Several Publishers Sued for Infringing 3D Patent 358
jok writes "According to a story on GameDaily, law firm McKool Smith is suing several publishers for infringing their patent on a "Method and Apparatus for Spherical Planning", filed in 1988. Among the companies being sued are several big names, such as Square Enix, Electronic Arts, Vivendi Universal, Sega."
That's what I was thinking! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Common sense says it's ridiculous, and from a moral standpoint it's outrageous," anonymous employee at major publisher.
Re:That's what I was thinking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's what I was thinking! (Score:2)
Actually it's Edwards that did that. Kerry made his money by marrying a rich heiress.
Re:That's what I was thinking! (Score:2, Informative)
Guess what? The reason there are a lot of law suits is that there are a lot of scumbag businesses out there who will continue to cheat people unless they are sued.
The answer is not some sort of prohibitive "legal reform." The answer is to turn the Republicans, the party of sleaz
Re:That's what I was thinking! (Score:4, Insightful)
The big difference, though, is that unlike a traditional court case, the lawyer should be presumed guilty by reason of the judge's dismissal with prejudice, and thus the lawyer should be required to prove to a jury of his/her peers (and by this, I mean other trial lawyers) that he/she legitimately felt that there were reasonable grounds to bring the case.
The first time a lawyer is found to have filed a frivolous suit should result in a two year suspension and a ten year probation, during which time a second offence should result in permanent revocation of that lawyer's right to practice in the state in question.
The net result, assuming reasonably strong ethical rules to support such a design, would be to force lawyers to take responsibility for their cases and not attempt to sue someone without legitimate grounds. If there are no sleazy lawyers, there will be very few sleazy lawsuits.
Re:That's what I was thinking! (Score:3, Insightful)
Great, just great.
Re:That's what I was thinking! (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Submarine patents. A company should be allowed at most x month to file a lawsuit, when a third party infriges. In case it is filed after that delay, the company should prove that it had no "reasonable" way of knowing the patent was infriged before x month prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
2. Stupid patents with well-known prio
That's what everybody is thinking. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only is the patent itself flimsy at best, the way it is being used is obviously exploitation. Have we all lost sight of why patents were established in the first place? I don't recall the intention was to STIFLE innovation and provide an avenue to generate a sudden, large revenue stream for the patent holder.
Was not the original intent of the patent system to provide incentive for inventors to develop and produce their invention? Wasn't the idea to provide a temporary period of protection to the inventor to establish himself in the market for his invention without getting ripped off by an unscrupulous competitor?
I think that if I am right then the patent system should be overhauled and be more restrictive--especially since it was built around the invention of physical devices. Not just in what is patented, but how patents are granted.
If there already isn't such a provision in place, the patent applicant should be required to demonstrate his intent to USE the information in his patent. Before a patent is granted, I think there must be an "invention sponsor"--either an organisation set up by the inventor himself or an initial licensee--that submits a business plan or similar evidence that the invention will be used and marketed. The patent then could be provisionally granted for a short term (5 years maybe?) and at the end of this term, if there is no progress then the patent is expired and cannot be renewed (though an inventor could start the filing process from scratch).
I think that even if this sounds harsh, lawyers and unscrupulous businessmen have demonstrated they cannot be trusted with an overly permissive patent system. It is an obvious perversion of the system when the patent holder is obviously not in a business related to the patent and has gone for years with no licensee or partner to apply the invention. If patent holders want a high-level of protection for their ideas, I don't think it is too much to ask for them to provide a high-level of detail as to their intent in applying the patent.
Re:That's what everybody is thinking. (Score:3, Informative)
My first thought was "why the hell would a LAW FIRM file patent relating to digital image processing"?
They probably bought a bunch of patents with the intention of filing infringment lawsuits.
My second thought was "why would they wait over 16 YEARS to defend their patent"?
They had to wait until someone was making money off of something similar enough to be the target of a lawsuit. You can sue anyone for anything, but lawyers are smart enough to know that there's no point in suing someone who doesn'
Re:That's what everybody is thinking. (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously we're talking about an inventor that really wants his idea to succeed and not be stolen by people who actually produce something, rather than sit on the luerals.
No, this is why they were established, so we can sue the unfortunate chap that was second inline to file for a patent application on the idea, er, invention I mean.
I don't recall the intention was to STIFLE innovation and provide an avenue to generate a sudden, large revenue stream for the patent holder.
