On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 01:46:17PM -0600, Jason R. Mastaler wrote:
>>>Summed up: you pay $180 plus you have to serve it upon the
>>>applicant's attorney, which will cost a few dollars, too.
>
>I guess what I don't understand, is why *I* have to do this.
>Shouldn't it be the patent investigator's job to discover prior art
>like TMDA while investigating this application? I was hoping to just
>nod that investigator in that direction, not get involved in a legal
>ordeal.
Oh, I agree. The fee seems completely ridiculous. Yet another datapoint
for the troubles w/the USPTO.
But if we felt like we needed to make sure that we got noticed, I'd
be willing to contribute some money for it (maybe $10?). If many of
us pooled our resources we might be able to get the necessary amount
quite easily.
However, we probably don't need to worry about this...
>>>Regarding whether your submission is prior art or not, it better
>>>have been publicly distributed prior to May 15, 2001, the filing
>>>date.
>
>It was. TMDA was first released to the public on April 22, 2001.
I had lunch with this friend of mine today. And we specifically talked
about the patent application. It turns out that TMDA does *NOT* infringe
on this patent application.
The claims are the thing that describe the invention. In order for
TMDA to be infringing, TMDA must do EVERYTHING described in the claims.
In claim 1 the application describes the following:
"setting at least a web-based online mail-sending web site
'trustweb' at a recipient's e-mail address; wherein a mail sender
is compelled to choose one of the following two ways for sending
out a mail to reach a recipient should his/her e-mail address
hasn't yet been registered in the recipient's trustlist:
(1) Visiting the recipient's trustweb and online sending a mail to
the recipient on web basis; or
(2) Sending mail in some other way which should include the
recipient's trustcode in his/her mail, or taking (1) if no
recipient's trustcode available;"
AFAIK, TMDA doesn't set up a mail-sending web site and doesn't allow
someone to send a recipient email using that web site. Since TMDA
doesn't do these thngs, TMDA doesn't infringe. So, we have nothing to
worry about.
However, my attorney friend did suggest that we could submit TMDA as prior
art for (2). At which point the patent examiner would have evidence of
some part this patent being covered by prior art. If the examiner found
prior art that covered (1) this patent application would not be granted.
I'd still be willing to contribute some $$ to the "TMDA legal defense
fund" in order to make sure that it gets submitted as prior art.
FYI,
- Mark
_________________________________________________
tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
