settled via
arbitration.

Sure. That's exactly what worries me about this silly talk in public
forums like this. The USPTO is indeed badly broken, but it doesn't help
that such nonsense is thrown about by those who are intimitely inovolved.
The biggies want to fix things too, but it would be nice if the "fix"
weren't "in" the next time around.

Patent Judges _aren't_ technically incompetent.

Dunno! The RMBS case is certainly one that speaks otherwise.

<snip>

Then I had to threaten suit to get paid ;-)

Did you expect otherwise?

We were midway into the thing when I realized that the "big lie" was
in play.

So they were to "big" to cut their losses? Did they know about the "big
lie"? ...or did you "discover" it?

--
Keith

 

[Paul Burke]

keith wrote:

A lot of really *great* ideas are "blindingly obvious" once you've seen
them. This isn't a fair measure of "patent-worthyness".

One of my favourites is the sprung telescopic tube to hold a
threadmaking tap at right angles to the workpiece. For two hundred
years, apprentices have been taught to start the tap in the hole, then
eye it up from all sides, adjusting it until truly perpendicular, before
completing the thread. The someone sees the obvious, and there's simply
no skill to it anymore.

Paul Burke

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:47:15 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:18:36 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:02:19 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:57:40 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

snip



It does give the upper hand. The courts tend to believe the USPTO knows
what it's doing. How many judges (or jurrors) know a circuit from a
broccoli?

Actually, except for battles royale between the really big guys who
have money and lawyers to burn, most patent disputes are settled via
arbitration.

Sure. That's exactly what worries me about this silly talk in public
forums like this. The USPTO is indeed badly broken, but it doesn't help
that such nonsense is thrown about by those who are intimitely inovolved.
The biggies want to fix things too, but it would be nice if the "fix"
weren't "in" the next time around.

Patent Judges _aren't_ technically incompetent.

Dunno! The RMBS case is certainly one that speaks otherwise.

snip

Then I had to threaten suit to get paid ;-)

Did you expect otherwise?

We were midway into the thing when I realized that the "big lie" was
in play.

So they were too "big" to cut their losses?

They certainly were greedy.

Did they know about the "big
lie"?

I think they did, but didn't tell me.

...or did you "discover" it?

I caught it by doing some simulations as I built my presentation for
the arbitration panel.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:04:19 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:52:43 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:24:53 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
Maybe I should patent fire, and get a royalty every time somebody turns
on the gas grill! Yeah! That's it! ;-P

Jim Thompson's grill will be safe, though, because charcoal/mesquite
burns without an open flame. ;-)

Thompson wrote:

However propane doesn't ;-)

"keith" wrote:

Talking through your ass again? Watch the flames!

Then Thompson wrote:

Hey!! Someone hold Grise down and I'll pump him full of propane, then
someone can strike the match near his asshole when we turn loose of him
;-)

Mister Thompson, I'd thank you to refrain from attributing other people's
words to me.

Please learn to quote, and attribute, properly.

Is this clear?

Oh, yeah - by the way, I've had "keith" killfiled for some months now.

Thank you,
Rich Grise

P.S. I do note that your propensity for gratuitous violence has not
mellowed. It'd be nice if you'd act your age.

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:04:19 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:52:43 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

Talking through your ass again? Watch the flames!

Hey!! Someone hold Grise down and I'll pump him full of propane, then
someone can strike the match near his asshole when we turn loose of him
;-)
...Jim Thompson

Fuckhead.
--
The Pig Bladder from Uranus

 

[keith]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:38:45 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:04:19 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:52:43 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:24:53 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
Maybe I should patent fire, and get a royalty every time somebody turns
on the gas grill! Yeah! That's it! ;-P

Jim Thompson's grill will be safe, though, because charcoal/mesquite
burns without an open flame. ;-)

Thompson wrote:
However propane doesn't ;-)

"keith" wrote:
Talking through your ass again? Watch the flames!

Then Thompson wrote:
Hey!! Someone hold Grise down and I'll pump him full of propane, then
someone can strike the match near his asshole when we turn loose of him
;-)

Mister Thompson, I'd thank you to refrain from attributing other people's
words to me.

Where?

Please learn to quote, and attribute, properly.

Learn how to count attribution marks.

Is this clear?

Apparently transparent.

Oh, yeah - by the way, I've had "keith" killfiled for some months now.

I'm *so* hurt. <snif>

Thank you,
Rich Grise

P.S. I do note that your propensity for gratuitous violence has not
mellowed. It'd be nice if you'd act your age.

Wow, that's rich, Rich.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 07:40:05 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:47:15 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:18:36 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:02:19 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:57:40 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

snip



It does give the upper hand. The courts tend to believe the USPTO knows
what it's doing. How many judges (or jurrors) know a circuit from a
broccoli?

Actually, except for battles royale between the really big guys who
have money and lawyers to burn, most patent disputes are settled via
arbitration.

Sure. That's exactly what worries me about this silly talk in public
forums like this. The USPTO is indeed badly broken, but it doesn't help
that such nonsense is thrown about by those who are intimitely inovolved.
The biggies want to fix things too, but it would be nice if the "fix"
weren't "in" the next time around.

Patent Judges _aren't_ technically incompetent.

Dunno! The RMBS case is certainly one that speaks otherwise.

snip

Then I had to threaten suit to get paid ;-)

Did you expect otherwise?

We were midway into the thing when I realized that the "big lie" was
in play.

So they were too "big" to cut their losses?

They certainly were greedy.

Did they know about the "big
lie"?

I think they did, but didn't tell me.

Well, that would have been pretty stupid of them.

...or did you "discover" it?

I caught it by doing some simulations as I built my presentation for
the arbitration panel.

Ah, so it *was* your fault! ;-) More information would be interesting
though.

--
Keith


--
Keith

 

[The Real Andy]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 21:27:33 +1000, The Real Andy
<will_get_back_to_you_on_This> wrote:

Perhaps I wont need that floating point library for the rabbit yet!

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2005/90.html

BTW, i dont work for jupiters. Jupiters was purchased by TabCorp, who
subsequently disolved all hardware operations. The whole industry is
watching however.