Of course it is, don't you know, the incentive to patent something is so you can wait until the market is dependant on something that you patented and then sue them when there's no turning back. Its called long-term investment. Why try to bring it to market NOW when everyone else will in 16 years and then you can sue them for "damages"...?
Was not the original intent of the patent system to provide incentive for inventors to develop and produce their invention? Wasn't the idea to provide a temporary period of protection to the inventor to establish himself in the market for his invention without getting ripped off by an unscrupulous competitor?
Not really, because that would be too benificial to society and anit-capitalist.
I think that if I am right then the patent system should be overhauled and be more restrictive
Good thing it isn't up to you.
especially since it was built around the invention of physical devices. Not just in what is patented, but how patents are granted.
Our days have changed, we live in an intellectual society. That way we can lay off all or local workers and re-hire many more in some other country who can do the same work for cheaper and good quality. Good thing we don't have to actually produce something anymore, instead, we just need to "think" of it and voila... instant riches.
If there already isn't such a provision in place, the patent applicant should be required to demonstrate his intent to USE the information in his patent
Again, how would such a provision benefits all of our bought-and-paid-for congress-criters? Or the corporations?
The patent then could be provisionally granted for a short term (5 years maybe?) and at the end of this term, if there is no progress then the patent is expired and cannot be renewed (though an inventor could start the filing process from scratch).
This isn't in the best interest of a modern, capitalistic society. This would be a step backwards towards "progress" or more closely akin to Americas "developing" years. Why would we want that?
I'm done now..
Patents Run Out, Right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Patents Run Out, Right? (Score:2)
Re:Patents Run Out, Right? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Patents Run Out, Right? (Score:5, Informative)
As TRIPS agreement declares, the term of an issued patent is twenty years from earliest claimed filing date. In the United States, for applications filed prior to June 8, 1995, the patent term is seventeen years from the issue date. For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term is twenty years from the earliest claimed filing date. The rules for patents in force and pending at the transition date (June 8, 1995) are significantly more complicated but grant the patentee whichever term is longer.
Re:Patents Run Out, Right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patents Run Out, Right? (Score:5, Informative)
There are "maintenance fees" required to keep it alive during that whole time (due at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years from issuance), but you don't get to "renew" for another 20. At least not in the US. And not anywhere else in the world that I know of, either.
1988?? (Score:5, Informative)
Yikes! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yikes! (Score:3, Interesting)
Blake
Vertical business model (Score:5, Insightful)
Now the middlemen are selling direct! You own a patent, you file a lawsuit, and you take all the profits^H^H^H^H^H^H^H compensation.
The article has mentioned enough "common sense" and "ridiculous" so I guess we have get the point.
What's interesting is why/how did a law firm get this patent? Did it 'invent' 3D on monitor, or did it purchased the patent from a third party? The patent's inventor is "Waller, William G. (Portland, OR)" but McKool Smith is claiming these 12 companies infringed on their (not their client's) patent.
Either way, it's going to get ugly because this is a law firm, it probably has all the resources and knowledge to do well in court, and we all know owner-operators usually work harder.
Re:Vertical business model (Score:2)
"McKool" What a loser!
Re:Vertical business model (Score:5, Informative)
>where/how did a law firm get this patent?
I am the "inventor" of three patents, yet receive no proceeds from them. Well, I did receive a nice salary and some share options...
It's called work. You sign intellectual property papers, then they start telling you what to do and pay you for it. In the course of your job, you invent things. The company pays for all the lawyering, and processing fees. Sometimes, the company licenses or assigns/sells the rights to other companies. One of those might very well be a law firm.
When the bubble popped, and I dot-bombed, our intellectual property law firm expressed interest in one of my patents. But it eventually sold to another company for $60k. Which with any other liquidated assets went to the VCs.
But hey, I'm not bitter or anything!
Re:Vertical business model (Score:3, Interesting)
Just what we need, lawyers with a hobby. I am picturing Matlock in the back room bent over a C64 and a cup of coffee tweaking code at 2:00 AM after studying a stack of leagal briefs.
I am surprised it has taken so long for a law firm to get into this business. Lawyers have a parasitic relationship with society. Symbiotic relationships do not feel like someone is
I wish I could buy stock in law firms (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I wish I could buy stock in law firms (Score:2, Funny)
Snowballing (Score:5, Insightful)
Slowly, companies are beginning to realize that although they could make money suing people, they could also get sued by equally greedy asshats.
