Two people can have the same product even if one has a patent. For a patent to be issued, the product or idea must be something completely and entirely new. I'm sure Ford's multi-color display is far enough from the patented idea that this will just fall by the wayside.

Also, remember, Autometer is coming out with guages that do the exact same thing.

 

The case will Not hold up in court.Who is to say that ford didn't already have that idea in mind.Who is it to say that ford even got the idea from this guy?

 

Wait!!!!! Hold up everything. Now that you guys mentioned it. I wrote a letter to ford about 4 years ago stating that they should go with a retro look on the new mustangs. Something beween a 68 and early 70's style. That's my idea. I'm getting a lawyer. They stole my idea. I should get some royalties.

 

When NBC went to a new logo in the 80s, there sued by the University of Nebraska...which had used the same logo for years. Seems the NBC lawyers and staff did not do enough research. The guy that invented finite controlable wipers offered it the car companies...and they wanted until the expiration date before using it. AOL used a software invented by a kid that gave them verbal permission to use it...but never offered the kid money (like a 15 year old). Bill Gates uses a system initially developed by someelse...and never paid that guy.

I know the guy that invented the plastic milk container you use...never a penny in his pocket. He lives in Jersey...name is Steve.
I best bud from school hold three patients...all enginerring stuff and he has an art history degree.

Ford better work this one with kid gloves.

 

Seeing red over this issue?....don't feel blue....I talked to my attorney B) (a pretty shady character) and he figures Ford has 125 different options... he bets they'll settle on the green

 

did you even read the patent first? He's not claiming to have a patent on the combination of 3 colors creating variable colors. His patent is for user configurable colored lighting in an automotive instrument panel. Not a radio. Not a monitor. Not a tv. An automotive instrument panel. The patent goes on to discuss several different possible implementations. IANAL, but if the delphi system is using one of those implementations, that's patent infringement as I understand it.

 

Hopefully this doesn't happen with the MyColor loss.... or else the ones that have it will be worth a lot soon.... plus, it is my favorite option! Hope Ford wins this one or this guy will be getting a few knocks at his door from some P.O'ed people!

 

Luckily, the mycolor thing is the least important part of this car to me.

 

I told someone at Ford they should bring back the last Mercury Capri look. They moved to Mazda and the Miata came out.
I want my money
-------
But our IUP GT is in the driveway

 

wow. you guys are vicious. Considering how many of you have b*tched and moaned about Ford and the delays, you sure are quick to jump back to kissing their corporate backside.

This guy isn't a "patent extortionist", he authored the patent 5 YEARS AGO as a thesis at M.I.T. He offered to resolve the patent without litigation, and Ford told him they wanted more time to respond, which he granted. It was after 2 months of silence that he was forced to file or lose any claim he had.

It's impossible that ford and delphi didn't know about it, since they reference it in their patent. Radio displays changing color are NOT prior work, as the patent is specifically for user configureable illumination of an instrument panel. He *can* document prior work, since he has a thesis and patent predating delphi's by 5 years.

Maybe, just maybe, a deep pocketed corporation stole a good idea from the "little guy", is that so hard to believe? [/b][/quote]
If a process, product, or otherwise subject that is patentable, (is that a word?) the subject of a thesis or dissertation, it cannot be patented. It falls under free use category. A patent can reference one, but not be based on one.

USPTO Law: If Ford or Delphi can produce one example of where such a device was mentioned, designed, displayed, or written about, the patent is moot.

My color is not going anywhere, and will be here to stay. B)

 

I wonder if the Court will take this thread into consideration when making their decision?

 

not a chance.

 

If a process, product, or otherwise subject that is patentable, (is that a word?) the subject of a thesis or dissertation, it cannot be patented. It falls under free use category. A patent can reference one, but not be based on one.

USPTO Law:

Quote:

If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it has been in public use or on sale in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries.

If Ford or Delphi can produce one example of where such a device was mentioned, designed, displayed, or written about, the patent is moot.

My color is not going anywhere, and will be here to stay. B) [/quote]
Actually, theses can, and often are patented. There is no "free use" provision in patent law that I've heard of, at least not to be applied in a blanket fashion as you suggest.

Keep in mind that 35 U.S.C. section 102 has the one year provision. In the U.S. (and Canada, but nowhere else in the world), the inventor has one year after public disclosure to file a patent application. For example, a graduate student could publish a thesis in January of 1990 and then file a U.S. patent application on the exact subject matter disclosed in the thesis in January of 1991.

Additionally, while true that if a prior invalidating reference (or other public disclosure) was found it would potentially invalidate the patent, an issued U.S. patent is presumed valid until a court decides otherwise. Period. In other words, a costly legal battle, even if everyone knows the patent is a stinker. (that said, if you know your patent stinks, you try to settle...)

I agree, though, MyColor is more than likely here to stay.

 

not if i can help it hehehe..... ::runs off laughing maniacaly::

 

They will do the same thing here that they did with the int. wiper lawsuit back in the 80's/early 90's

http://www.me.utexas.edu/~me179/topics/pat...e3article5.html

/sorry if it's a repost

 

Well, it just so happens that I know a little about the law and legal proceedings, having been trained in law (though not practicing) and having been involved in some significant law suits (one concerning intellectual property law).

Here's how these sorts of things usually go:

First off, unless the plaintiff has an absolutely (and I do mean ABSOLUTELY) iron-clad case against Ford, Ford will quickly circle the wagons and use their best corporate lawyers to stall these proceedings, all the while arguing that "they couldn't possibly have done it."

If early injunctive relief starts to look bad for Ford, they will offer the plaintiff a reasonable settlement with a "plausible deniability" rider attached, so as to forever maintain the public image that they could not have been accountable in this matter.

If this gentleman is smart, he will probably accept a reasonable settlement, which is likely all he wants to begin with. If not, Ford will use it's signifcant legal resources to essentially outspend this guy, who probably won't have the money to go the considerable distance needed as Ford looks for legal loopholes, requests abatements, files postponements, etc, etc...

Did Ford do it? Wouldn't be the first time a big corporate entity ripped off the "little guy," but I can tell you that in these David & Goliath situations, Goliath wins 99% of the time...Erin Brockovich, notwithstanding.

Bottom line: We'll all get our MyColor for some time to come, so don't sweat it.

 

Its all about the quick buck. I can't blame the guy and I can't blame ford. The guy will get enough cash so he never will have to work again and he will drop the case.

 

All I got to say is I don't care much about the MyColor thing, but I *DO* care about there being 4 gauges instead of two. No matter how small they are.

So as long as the four are there, MyColor can go bye-bye. Although, it would be cool to have to show off...

Oh, and for all those who would say "Hope that guy sticks it to Ford!!!"...
How much more would you like to pay for that Mustang again? 'Cause FORD ain't gonna be payin' that guy.

/rests his case.

 

How long has Ford been advertising the MyColor? It seems to me he has waited long enough to get the most of a settlement. David & Goliath?-certainly. There is a lot of facts we don't know! I suppose this one could go both ways, but chances are, he'll just spend a bunch of money on legal fees and everyone else will get their MyColor. If not, those of us that have it will have a bit more valuable car. .02

 

I'm sure that Ford will silence him with the almighty $$. I would not worry too much.