RE: ``At mercy of co-inventor`` - Meta
posted on
Dec 15, 2004 10:46AM
Now we have a situation where Intel is in essence suing PTSC, no? Your posted info is silent in this regard (it isn`t PTSC bringing suit, so that info is moot).
As for out of luck (assuming totally), your posted info is also silent re: distribution of benefits derived from a deal made by one co-inventor. I maintain that PTSC will at least benefit to the tune of half the value derived from Moore`s supposed deal with Intel. Corrections welcome....I just feel your attempt didn`t fill the bill (and no offense intended!).
Something along these lines may be what Moxa is recalling (and I am not, but probably due to memory failure!). Moore may have previously argued that he was entitled something from the Fish to Nano sale (and lost) and/or the Nano to PTSC sale (and lost). I just don`t recall any Moore action to defend such entitlement in those cases. Either way it looks good for us, IMO. If Moore did pursue action in those prior instances and lost, that supports PTSC`s position. If Moore didn`t, that supports PTSC`s position as well (as I discussed in a prior post).
Again, while one co-inventor may be at the others mercy as far as deal making, I believe the co-inventors share in the benefits. And a co-inventor is at the other`s mercy if there is a desire to bring an infringement suit since this must be a cooperative endeavor. However, I`ve seen nothing regarding the instant situation where a co-inventor is sued regarding a claim of infringement (valid or not from the standpoint that only one co-inventor originally brought suit against third parties). PTSC is on the receiving end of Intel`s action.
Pretty complex stuff!
SGE