It's only a matter of time. You can only be so stupid.
Re:Snowballing (Score:5, Funny)
You're new here arent you?
Re:Snowballing (Score:2)
Get ready for the ultimate submarine attack (Score:5, Interesting)
China's economy is booming precisely because they don't have any of this ridiculous patenting.
Once China has the upper hand, it could turn around, rifle through the patents, scoop up all the ones owned by anyone willing to sell them and launch an attack against the remaining copmanies with them.
Forget missles, baby! Here come the patent-wars!
Patent Law Of The People's Republic of China (Score:4, Informative)
It's an interesting read that demolishes Slashdot myths. Successful world traders tend to share certain values. You'll find english language links here to the Chinese law of copyright, trademark, etc.
Re:Snowballing (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I disagree. The large companies just consider this as a business expense. Eventually they will either settle for an undisclosed sum, license for the agreed terms or litigate the matter into oblivion. Of course, nobody wants to pay unnecessary expenses, but overall, they LIKE this sort of behavior. Why? Because it keeps smaller companies from even coming to the table. It enf
Re:Snowballing (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why software patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is why software patents (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that some ideas are not quite scaleable, and the technology nor adoption may exist at the time of filing the patent.
Hence the longer duration given for adoption of a patented technology.
It's a very valid and nice reason, unfortunately lawyer motherfuckers like these abuse the system.
Re:This is why software patents (Score:2)
Re:This is why software patents (Score:4, Insightful)
On an unrelated note, if a patent applicant does not intend to invest their time and/or money, or seek investors to create and sell or otherwise benefit from the invention, then their patent should be revoked within a reasonable time (maybe 6 months to 1 year for software, longer for some other industries). It doesn't make sense to have purely law firms sitting on 15-19 year old half-vague patents without any intent to accomplish anything, and at the end of the patent period start suing legitimate businesses that actually create products and drive the economy forward.
IMO, these types of changes are needed for the patent system to "promote science and useful arts(?)" and not just act as a market competition and innovation deterrent, a effective cartel-type defensive mechanism, and a convenient revenue source for "IP" lawyers.
Re:This is why software patents (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is why software patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is why software patents (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with this is that it'd discourage individuals from sharing their innovative ideas. Most individuals cannot compete on a monitary scale with the R&D funds available to large corporations. Yet individuals have just as innovative ideas as members of large corporations. These innovative ideas should not be stifled due to lack of funds.
Re:This is why software patents (Score:2)
Does it really matter if they have a case or not? Would you risk everything on the gamble that the system might work this time?
Re:This is why software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent system wasn't created to patent objects that never get created. It was made so that people who come up with an idea can create it and sell it with monopoly ownership on that idea for a limited ammount of time. It would be like Eli Whitney filing a patent for a mechanical methode of seperating coton seads from coton without inventing the coton gin.
Being able to patent an idea without having to have a working implementation stifles work because otherwise people who have the same idea and actually put the work in to develope a working implementation would have to pay money to those that just see where the market is going. Like the company that is saying that anyone who does streaming media owes them money. They saw where the market was going and patented the idea. They didn't make any form of product while other people did. Neither did they try to sell their concept to others. They are just trying to rake in money from liscensing for it.
Patents were made so that the ideas and knowlege behind something eventually reach the public domain. By not developing the knowlege and only patenting the idea, you are not doing this. You are stifling the system. Hence why there should be a working implementation.
Agree, however the USPTO pendency is about 5 years (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the USPTO pedency for softwrae cases is about 4-5 years. So, 99% of your patent time will be wasted in the PTO fighting for your patent.
Changing software patents to 5 years after issue, just leads to submarine patents.
In either case, you have the difficulty of defining what is a software patent and what isn't. How much hardware can be in a software claim before it isn't software anymore?
Because if we have a "one drop" rule, I am always adding some peice of HW t
Any idea what games they're talking about? (Score:2)
patent on spherical planning (Score:5, Funny)
Re:patent on spherical planning (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe they should go after those folks who still publish paper integration tables. Have we all paid the proper fees to solve the double integral of [n d(theta) d(phi)]?
uspto (Score:5, Informative)
Re:uspto (Score:2)
Makes you wonder why they aren't suing any CAD hardware or software vendors.
