From: Steven Pollack (StevenP@DigitalJeweler.NET)
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 00:58:35 EEST
The flipside of that position is if you had invented something useful, filed
for a patent, but not gotten around to reducing it to practice due to
anything from technology development or funding, should someone else be
allowed to infringe who is ready to come to market?
I realize that was not your position but it might be the natural consequence
of your expressed feelings.
Steven
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bathsheba Grossman" <sheba@bathsheba.com>
To: <rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: homemade inkjet printer head
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 PENQUAKR74@aol.com wrote:
> > My following comments are qualified by my 20 plus years of experience as
a
> > patent licensing professional for the Electric Power Research Institute,
the
> > University of California, and Manager of Technology Commercialization
and
> > Licensing for SRI International:
>
> Thanks much for participating - it's great to hear from somebody who
> knows what they're talking about. :-)
>
> > Whether a patent holder will go after someone with a homemade system
depends
> > on the level of harm that might be done to his market position. If
homemade
> > RP machines were to become a serious threat to his market, then it would
in
> > his best interest to prosecute at least one "sorry ass" to make a point.
The
> > other reason that a patent HAS to prosecute an infringer is that in
order to
> > maintain his patent rights as exclusive, he must enforce his patent
rights.
> > I have many cases that I can cite where a patent holder used
preventative
> > measures to go after the smallest offenders to avoid a costly legal
battle
> > down the road.
>
> Even I have heard of this kind of thing, especially in the context of
> software patents.
>
> What irks me about the Solidscape situation is that they have, as far
> as one can tell, no intention of adapting the wax-drop/soluble-support
> method to produce larger objects. (This makes a certain amount of
> sense, since there's so much competition in the 2"-12" size range, but
> in my opinion there's a niche open in that no process makes completely
> burnable parts _and_ fully supports undercutting. Which, of course,
> is what I need.)
>
> Obviously I don't want to step on anyone's legal toes, but if
> Solidscape is committed to making and protecting a narrow application -
> to micro objects only - of a method that could be more broadly useful,
> I hope I can be forgiven for feeling that a resource is being wasted.
>
> --
> -Sheba
> Bathsheba Grossman (831) 429-8224
> Sculpture bathsheba.com
> Creative prototyping protoshape.com
>
>
> For more information about the rp-ml, see http://rapid.lpt.fi/rp-ml/
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://rapid.lpt.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 20:13:52 EET