[Ssc-dev] existing patent for informacam?

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On 05/24/2013 02:05 PM, Nathan of Guardian wrote:
> On 05/24/2013 07:53 AM, Harlo Holmes wrote:
>> Currently held by Creative Technologies, which to my knowledge, have no
>> products on the market fulfilling this patent.  So, I'd be curious to know
>> how corp. entities like Taser and Evidence.com, not to mention agencies like
>> the FBI, etc. have gotten around them!
> Perhaps they have licensed them. Maybe we could get Creative Tech to be a
> sponsor, and contribute their patent for the good of humanity.. or at least
> non-commercial use.

Sounds like Creative Technologies is a classic patent troll, given that they
are a NPE (Non-Practicing Entity).  I think it would be a very bad idea to
contact them at all.  Patent trolls exist only to sue in order to make money.
 They are usually entirely made up of lawyers, so suing is easy for them.

I think our best bet is to stay under their radar.  They won't really care to
find us since they couldn't get any money out of us.  They'll be much more
interested in Taser/evidence.com.


>> Also, maybe it's time to start thinking offensively about this and get
>> consultation from a patent lawyer ourselves about which pieces of the entire
>> package we can submit to USPTO.
> 
> Hmm, possibly. If we get the patents, and then free them, that would be a good
> approach.

If the goal is to free people from patents, then there is no need to patent
things.  You just need to clearly demonstrate "prior art" and that idea no
longer is patentable.

Only if there is VC funding lined up for InformaCam should we be considering
patenting anything at all.  They cost $15k and up to get, and would basically
give us nothing useful.  Not a good use of our limited funds.

.hc