John B, (01)
A patent is almost NEVER sufficient to get licensing done. Very few firms
look for patents to license, with notable exceptions. (02)
Most licensing is after the fact, when a patent holder finds that a firm is
infringing the patent by selling products that use the same method, process
or apparatus. At that point, licenses are often negotiated, though many
companies would rather litigate than pay a license. (03)
>From discussions with inventors and patent owners, the fraction of times
that they are able to license any technology patent with producers who
actively seek licenses is nearly infinitesimal. It nearly always ends up in
a court at least long enough to settle the matter through legal means. That
is simply the fact of the IP industry. (04)
You would think that companies are actively looking for patents to license
since that can add new opportunities, but mostly, they would rather file
their own patents by the hundreds or thousands, even when the patents they
file aren't particularly viable products or technologies, so they can
counter sue the patent holders. (05)
I have encountered only a very few examples of simple licensing prior to
production. That's why there are so many patent suits. (06)
-Rich (07)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (08)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Bottoms
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 1:04 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Patent application for using a formal ontology
in NLP (09)
Ed, (010)
We should also keep in mind that just having a patent, defensible or
not, is often sufficient to obtain licensing commitment. (011)
This recent experience can also serve us to be as open as we can with
our developments, in order to establish prior art. (012)
-John Bottoms
FirstStar
Concord, MA (013)
On 9/7/2010 12:09 PM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
> I have sought in vain to find anything in this patent that does not
> exist in prior art, either independently or in combination, in relation
> to natural language processing, or document indexing. I can only
> assume, therefore, that the basis for granting the patent was:
> (a) that there are no prior patents in the area (which may well be)
> (b) that the ideas involved are not generally known or taught in
> academic texts in linguistics or library science or computer science
> (c) that the terminology was sufficiently different to confuse the
> examiners about the equivalence of concepts. (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (015)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (016)
|