> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com wrote: > > The valid reason for ignoring them is that the patent > owners seem unwilling > > to disclose exactly what they own. > > Patents (although not patent applications) are public information, so > there should be no question about this, aside from the need > to find the > relevant patents and interpret the often-obscure verbiage. Of course, > it's helpful if the owners are willing to discuss the details. Patent applications are not public information. I may (or may not) have filled a submarine patent on any of the technology involved in any specification and just not tell you. I don't even have to do any inventing, I could just perjure myself to the patent office then wait till your startup files an IPO and file a lawsuit a couple of days before the launch, unless of course you give me a couple hundred thousand shares. Unfortunately for you, you could not do that without risking violating a patent application that I might have filed. Another risk for academics who file patents on my work is that my current policy is to consider any patent claim that covers work that I have performed previously without reference to my prior art to be a prima-facie case of plagarism and make the appropriate complaint to their university. Alledged owners of alledged patents have on numerous occasions made claims to technologies that are not covered by a patent. We can all remember the famous statement by Jim Bizdos concerning the claim that the Stanford DH patent covered RSA. Phill
Phillip Hallam-Baker (E-mail).vcf