Re: [Algorithms] Collision detection patent

[Stephen J B. <sj...@li...>]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Michael S. Harrison wrote:

> I have no idea if this is going to start an off-topic patent war, but I'm interested in the reaction here on the following patent.  http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US06067096__ 
> 
> I read about it in the latest Game Developer and did a bit of reading through the patent claims since it appears that Mr. Nagle is attempting to patent methods which have not only been written about prior to his application (March, '98) but actually imp
lemented in our, and other people's engines, prior to '98.
> 
> According to GDMag, he actually intends to go after game companies which infringe his patent.
> 
> Thoughts?
 
If you can prove that you had a product out there that used this technology before
the patent was filed - then the patent is invalid because there is "Prior Art".

However, you may have to go to court to prove that - which might be more
costly than settling out of court.

This is of course incredibly stupid - but that's life.  The US patent office
spends on average less than 4 man-hours per patent to research it's validity.
Given that it probably takes a couple of those hours just to read the damned
thing - you may guess how much useful checking they actually do on each one.

You should (of course) write to Mr Nagle pointing out that you think his
patent is invalid.

The one time I was in this situation, I wrote to the patent holder telling
him that I had discovered clear proof of prior art - and that I would therefore
be using this technology irrespective of the patent that he'd filed.  I didn't
hear any more about it.

On one occasion, I filed a patent and by the time the lawyers had
finished writing it, I thought they'd sent me back the wrong patent.
On another occasion, they appended the diagrams from one patent to
the words of another - and NOBODY noticed until after the patent was
granted world-wide.

The whole process is broken.

Another problem with patents is also that they are not written in
plain English - so it's hard to understand exactly *what* they claim.

FWIW though this is only IMHO and IANAL so YMMV.   :-)

Steve Baker                      (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax)
Work: sj...@li...           http://www.link.com
Home: sjb...@ai...       http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1