Re:uspto (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes you wonder why they aren't suing any CAD hardware or software vendors.
or Euclid...Re:uspto (Score:3, Informative)
News Flash: Duke Nukem Forever Delayed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:News Flash: Duke Nukem Forever Delayed (Score:2)
Lucky for Duke Nukem Forever (Score:5, Funny)
What's next, a suit by Dewey Cheatum and Howe? (Score:5, Funny)
"The patent is ridiculously broad. It's purely McKool Smith trying to make money. It's an abuse of the legal system"
McKool Smith? WTF kind of name is that for a law firm? Sounds like a shakedown scam operation from GTA:San Andreas.
Re:What's next, a suit by Dewey Cheatum and Howe? (Score:3)
Some day, lawyers will be gone (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Some day, lawyers will be gone (Score:2)
Re:Some day, lawyers will be gone (Score:3)
Just because there are bad lawyers does not mean lawyers are bad. Your view is very naive. You really should think about it before you try to get yourself modded up.
Blake
quick!! (Score:2)
Panning, not Planning (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Panning, not Planning (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Panning, not Planning (Score:3, Funny)
Blame the patent system (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I don't want to waste my breath calling McKool Smith names. The big perpetrator here is the patent system and the patent offices who allows these general patents.
Re:Blame the patent system (Score:2)
Actually, I don't want to waste my breath calling McKool Smith names. The big perpetrator here is the patent system and the patent offices who allows these general patents.
Just because it's legal to abuse the patent system like this, that doesn't make it ethical. I think napalm is too light a punishment for parasite companies like McKool Smith.
High Tech Gold indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
To give you an idea of where they are coming from, and it's purely money, here is the title of another article featuring McKool, Smith: Patent field yields high-tech gold"
I think that tells us that we will see more and more of this.
Re:High Tech Gold indeed (Score:2, Funny)
2. sue McKool, Smith.
3. profit!
Not sued by McKool (Score:5, Informative)
For those who find it odd that a law firm would own such a patent, they don't. The editors managed to munge this somehow... a quick trip to the patent database here [uspto.gov] shows that th epatent is currently assigned to Tektronix, which makes a bit more sense. As an old, slowly dying company, Tektronix is doing what many companies do and seeking to "monetize their intellectual property assets", which unfortunately involves suing the living bejezus out of everyone in sight.
Re:Not sued by McKool (Score:2)
I have a living bejezus in me?
So what you are really saying is that they aren't just lawyers, they're exorsits?
Re:Not sued by McKool (Score:3, Funny)
No, they're definitely not missiles.
Re:Not sued by McKool (Score:2)
Wow, one employee's opinion... (Score:2)
Minor typo and some more info on the patent (Score:2)
To quote the abstract from the USPTO page [uspto.gov]: "A graphics display terminal performs a pan operation with respect to a view motion center to effectuate spherical panning, thereby providing perspective and non-perspective views. Three dimensional instruction
From the patent (Score:5, Informative)
1. A three-dimensional panning method comprising the steps of:
storing applied graphic information representing a three-dimensional object in a first three-dimensional coordinate modeling space;
defining a second three-dimensional coordinate space as a viewing space from which the object may be viewed, the viewing space being movable at a selected radial distance around a selected reference point in the modeling space;
inputting and storing further information including panning information specifying a position from which to view the object;
moving the viewing space to the specified position in response to the panning information, effecting a transform of the coordinates of the object to the viewing space and to a two-dimensional coordinate screen space; and
displaying a two-dimensional image of the transformed coordinates, providing a view of the object from the panned-to-position.
2. The method of claim 1 where the step of moving the viewing space includes the step of orienting said viewing space with respect to the object, by varying at least one of pitch, yaw, and roll attitudes of said viewing space.
3. The method of claim 1 where the step of inputting further information includes the step of identifying a center of projection relative to the specified view position.
4. The method of claim 1 where the step of inputting further information includes the step of specifying a radial distance at which the object may be viewed.
5. The method of claim 1 where the step of inputting further information includes the step of specifying viewing window size as a degree of magnification of the displayed image.
6. The method of claim 1 where the step of inputting further information includes the step of specifying one of parallel and perspective transforms.
