Re: CK Patent 6967448
- From: Jeff Engel <searcher623A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:09:38 -0500
CK's patent is just more barbed wire on the free range of ideas. I've heard that their most controversial patents have only been upheld in a Federal Court in the Boston region, where their attorneys have connections and the judges favor the home team. Why the USPTO can't recognize prior art in these applications is a real mystery. CK cites prior art then proceeds to claim their current invention is an advancement. CK's stockholders must be drinking the same Kool-Aid.
rgbphil wrote:
Hi All, If this is in the wrong group....just send me on my way with directions please :)From the news briefs at www.ledmagazine.com I saw a notice that CK hasa new patent granted 25 October 2005.... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6967448.WKU.&OS=PN/6967448&RS=PN/6967448 Am I right in reading this, they've got a patent on flashing one of their RGB lights to indicate that a pattern or parameter has been changed?......ummm how is this patentable? rgbphil
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: CK Patent 6967448
- From: rgbphil
- Re: CK Patent 6967448
- References:
- CK Patent 6967448
- From: rgbphil
- CK Patent 6967448
- Prev by Date: Re: Lamp voltage, current with half wave rectifier
- Next by Date: Re: CK Patent 6967448
- Previous by thread: Re: CK Patent 6967448
- Next by thread: Re: CK Patent 6967448
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|