In article <3338639A.3…@BELLPAT.COM>,
"Robert P. Bell" <RobertB…@BELLPAT.COM> wrote (in part):
> This all only makes sense if the invention is actually worth something.
> I am told that no one is practicing the invention.
If you are told that no one is practicing the invention, then take it and
run with it because I cannot tell you what USF does or does not. You have
to check with them. They offer a little bit old info at
http://www.research.usf.edu/dsp/license/page63.htm. They think it’s a
great patent (of course, they are talking about Carnahan’s pending
patent, which doesn’t pend any more). On number of occasions they said
it’s worth millions. But you have to ask them.
> I have asked Tabrosky Sr. three times with no answer.
You don’t have only spelling problems, counsel, you have reading problems
as well. I posted the answer two days ago. Let me refresh your memory,
counsel: "No competent lawyer, and certainly no a sane patent lawyer,
would ask questions like these. No one is so crazy to touch a patent
under litigation. Oops, correction: I thought so, until now." You brought
up already often enough Judge Lazzara’s order that Petr may do anything
about the patent. So what do you expect to hear from me?
> When he gets out of jail, who does he sue for infringment
Answered two days ago (you have a real problem, counsel, do you still
remember your name?): "Also, I don’t think that Petr is speculating to
sue someone for infringement. He is an inventor, not an ambulance
chaser."
> (presuming he had the patents, which it appears not!).
Esquire, I am afraid that you’ve got high on the nitrogen oxides from the
ambulance muffler today. Mr. Greenberg (and you can trust him, can’t you)
explained to you an easy way to find out if Petr has or doesn’t have any
patents (ask any six grader how to get there):
http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5082813
http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5162276
http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5304365
> So what is the point? Destroy a promising career as a researcher, go
> through your life savings, go to JAIL, and start what has already been a
> six year vendetta against a major university. To what end? How is this
> thing going to profit?
Someone said it on this site before: You can never get it. Because you
are the reason for my $16.99 expense for rubber boots.
> If you want to nail yourself to a cross, fine. I don’t advise that as an
> invention strategy.
> People like Kerns and Taborsky are not "heros", nor are they examples of
> how small inventors get screwed by big companies. If you are an
> inventor, please don’t use them as role models.
> Don’t do what they did.
This is not original thought, counsel. This is exactly the message
Florida Progress and USF urged the judge to send to students, junior
researchers and authors. Don’t you dare to stand up for your rights! Then
someone has to remain them that for delivering messages is here the post
office. The court should deliver justice. And I wish that the judges
would do their job as good as the mailmen.
S-Chip is using Petr’s and Nannette’s cases as a bad example of a
student/university/corporate sponsor interface. The main purpose of
S-Chip is to prevent cases like these. To educate, to inform and possibly
reform some rules and laws. This could be done without wading through the
immoral gutter some people call profession.
BTW, Esquire, your grammar was very poor today. Do not use the nominative
instead of the accusative. That’s a fourth grade no no.
Jiri Taborsky
> —
> Robert Platt Bell & Associates, P.C.
> Patent, Trademark, & Copyright Matters
> 917 Duke Street
> Alexandria, VA 22314
> Ph. (703) 683-8822
> FAX (703) 683-8823
> RobertB…@BELLPAT.COMIn article <3338639A.3…@BELLPAT.COM>,
"Robert P. Bell" <RobertB…@BELLPAT.COM> wrote:
——————-==== Posted via Deja News ====———————–
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet