decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
That's only a problem if you refuse to do a patent search or to ask.. | 117 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
That's only a problem if you refuse to do a patent search or to ask..
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 03:54 PM EDT
Roughly five years ago I was emailed a cease and desist for patent
infringement. AFAIK, the first time I read the email was a week ago.

In 1991, at a professional conference in the field, I outlined a proposal for
software that does everything laid out in the patent, except that instead of
using the Internet, it used either FidoNet, or Fidonet technology.

In 1996, I released the specifications for software that did everything
described in the patent, except communicating with other computers.

In 1997, I released a spreadsheet that incorporated most of the specs from the
1996 software.(Technically, vaporware.)

In 1997, the patent owner obtained the spreadsheet.

In 2001, the patent owner requested, and was given a list of refinements to the

1995 software specs.(The spreadsheets were not vaporware. The stand alone
program was vaporware.)

In 2003, I released an updated version of the spreadsheet. One that could, if
one had a powerful enough system, do everything described by, and intended
to be covered by the patent, but scan the required data, and communicate with
other computers. This was released before the patent was granted. It might
have been released before the patent was applied for.( I was abusng a
spreadsheet program as a database.)

The 2003 web implementation of the patent included the refinements from
my 2001 software specifications.

But I am the person allegedly infringing upon the 'invention'.

Care to explain why I should even consider paying royalties for the patent?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )