Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: townsend.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to townsend.com.

Comments · 7

  1. A couple of details by Grond · · Score: 5, Informative · on Webvention Demanding $80k For Rollover Images

    First, the application was filed in 1990, so prior art is going to be harder to come by than you might think.

    Second, the patent was already thrown into reexamination a month ago. Check reexam 90/011,229 on PAIR for the details. The law firm that filed the reexam request is Townsend, Townsend & Crew, which is a major IP firm. The request cites multiple pieces of prior art and looks pretty well put together. One of the first things the examiner did was try to call the patent owner for an interview. The examiner couldn't get ahold of them. That's a bad sign for the patent owner.

    Some of the prior art citations include HyperCard and HyperText.

    Third, courts have tended to temporarily halt litigation (a procedure called a stay) while they wait for the results of a reexamination. It's quite possible that this patent is about to die in the Patent Office without the lawsuits moving forward.

  2. You're in a really strong position by Animats · · Score: 1 · on "Licensing" of Already Delivered Software?
    under a written agreement to negotiate the license for that code from us once they got it working with their system.

    An agreement to agree is not an agreement. You're in a really strong position. But you may have trouble convincing the other party of that.

    When you need to do some heavy-duty convincing, go with one of the major intellectual property law firms. I use Townsend and Townsend and Crew. I've spent about $50K with them over the last decade, and it's been worth many times that.

  3. Replying to self... almost forgot... by pr0ntab · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Can Lotus Notes R3 Prior Art Save The Browser?

    Link to Townsend, Townsend and Crew website. These are also the guys who went up against Microsoft in the class action lawsuit in California.

    Maybe it's the law firm who wants to tackle Microsoft more than Doyle. Food for thought?

    ^_^

  4. Re:Binary version of Linux? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1 · on SCO Extorting Unixware Licenses to Linux Users?
    The possession of a work that infringes on a copyright does not appear to be a violation of the copyright laws at all.

    'Tis true, but I'd guess that SCO is thinking that they can still threaten companies based on the fact that most companies that are using Linux didn't buy a RedHat/SUSE/Mandrake/etc. CD from someone else for every computer they have running Linux today. Based on that SCO is asking for 'protection money' to save them having to spend a couple of lawyer-years defending themselves against SCO's probably frivolous lawsuit.

    Two lawyer-years in labour and fees will pay for a lot of SCO licenses.

    Yes, it's probably illegal, but it would take the Linux IP owners going after SCO to get that money back. (A good time to call in Townsend and Crew, maybe?

  5. Re:MS by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1 · on California Microsoft Settlement

    Each eligable person will get $16 per license for windows means that a company with 100 desktops will receive $1600.
    Single users might not appreciate such a small settlement, but larger organisations will be pleased at such a windfall.
    The rest of the settlement amounts are listed here

  6. Submit your claim against Microsoft now. by Animats · · Score: 1 · on CD Price-Fixing Suit Ruling
    Microsoft is settling a price-fixing claim in California by paying out $1.1 billion. Claim information is here. If you purchased one of the following Microsoft products February 18, 1995 through December 15, 2001, and, like most end users, you purchased it from someone other than Microsoft directly, you get:

    • Microsoft operating system software: (MS-DOS or Windows): $16.00 per license
    • Microsoft Office: $29.00 per license
    • Microsoft Excel: (if purchased separately from Office) $26.00 per license.
    • Microsoft Word: (if purchased separately from Office) $5.00 per license
    • Microsoft Works: $5.00 per license
  7. "Near the noise threshold" is the key one by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative · on Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science
    #3 is the most important one. Effects that stay near the noise threshold, even after much work, probably are noise. Parapsychology has been there for a century.

    This happens in Big Science, too. Neutrino detection experiments detect very few neutrinos. Most attempts to experimentally verify general relativity also have problems. (The precession of the orbit of Mercury is tiny, and mostly accounted for by effects from other planets.) But that work has been repeated multiple times using different techniques by different people, which yields some confidence. Still, there's no single killer result in either area.

    As for suppressed inventions, those are rare, but they do exist. A major attempt was made by MagneTek (later Universal Manufacturing), which made old-style inductive fluorescent lamp ballasts, to suppress the electronic fluorescent lamp ballast. Litigation resulted. The lone inventor won. The verdict was for about $96 million. This created the compact fluorescent lamp industry.