7. Apparatus for performing a three-dimensional panning operation, comprising:
memory means for storing entered information including applied graphic and panning information and a control program, the graphic information representing a three-dimensional object in a first three-dimensional coodinate modeling space;
input means for entering information including panning information for panning to a selected position from which to view the object;
processing means coupled to the input and memory means, and responsive to the panning information and execution of the program, for defining a second three-dimensional coordinate space as a viewing space from which the object may be observed, and for moving the viewing space, a selected radial distance around a selected reference point in the modeling space, to the selected position, effecting a transform of the coordinates of the object to the viewing space and to a two-dimensional coordinate screen space; and
means for displaying a two-dimensional image of the transformed coordinates, providing a view of the object from the panned-to position.
8. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein the processing means includes a means for orienting the viewing space with respect to the object, by varying at least one of pitch, yaw, and roll attitudes of said viewing space.
9. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein the input means includes a means for identifying a center of projection relative to the selected view position.
10. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein the input mean includes a means for specifying a radial distance at which the object may be viewed.
11. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein the input means includes a means for specifying a view window size as a degree of magnification of the displayed image.
12. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein the input means includes a means for specifying one of parallel and perspective transforms.
Re:From the patent (Score:2, Interesting)
When I've read an article about BSP as an early high-school kid, I invented what this patent does without any outside help, using just school-level math (a math profile class, but still). And I'm not anywhere even close to a genius.
What they have patented is just the basic perspective and rotation.
Re:From the patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello, this has been around since the fucking dawn of Cartesian math!
Patenting the pastels (Score:3, Insightful)
I find the fact they're trying to claim the feasibility of patenting a, for computer graphics, very basic concept, nearly as amusing as the fact that they were allowed to patent it in the first place.
Having checked US Patent Database [uspto.gov] for the description of the said patent, I think I'll go ahead and patent... oh... 'Method of creating secondary colors by combining the three primary colors' ? The matter adressed by this patent is, IMVHO, not unique intelectual property - it describes a potential approach to a certain problem on an abstract plane, without describing practical solutions?
Disclaimer: I lack sufficient knowledge of legalese, so I might have missread and missinterpreted the patent description. However, my modesty prevents me from admitting I might be wrong.
Why only game publishers? (Score:2, Interesting)
Or are they counting on the game companies to simply settle?
Get 'm where it hurts (Score:2)
So they threaten some smaller companies, some of those could give in, and settlements provide the ammo for going after bigger fish (sounds very much SCO tactics to me).
Maybe some of those big boys should step in and help with legal support for the small guys (eg. in a legal defense fund), so that this McKool firm has a hard time getting any settle
it it only were for "planning"... (Score:2)
This patent seems to be on being able to "spherically pan", i.e., change the direction you are looking into, in a 3D graphics system. The claimed novelty, such as it is, isn't even that, it seems to be that the 3D models are "downloaded" and that the user can manipulate them "locally" within the 3D graphics "terminal".
The problems with this patent claim
Another failure of the 'obviousness' test (Score:5, Informative)
The thing we ought to, as responsible slashdotters, push on the USPTO is not even "prior art" as most of the crowd pushes on, but the "unobvious to one skilled in the art" clause. Anyone who deals with coordinate transforms - in physics, graphics, or whatever, would have come up with the use of matrix manipulations to view graphics information based on viewer position. The other half of this "invention" is manipulating the viewpoints in a manner which emulates reality - basically it's a patent for an interface which is the same as you or I walking around an object to get a different vantage point.
That aside, there is the issue that 3D graphics have been out in the mainstream for over 10 years and nobody brought this patent up. I hope they're going to lose on statute of limitations.
Perhaps we should draft and file a Friend of the Court brief?
Re:Another failure of the 'obviousness' test (Score:3, Interesting)
The concept of the "graphics" card has been around since at least 1981.
The original IBM PC had no on-board graphics, and you could choose between an MDA (text only, monochrome), or a CGA (640x200x2 or 320x240x4, or text: 8 color). It may predate the PC, but IIRC, it was considered revolutionary at the time.
Your last sentence is also wrong. You had to change both your monitor and graphics card to go from EGA to VGA.
EGA used a 9-pin conn
Bullet Time (Score:2)
Is it me, or does it sound like they patented Bullet Time?
Also, can someone tell me exactly what this means?:
This is a con
Prior art (Score:3, Insightful)
McCool Smith is yet to learn the golden rule... (Score:2)
...whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
Patent fishing never works if you are too ambitious and go after the big bucks right out of the gate. How many examples of this have we seen here on /.?
Sue a couple of small fish. Get favorable court time first. Then go for the gold.
