Brad Paulsen Said:
Mr. LaMuth,
You are correct, sir. I should not have called you a patent troll. It was not
only harsh, it was inaccurate. I was under the impression the term applied to
a
person or company holding a patent said person or company was not also
developing, or imminently planning to develop, as a product. According to
Wikipedia, however, this is not the correct definition of the term
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll). Please accept my sincerest
apologies...
..That being said, I would be happy to look over your patent in detail and to
give
you my written, expert opinion on (a) whether it can actually be defended
against challenges to its claim(s) and (b) whether it is possible, using
current
hardware and software tools, to actually construct a working prototype from the
patent description. I have just two requirements: (1) You must agree to allow
me to publish my analysis, unmodified, on the Internet (I will gladly also
post,
in the same location, any comments you may have regarding my analysis) and, (b)
you must agree to assist in this analysis by providing any additional
information I may need to complete the task. We can communicate for this
purpose via email (this will also provide a “log” of our collaboration).
I assure you I am completely sincere in making this offer. I have charged
clients up to $250 per hour for similar services. Since I feel truly
remorseful
about incorrectly intimating you were a patent troll, you get this one on me.
;-) Let me know if you're interested. I have everything I need to get started
right away.
Cheers,
Brad
-----------------------------------
Dude... Get a life.
I mean that in the friendliest way possible, but honestly. Get a life.
Jim Bromer
--------------------------------------------------------
* From: Brad Paulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* To: agi@v2.listbox.com
* Subject: Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF
ROBOTICS
* Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:37:16 -0500
Mr. LaMuth,
You are correct, sir. I should not have called you a patent troll. It was not
only harsh, it was inaccurate. I was under the impression the term applied to
a
person or company holding a patent said person or company was not also
developing, or imminently planning to develop, as a product. According to
Wikipedia, however, this is not the correct definition of the term
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll). Please accept my sincerest
apologies.
You do, however, appear to be a "non-practicing entity (NPE)." Wikipedia
defines this term as "...a patent owner who does not manufacture or use the
patented invention" (same article). The patent you cited was first applied for
in 2000 (actually in 1999 if we count the provisional patent) and approved in
2003. This is hardly a “recently issued” patent as you claimed in your initial
post to this list. Since you did not mention any applicable existing products,
or products currently under development (or even claimed to have a
proof-of-concept prototype working and available for examination by interested
parties), I think you can see where a reasonable person would have cause to
believe your post may have had some other purpose.
As to your claim to have initially posted here looking for “...aid in
developing...” your invention, I must, also, assume you are being sincere.
But,
there is nothing in your initial posting to this mailing list that supports
this
assumption in any way, shape or form. There is no mention of having acquired
any funding, no mention of a job opening, nor is there mention of any intent on
your part to seek a development partner (individual or company).
That being said, I would be happy to look over your patent in detail and to
give
you my written, expert opinion on (a) whether it can actually be defended
against challenges to its claim(s) and (b) whether it is possible, using
current
hardware and software tools, to actually construct a working prototype from the
patent description. I have just two requirements: (1) You must agree to allow
me to publish my analysis, unmodified, on the Internet (I will gladly also
post,
in the same location, any comments you may have regarding my analysis) and, (b)
you must agree to assist in this analysis by providing any additional
information I may need to complete the task. We can communicate for this
purpose via email (this will also provide a “log” of our collaboration).
I assure you I am completely sincere in making this offer. I have charged
clients up to $250 per hour for similar services. Since I feel truly
remorseful
about incorrectly intimating you were a patent troll, you get this one on me.
;-) Let me know if you're interested. I have everything I need to get started
right away.
Cheers,
Brad
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
