Slashdot Mirror
Chip Firm Hit By 45-Year-Old Patent
JPMH writes "The Register is reporting that a Taiwanese chip foundry is being sued over two chemistry patents, one over 45 years old. The patents at issue were filed in 1957 and 1964, but are still in force because they were not granted until 1987 and 1992 respectively. The first patent, 4,702,808, details an apparatus and method for initiating chemical reactions by focusing "radiant energy, such as a laser" onto streams of particles. The second patent, 5,131,941 also details an apparatus and method for initiating chemical reactions, but this time radiation is used to provide the energy kick needed to get the compounds to interact."
Dear Engineers,
Somebody power up one of the lasers and aim at the plaintiff's attorneys.
Thank you,
Geeks for Tort Reform
--
Closing Windows. Opening Eyes.
Linux-Universe
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
General Motors is suing competing manufacturers of the so-called `horseless carriage' for infringing their patent 236635849, which specifies a way in which the `wheel' - a flat, cylindrical object - can be used for the motion and transportation of people and inanimate objects.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
What? You mean Jiffy Pop popcorn wasn't the first one to patent this technique?
This may be a death rattle for Lemelson's submrine patents. The dead "inventor" recently had suits thrown out on this issue. Basically, under prosecution laches, they are charged with gaming the system deliberately or without any reasonable reason. Fortunately, this old trick is harder to perform now that patent terms run from the date of filing (with some possible adjustments) instead of date of issuance.
See, before the 1990's, patents took decades to be approved. They've now gone and made things work the other way, approving them too fast now.
Can someone *PLEASE* find a happy medium between friggin fast and damned slow?
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
This quote is from Yale Office of Cooperative Research
You are partially correct the laser was "officially" invented in 1958 - however the maser was invented in 1953 (microwaves instead of visible light) The laser was at the time a predictable outgrowth - and was theorized to be possible. The patent in question mentions radiation in general, as well as lasers radiation. So while it seems amazing that somone could have that much foresight, its not improbable.
I'm bloody sick of SHIT made in turd world countries....
Third world countries are defined as being export-only, pre-industrial nation states. If things werent made and exported from third world countries, they wouldn't be third world countries, now would they?
Go read a book.
So far we have patents for Fire and the Wheel.
I'm going to claim the patent for Baked Bread.
I guess the first company I'm going to SCO is McDonalds. They have untill Friday to stop making hamburger rolls. Otherwise I'm going to revoke their license.
Then after I take out the big guy, I'm going to go after Wonder Bread.
Huh?
You avoid any patents on anything you have dreamed up by PUBLISHING IT, even on the internet!
No matter how stupid it sounds, put it in writing, crude drawings or both.
Once you publish, it's PRIOR ART and unpatentable!
The irony which you have to admire is that US citizens hate importing shit cuz they lose jobs. But US industry loves it because instead of paying a skilled labourer say 15$/h or whatnot they can get a way with "we won't kill your family today" as a wage in a third world asian country.
What I don't get though, aren't US industry leaders also US citizens? So basically they steal jobs from their neighbours to support slave labour. And we admire these people as "famous CNN headshots" because???
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
And in other news the reaction of lightning and amino acids has been patented. All life is being requested to "pay up or die."
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
I've been researching my own patent recently so this is interesting.
Wow, so they managed to keep it pending for 40 or so years. Most impressive. I understand it's actually better to do it that way because once you patent the technology becomes available for reverse-engineering. I thought you could only keep it patent pending for about six years though.
It appears that you can but that the legal ground is a little shaky. Current jurisprudence appears to indicate that this'll get thrown unless unless the chip company caves and settles.
I haven't read the article (my bad!) but a U.S. patent gives you the right to sue importers of infringing goods. I assume the two Taiwanese companies were importing their "infringing" chips into the U.S.
Ever notice that most of those people who are in power are ex-lawyers?
Ever notice that contract language has grown increasingly more complicated over the years, as a means of ensuring lawyer income?
Ever notice the increase in responsibility-declaiming lawsuits over the years, as lawyers take any bullshit to court as a means of ensuring their income?
Ever notice that judges are allowing more and more of these cases, as a means to ensure their continued employment?
It's the slow death of a society, crushed by the weight of a useless population of lawyers who can only feed off the harm they cause to others.
We want to save ourselves, we gotta fire up those frickin laser beams already. Time for some BBQ!
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Actually the wheel was patent #2, not #23663589.
Patent #1, of course, was "a method of rapidly oxidizing combustible materials using concentrated heat and oxygen."
And the "wheel" came before patent #3, which was "A method and appararatus for creating regular rectangular subdivisions of a yeast byproduct-enhanced grain based matrix."
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
These patents were created by Jerome Lemelson "The Patent King" Fortune Magazine ran a very long article on his exploits two years ago:
Okay...so if the patent is 45 years old (1958) but was patented in 1987, I see a big catch-22.
If the patent does not start until 1987, then anything doing this from before 1987 should now be prior art.
If anything from before 1987 is not considered prior art because the patent was created in 1958, then the patent should be enforced from that date, not the 1987 date, and therefore expired.
Oh...sorry Government and sense...my bad
These actions are almost universally seen by practitioners as abuses of the patent system, NOT as appropriate uses. Thankfully, in most instances current PTO procedure prevents these abuses. However, this type of prosecution tactic, even though it resulted in a patent issuing, still may not ultimately be successful because of a doctrine called "prosecution laches."
Generally, the doctrine of laches applies to protect a defendant when a plaintiff has sat on its rights for too long. The doctrine of prosecution history laches, very simply put, states that a patentee who has delayed prosection for too long may not enforce its patent once it issues. I am not saying that this is the case here; that is for a court to decide. But I do feel the need to note that this doctrine was recently "revived" by courts after a long period during which the doctrine was never even discussed, much less applied.
You may wonder who the patent holder was in the case that recently "revived" the doctrine of prosecution history laches. His name, I believe, is Jerome Lemelson.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
lemelson, the patent originator, should be well known to the slashdot crowd, but on the internet, institutional memory is an oxymoron
the delay in patent filing is not due to USPTO ineptitude. rather, this is classic lemelson tactics:
for an example, google for "lemelson" and "machine vision." (here's a link for the google impaired.) briefly, lemelson patented the idea that some sort of machine could do quality inspection of items coming off of an assembly line. he had no invention, he had a wish. he ammended and ammended and ammended that patent for 30 years before it was accepted. in the meantime, laser bar code readers had been invented (by someone else), and he had changed the wording on his patent application to include that technological development. Viola! he invented laser bar code readers, ex post facto, and his estate went on a suing spree.
FWIW, the USPTO changed the policies that allowed this in the mid 90s. still sucks.
Fermat's other theorem: "I have a simple proof, but I can't write it down as I fear it's a DMCA violation to discuss it"