It's like the Vikings have said for ages - pillage first, then burn!
Waiting 16 years is ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't there some provision that says the patent holder must try to minimize damages? Or am I thinking of something else (trademark?)
Prior art - 1983 (Score:5, Informative)
Toward the end of the book - the entire first claim is provided - all subroutines necessary for panning.
Hell - I even did my first 3d movie in tectronix 4010 escape sequences using them (moving around a cube - it looked like the cube was rotating except for the offset center).
Re:Prior art - 1983 (Score:3, Informative)
"a master’s degree in electrical engineering" (Score:2, Flamebait)
To meet the growing demand for intellectual property work, the article notes that many litigation law firms hired patent specialists. In 2000, McKool Smith jumped ahead of the curve with the hiring of Gordon White, a 24-year veteran of intellectual property law who also holds a master's degree in electrical engineering. The Statesman describes Mr. White as "one of the godfathers of IP legal practice in Texas."
An EE? At a law firm? Does he read slashdot? Doesn't
Prior art (Score:2)
I think God already has the prior art on creating three dimensional objects.
McKool Smith (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite strange... (Score:3, Interesting)
And also any of the companies that develop the really serious quantum / particle physics and medical scan 3D data visualization software.
It's obvious that these guys just want to make a big scene.
Favorite quote from patent. (Score:2)
"A graphics display terminal performs a pan operation with respect to a view motion center to effectuate spherical panning, thereby providing perspective and non-perspective views."
Now I see why they call it an 'abstract'.
going after the wrong people (Score:3)
Not only should the patent be removed, but the companies involved should be fined for filing a bogus patent, and the law company disbarred for filing frivolous law suits.
Alternatively, they should win their cases, and this should me more evidence of the evil of software patents, and all software patents should therefore be removed. Rant over...
SPAM and lawsuits... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just got this spam about two days ago.. Maybe it is related..
------------------
Dear Business Professional,
You were referred you to me by an online listing about 3D graphic accelerators and I contacted you for a well-paid part-time consulting opportunity as an "Expert Witness".
In behalf of my client, I am looking for people who ideally have a Ph.D. and that are interested to assist as "Expert Witnesses" for a prestigious litigation case to possibly set precedence in the graphic processor industry. It is required to work on this case for up to 100 hours in the next 8 months. This would be a great way for you to create an extra source of income. Here are the details...
Demonstrated at least 10-15 years of successful experience in the 3D graphic accelerator industry
Knows how to valuate technology in this area
Ideally, has published articles about 3D graphic accelerators
Participated in at least one litigation case related to the software and hardware industry.
Excellent communications capability for written, verbal, and one-on-one persuasion
The goal is to consult our client as an equal partner and evaluate the case as an expert witness. The candidates will possibly meet executive teams of well know companies, partners of law firms and other interesting people beneficial to further advance their career. The candidate can be located anywhere in the US to fulfill this consulting agreement.
Please provide quantified examples of your success, resume, references and your relevant experience matching the above requirements ASAP. The project start date would be immediately after selection of the consultant.
If you know other experts that might also be interested in this consulting opportunity, feel free to forward this announcement, and let your friends know about it. The selection process of consultants to be interviewed will be based on the responses you provide with your reply email. The start date for the interviews will follow immediately after selection of the most appropriate consultants.
We are on a short timeline and honor a quick response on this message.
Thanks again and I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Jorg Huser
CEO / Founder
Micro Survivor, Inc.
Phone +1-408-690-2464
Fax +1-408-516-9814
Email jorg@microsurvivor.com
Enabling Emerging Business
http://www.microsurvivor.com
Re:Imagine a world without lawyers (Score:4, Funny)
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
You may draw the analogy
Re:Imagine a world without lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
But not in 3D!!!
Re:San Andreas (Score:2)
Re:Just make a game... (Score:2)
To a first approximation.... (Score:3)
Re:I should get a Patent on suing people... (Score:2)
Yes, and patent officials don't want to pay the licensing fees to do it.
Re:But its legal if you use AMD! (Score:4, Informative)
1. A three-dimensional panning method comprising the steps of:
That is a claim. That is what determines if you are infringing or not. Forget the sepcification since that is just telling you of one way of practicing the invention. Note that the claim does not mention who makes your CPU or what display technology you are using. Therefore, it isn't "legal" if you use and AMD processor.
-truth