nanog mailing list archives
Re: Reporting the state of an apparatus to a remote computer patented
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 21:44:11 +0200
* eddy+public+spam () noc everquick net (Edward B. Dreger) [Thu 05 Aug 2004, 19:28 CEST]: [prior art]
So why are Axeda and USPTO oblivious to all this?
The USPTO doesn't do due diligence research. This is only a small part of the reasons for the current patent mess, however. Axeda has no interest in finding prior art, they have an interest in people paying them money, preferably without having to go to court and possibly face defeat when their emperor turns out to have not been in full dress uniform after all. That won't get the defending party back the money they were forced to spend on the process of pointing that out, however. http://kwiki.ffii.org/SwpatcninoEn -- Niels. -- Today's subliminal thought is:
Current thread:
- Reporting the state of an apparatus to a remote computer patented Scott Whyte (Aug 04)
- Re: Reporting the state of an apparatus to a remote computer patented Dan Hollis (Aug 04)
- Re: Reporting the state of an apparatus to a remote computer patented Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (Aug 04)
- Re: Reporting the state of an apparatus to a remote computer patented Lucy E. Lynch (Aug 04)
- Re: Reporting the state of an apparatus to a remote computer patented Eric Kimminau (Aug 05)
- Re: Reporting the state of an apparatus to a remote computer patented William Allen Simpson (Aug 05)
- Re: Reporting the state of an apparatus to a remote computer patented David Lesher (Aug 05)
- Re: Reporting the state of an apparatus to a remote computer patented Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (Aug 04)
- Re: Reporting the state of an apparatus to a remote computer patented Dan Hollis (Aug 04)
- Re: Reporting the state of an apparatus to a remote computer patented Niels Bakker (Aug 05)
- Re: Reporting the state of an apparatus to a remote computer patented Edward B. Dreger (Aug 06)