http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/ Engadget Comments for XM and Sirius face lawsuit from patent-holding Keystone Autonics http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22Hindman,+George%22.INNM.&OS=IN/%22Hindman,+George%22&RS=IN/%22Hindman,+George%22

patent # 7165123
]]>Mar 20th 2007 1:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/
wow ... I/O from the air


Can .... you ... say .... previous art

Hope they win ... then go after lockheed and the US goverment for thier tech ..

then FINALLY the patent laws will change and these leeches can all go F themselves]]>Mar 20th 2007 2:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/ Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899 (attributed)

-note- should be changed to: "Everything that can be invented, has been patented."]]>Mar 20th 2007 6:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/Mar 20th 2007 8:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/
(NOTE: I am not saying that this patent should or should not have been granted. I don't know what the prosecution history looks like, and I haven't done a prior art search. So don't start flaming me as a fervent defender of the patent system. Though I am a patent attorney, I fully recognize that the PTO grants stuff that it probably shouldn't, and probably wouldn't if it had the time and resources to do it's job. I think the patent LAWS are fine, but I don't think that individual applications always get the attention they deserve and/or require, making the application of the laws to the facts suspect in some cases.)]]>Mar 20th 2007 9:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/Mar 20th 2007 10:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/Mar 20th 2007 10:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/Mar 20th 2007 11:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xm-and-sirius-face-lawsuit-from-patent-holding-keystone-autonics/
Thats a pretty long time ago. Also its called "prior art" not "previous art."

Like the IP attorney above said, I am not saying that the USPTO doesn't screw up and issue patents that it shouldn't... but chances are, the inventor paid someone to do a rather extensive prior art search (usually done by the firm who does the prosecution of the patent). And the USPTO does in fact have a pretty sophisticated search engine.

Then on top of it, the firm they choose to litigate with (not always the same firm, for numerous reason I am not going to explain at this time) most likely did their own review of the patent and the prosecution history (especially if the firm is hired on a contingent fee, which may be possible depending on the size and financial situation of the plaintiff).

I know that there are a lot of frivilous lawsuits that get filed. But it also gets annoying when every time someone opts to defend their intellectual property, (most likely jealous) people on the internet attack the inventor or company the patent is assigned to... calling them leeches or scum. Then (in order to sound as if they know something about patent law) they throw out the one patent term they know... "prior art"... in an attempt to sound credible (or in some cases they screw that up too lol).

Prior Art would have to be before the 1997 (or 1995) date. Any claims in the patent at issue were derived from the same specification used in the initial provisional application (Feb 25 1997). If the items claimed in the patent at issue were NOT derived from that specification, then the patent could not be considered a continuation of the first patent and would not be able to benefit from the earlier filing date. It would be considered new material and have a priority date of Sept. 19, 2001.

Hope that helps to clear things up for some of you. Or if you want, you can just keep yelling "prior art!" and "invalid!" lol]]>Mar 20th 2007 5:16PM