ich sehe das nur als schmutziges Geschäftsgebaren. Wenn beispielsweise ein Firma für chemische Produkte ein Patent hält, für das ich, weil ich es verletze, nun Lizenzgebüren zahlen soll, dann werde ich als erstes meinen Kumpel beim Umweltamt anrufen und ihn bitten: fühl doch den Jungs mal auf den Zahn!

Natürlich auch noch eine Meldung publik machen: "Umweltanmt prüft Sicherheit bei Musterchemie!"

...meine bescheidene Meinung zu diesem Thema.

Schönes Wochenende!


PS: Schon allein diese Formulierung: "Könnte jeden Computer, den Amerikaner kaufen teurer machen." Ja liebe Leute, wenn es das Patent nicht gäbe, dann stünden die Computer immer noch im Steinzeitalter, also unter 12mHz Taktfrequenz und gerade billig waren Computer in 1996 auch nicht.
Abenteurer

klar ein Ausverkauft. Kennst ja meine Meinung zu solchen Ereignissen: Erst regnet es kräftig und am nächsten Tag scheint die Sonne - manchmal auch erst 2 Tage später.

und noch ander Buchstaben, kann heute irgendwie nicht schreiben.
(120mHz muss es lauten.)

Umsätze am Freitag. Habe 130.000 Shares ergattern können. Leider kam dann die Pubat-Meldung und hat die schöne Kursentwicklung negativ beeinflusst. Bin gespannt was diese Woche bringt.Neue Lizenznehmer und massive Käufe von Pohl und Co könnten das Vertrauen der Anleger verbessern.

Ich hatte auch noch ein paar Euronen investiert in der Hoffnung das jetzt so langsam der Zug anrollt.

Die Mediation wird ja nicht ohne Grund angeregt.

Dann kam leider diese dubiose Pubat-Meldung und damit das Ende der Rallye.

Der Zeitpunkt kam sehr...nennen wir es "unglücklich".

greetz joker

zufällig kam die Pubat-Meldung nach der Verkündung der Mediation und nachdem der Kurs den
ersten Ausbruch für dieses Jahr unternahm.
Komischer Zufall an den ich nicht so recht glauben mag.Wer hat da wohl Regie geführt ?
Habe noch immer das Gefühl, daß uns eine Übernahme von PTSC durch einen Großen bevorsteht. Ist aber reine Spekulation von mir.

vor.

Es gab gute Umsätze und der Kurs brach richtig aus und dann das...

Ich bin mir persönlich noch nicht im klaren von wem dies eventuell (zeitlich) so gesteuert worden ist.
Kann u.U. PTSC ein Interesse haben,das der Kurs noch nicht ausbricht?

Wie ich gelesen habe hat ein Mitarbeiter von TPL früher wohl bei einer Firma gearbeitet die Pubat sponsert.Kann alles reiner Zufall sein,ein fader Beigeschmack bleibt trotzdem.

Ich war mir so sicher das der Ausbruch klappt und dann so etwas??!!

Irgendwie steht hier was im Raum das nicht greifbar ist.Ich kann das nicht beschreiben.

greetz joker

P.S.
Glückwunsch an dich als Handballfan!Ich habe mir zwischen dem Schalke Spiel immer wieder umgeschaltet um das Endspiel zu sehen.
Das war echt eine klasse Leistung!
Ich hoffe der Flensburger Pole ist nicht zu sehr geknickt;-)

ja das war ein tolles Fest für unsere Sportart. Leider war das Endspiel weder spannend noch hochklassik. Aber nach 10 Spielen in 17 Tagen waren wohl alle am Ende ihrer Kräfte.
Zwei aus unserer  Mannschaft wurden in das Allstar Team gewählt. Nicht schlecht für unsere kleine Stadt.

Unkonzentriertheiten auf den Kräfteverschleiss zurückzuführen waren.

Ich bin mal gespannt ob der Handball in Deutschland dadurch einen weiteren Schub bekommt.

Verdient hätte er es nach einer solch guten Leistung .

Der nächste höherklassige Handballverein in meiner Nähe ist HSV Düsseldorf und Bayer Dormagen (2.Liga).Ich habe mich aber noch nicht durchringen können da mal hinzugehen.

Als eingefleischter Fussballer tut man sich da ein wenig schwer,wenn der direkte Bezug fehlt.;-))

Haste schlecht geschissen oder was?

frustriert, weil sich der Kurs nicht wie erwartet entwickelt.Aber jeder macht sich so lächerlich wie er kann.

