| Since that time, about 1986, I learned that there is a whole cottage
| industry of going through old, but not too old, patents and seeing how
| they can be misconstrued to apply to current technology, buying the
| patent for cheap, and then threatening "infringers". More or less
| an extortion
| Since that time, about 1986, I learned that there is a whole cottage
| industry of going through old, but not too old, patents and seeing how
| they can be misconstrued to apply to current technology, buying the
| patent for cheap, and then threatening "infringers". More or less
| an extortion
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> About a year later I was talking with a group of business owners who had
> also received a similar demand letter. Some paid, some didn't. Those
> who didn't pay were not pursued other than the occasional copy of the
> demand letter.
Probably they d
Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Did you ignore it or did you pay up?
>FWIW I recall there was prior art dating back to 1974 at the very least...
Here is editing version of some correspondence that answers your question.
> > > > US Patent #4,197,590 held by NuGraphics, Inc.
> >On Fri,
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In 1984 I received a demand letter for $10,000 from the above
> referenced company as a unlimited license for use of a that
> patent and another patent.
> At the time I ran a company that made graphics cards for IBM PCs.
Did you ignore it or did you
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > > > You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).
> > > But wasn't that Xerox that had that?
> > US Patent #4,197,590 held by NuGraphics, Inc.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:20:34PM -0500, David Relson wrote:
> The patent
At 09:32 PM 2/16/01, Dan Hollis wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, David Relson wrote:
> > At 08:52 PM 2/16/01, you wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > > > > You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).
> > > > But wasn't that Xerox that had that?
> >
>> > > > You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).
>> > > But wasn't that Xerox that had that?
>> > US Patent #4,197,590 held by NuGraphics, Inc.
>> The patent was for using the technique of using XOR for dragging/moving
>> parts of a graphics image without erasi
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, David Relson wrote:
> At 08:52 PM 2/16/01, you wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > > > You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).
> > > But wasn't that Xerox that had that?
> > US Patent #4,197,590 held by NuGraphics, Inc.
>
At 08:52 PM 2/16/01, you wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > > You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).
> >But wasn't that Xerox that had that?
>
> US Patent #4,197,590 held by NuGraphics, Inc.
The patent was for using the technique of usin
10 matches
Mail list logo
