Subject: relevant patent issued

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 05:53:07 +0800

A press release at <http://www.biscom.com/1998pr.htm#E-Fax Patent>
describes a patent that was just issued, apparently for the technology we
have standardized.  

Are there any comments or concerns that should be discussed within the
working group?

d/

ps.  The client that I have, which is pursuing intellectual property claims
in this area, is not this company.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1(408)246 8253
<mailto:[email-masked]>                        675 Spruce Drive
                                                  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
Brandenburg Consulting
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                         Tel: +60(19)3299 445
                                              Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
Fax: +1(408)246 8253                     Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 17:45:13 -0500

>in this area, is not this company.

I saw this and frankly was not impressed.. it depends on the scope of the
claim. One thing I was the following paragraph.

"The recipient can be a PC or another messaging device. If the image is
sent to a PC, it is transmitted as a TIFF file. Accompanying this
transmission will be a TIFF viewer, enabling all recipients to view
incoming faxes without requiring additional software."  

It seems they are imbedding the viewer wrapped around the file .. if that
is the scope of their claim .. they can have it. That was a failed strategy
we all discarded years ago.

Hell I'll start sending all of my files as JPEG if their claim holds up.
Their scope may be limited to TIFF.

There is another claim by Infotrieve in LA dated 8/17/98 that seems to
cover similar ground as does the Internet Magic filings etc etc.

The patent office has clearly lost control here, awarding patents to very
very similar claimants.   I am not a lawyer [thank god] but I suspect many
of these claims could be easily chalanged by either "prior art" or
"doctrine of obviousness."

You chalange the claim based on the fact that it obvious that you can MIME
attach a TIFF file in a E-Mail message.  

The Patent Office  must be getting kickbacks from the patent attorneys. 

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC                  
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110    
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
Fax   314.918.9015
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : [email-masked]  
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 10:59:50 +0800

>claim. One thing I was the following paragraph.
...
>we all discarded years ago.

While it IS entirely possible that their patent attorney was incompetent
and wrote claims that only has highly specific statements, standard
practise for patents is to have a series of claims which "spiral" so that
some are quite general and others are quite specific.  Getting around the
specific ones is often easy.  Getting around the more general ones is not.
On the other hand, I am told that the more general ones are more often
discounted by the courts.

>cover similar ground as does the Internet Magic filings etc etc.

Yes, it does.  I'm not clear about the differences.

>very similar claimants.   I am not a lawyer [thank god] but I suspect many

I've noted a frequent comment that the US patent office has difficulty in
determining patent validity and distinction in the arena of computer
networking (and, I guess, other areas.)

d/