TPL eine Unterlassungsklage eingereicht hat?

Ich finde aber nirgendwo etwas.

Ist die gegen Pubat oder J3 oder gegen wen eingereicht worden?

Stimmt das überhaupt?

greetz joker

gegen J3 und ARM. Kam von Wolfpackvoltare von Agora.Das bringt richtig Druck in die Angelegenheit. Was glaubst Du warum ich pausenlos nachkaufe.

www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/message/525343

2. Indigita® Secure Content Processors that manage/route digital audio and video content, enabling Network Attached Storage for HD entertainment networks and easy transformation of IDE hard drives into complete DVRs with full Digital Rights Management (also known as 5C content protection). Newest chip applications enable HD Video Recorders to record directly to hard disk for the professional market and to CompactFlash for the broader consumer market.

3. OnSpec™ Secure Storage Controllers that manage and control content stored on multiple popular Flash card formats or hard disk drives while providing 128-bit AES Hardware Encryption and SHA key authentication. Encrypted data is stored in memory to prevent reading information directly from memory.

IntellaSys will present technical data and applications information on its products at the following IIC/ESC-China exhibit sites: Shenzhen Convention and Exhibition Center (Booth # 2G46); Beijing China World Trade Center (Booth # H20); and Shanghai Mart (Booth # 4M17).

IntellaSys Vendor Seminars

During the three-city, nine-day run of IIC/ESC-China, Joseph C. Wang, IntellaSys VP of Asia-Pacific Sales, will present education-oriented Vendor Seminars titled, “Embedded Processing in the 21st Century.” Wang’s presentations will take place at each of the exhibit sites as follows: March 5th in Shenzhen (Room # 314 at 4:10 PM); March 9th in Beijing (Room # 8B at 2:00 PM): and Shanghai (Room # 2B at 2:00 PM).

About IntellaSys

Operating as an enterprise of The TPL Group, IntellaSys specializes in developing distributed digital media semiconductor solutions via three major product brands: SEAforth™ multicore processors, Indigita® content secure connectivity devices and OnSpec™ secure storage controllers. With headquarters in Cupertino, California, IntellaSys has seven design centers, three of which are in California as well as four others based in Arizona, Colorado, Ohio and Austria. The TPL Group, founded in 1988, focuses on the development, commercialization and management of IP assets. For more information, visit www.intellasys.net.

IntellaSys, SEAforth, OnSpec, and Indigita are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.

Macht der schon unsere Location im Ritz klar ?

andere "Baustellen" zu beackern.

Ich muss mir heute Abend mal Zeit nehmen um mich mal wieder auf den neuesten Stand zu bringen.

Das geht so nicht.;-)

greetz joker

Überprüfung des PAtents gegeben.

Ich gebe das mal so weiter.



We have already been reexamed
Posted by wolfpackvolt on February 06, 2007 at 2:59PM
We have already been reexamed Note: Requester: Matthew A. Smith, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Washington, DC- Nov.
15, 2006

5,784,584, Reexamin. C.N. 90/008,225, Requested Date: Nov.
15, 2006, Cl. 712/001, Title: HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSOR USING
INSTRUCTIONS THAT OPERATE WITHIN INSTRUCTION GROUPS, Inventor: Charles
H. Moore, et. al., Owner of Record: Technology Properties
Limited, San Jose, CA, Attorney or Agent: Henneman & Associates,
PLC, Three Rivers, MI, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Matthew A. Smith,
Foley & Lardner, LLP, Washington, DC

U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336. In posting #1218 (Reexamin. vom 15.11.06) geht es um U.S. Patent No. 5,784,584.

Aber im Nov. 06 hat das wohl niemanden gross interessiert, oder ?

nichts.

Das ganze hat leider den upmove jäh unterbrochen,...aber vielleicht sollte dasauch so sein?!

Ach ja,...tach Matzel;-)

New Pacer--UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
Technology Properties Limited, Inc. and
Patriot Scientific Corporation,

Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-00494
(TJW)

Plaintiffs, JURY DEMANDED
v.
Fujitsu Limited, Fujitsu General America,
Inc., Fujitsu Computer Products of America,
Inc., Fujitsu Computer Systems Corp., Fujitsu
Microelectronics America, Inc., Fujitsu Ten
Corporation of America, Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co. Ltd., Panasonic Corporation of
North America, JVC Americas Corporation,
NEC Corporation, NEC Electronics America,
Inc. NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc.,
NEC Corporation of America, NEC Unified
Solutions, Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba
America, Inc., Toshiba America Electronic
Components, Inc., Toshiba America
Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba America
Consumer Products, LLC, ARM, Inc., and
ARM, Ltd.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED ANSWERS, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
The Court, having considered the Defendants’ unopposed motion for extension of time to file their Amended Answers, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims and finding good cause supporting it, finds that the Motion should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the deadline for Defendants to file their Amended Answers, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims is extended from February 2, 2007 to February 16, 2007.

ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=PTSC&read=199111

The litigation process has been lucrative for Forgent, garnering over $105 million in licensing fees as a result from over a dozen companies. However, several companies are still resisting, including Acer, Apple, Canon, Dell, Fuji, HP, IBM, Microsoft, Palm, Sun, TiVo, and about two dozen others.

PUBPAT first announced that it was asking the USPTO to revoke the compression patent in November of last year. At the time, it said that Forgent's actions were causing "substantial public harm" and it was harassing anyone who implements the JPEG support in its products.

While Forgent does have the opportunity to appeal the decision, PUBPAT said that 70 percent of the time, the patent is either revoked or significantly modified when a third-party request for reexamination is granted.

"The Patent Office has agreed with our conclusion that it would have never granted Forgent Networks' '672 patent had it been aware of the prior art that we uncovered and submitted to them," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director.

"Making matters worse here is that this new prior art was known by those who filed the application that led to the '672 patent, but none of them told the Patent Office about it, despite their duty to do so," Ravicher continued.

Forgent, on the other hand, saw things differently. In a statement, the company said that 27 of the 46 claims within the patent were upheld, and that the action "was non-final," meaning that the claims could still be upheld if the company can show sufficient evidence on appeal.

"We understand this is an extended process and we are pleased with the progress of the patent reexamination," said Richard Snyder, CEO and Chairman of Forgent Networks. "We believe the remaining claims are also valid, and we will work directly with the Patent and Trademark Office to clarify and defend our position."

******************************

Find ich interessant.

 

27 of the 46 claims the patent contained were upheld. Furthermore the denial of 19 claims are subject to review by the courts on appeal and are presumed valid until all appeals have been completed. In 60% of the cases so reviewed by the courts claims are reaffirmed. Also, the 27 claims which were upheld are now far stronger then they were before the challenge. Remember that infringement only takes one claim, which means that a patent affirmed in part can be just as valuable as the original patent.

PUBPAT claims "but third party requests for reexamination, like the one filed by PUBPAT, result in having the subject patent either modified or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time." The above stats from the 2005 annual report demonstrate that in 56.1% of reexaminations that patents are affirmed in whole or in part. That is a far cry from 70% number cited.

The PUBPAT press release claims "the Patent Office found that the prior art submitted by PUBPAT completely anticipated the broadest claims of the patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,698,672 (the '672 Patent)." and "The Patent Office has agreed with our conclusion that it would have never granted Forgent Networks' '672 patent had it been aware of the prior art that we uncovered and submitted to them," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director.

What bunk! The patent office has said that 19 of the 46 claims should not have been granted, NOT that the patent should not have issued.

As I see it PUBPAT is representing the interests of consultants and programmers who object to having to honor patent property rights.

I am a supporter of open source software and do use such when doing so makes sense. But make no mistake, at least some of the proponents do profit through the sale of their services. If they CHOOSE to donate software to the public domain, including any inventions which they may have produced and make their living selling support services that is their prerogative. But when they try to socialize the work of others for their personal profit they are no different than some of the large software companies who systematically pirate inventors work. Both groups deserve to be hauled in front of a judge and held accountable for their conduct.

It is my hope that PUBPAT will be a bit more honest in the future about whose interests they represent and what the real impact of their challenges are. It is quite possible that they only reinforced the enforceability of the Jpeg patent. Time will tell.

Independent inventors are routinely victimized by large corporate interests. Only 1% of inventors manage to collect anything for their inventions. And unless an inventor is willing to take the full litigation route they at most only collect 5% of what their inventions are really worth. It is like the wild west. None of us likes litigation but far too often that is the only choice we have.

Ronald J Riley, Exec. Dir. InventorEd, Inc.
www.InventorEd.org
RJR"at"InvEd.org
Change "at" to @

Ronald J Riley, President
Professional Inventors Alliance
www.PIAUSA.org
RJR"at"PIAUSA.org
Change "at" to @
RJR Direct # (202) 318-1595

*******************************

Find ich auch sehr interessant.............

 

Moin joker :-)) !

Schöne Grüsse an alle, bald kracht es hier wieder.