blind_html Unsubscribe from list.

  • From: "Jimmy Podsim" <jp.kd5qhh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blind_html@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:33:01 -0500

Well, since the following is at the bottom of every message, I don't think
any claims are going to hold up.

To unsubscribe, please send a blank email to
blind_html-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with unsubscribe in the subject line.


Maybe you should try this instead of being a snot to somebody you don't even
know.  


-----Original Message-----
From: blind_html-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind_html-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Betteye
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 6       :31 AM
To: blind_html@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: blind_html Re: fw: [BCT] FW: [tabi] Fw: Update on Freedom
scientific and GWmicro lawsuit


I'm going to go down to the local police department if you continue sending 
me posts from your list. Members you see this is a lady and you continue to 
be on what appears to be a cult mailing list.

Please kick me off your list now. You have no right to place me back on your

list.

Remove me unsube me from your list NOW


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Tandy" <brl.cents@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind_html@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 3:09 AM
Subject: blind_html fw: [BCT] FW: [tabi] Fw: Update on Freedom scientific 
and GWmicro lawsuit


> Paul
>
> Email me at: paul96cars@xxxxxxxxx
> brl.cents@xxxxxxxxx
> blindaudio@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> skype me at: brlcents
>
> Let god be the light within you.
>
>
>
> ---- Original Message ------
> From: "Blackjack" <misterblackjack2@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [BCT] FW: [tabi] Fw: Update on Freedom scientific and GWmicro 
> lawsuit
> Date sent: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:11:41 -0400
>
> FYI,
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Blackjack
> misterblackjack2@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blackjack [mailto:misterblackjack2@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 9:09 AM
> To: Blind Geek Zone
> Subject: FW: [tabi] Fw: Update on Freedom scientific and GWmicro law suit
>
> Hi, I post this here because this is something that concerns the blind
> community.  Please read below my thoughts and my thoughts only, as well as
> the information I am sending you all.
>
> Hi, this is good.  I my self use Jaws and like it.  But I think Freedom
> Scientific the maker of Jaws is just trying to create a monopoly so they 
> can
> be the only screen reader out there.  They are trying to do what MS did 
> years
> ago and why they still mostly run the PC OS for most of the PC's in the
> world.  Although Apple is doing better in this area, then they was years 
> ago.
> I don't think any technology for us the blind community should have 
> patents.
> I think my self that these type of technology should be open to be 
> approved
> upon to make it better for us.  I not saying they owe us anything but I am
> saying we should have all the help we can get! By putting monopolies on 
> such
> technology as this we are chopping off our right arm on getting this type 
> of
> technology improved upon except when the one company wants to improve on 
> it.
> Just my thoughts
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Blackjack
> misterblackjack2@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tabi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tabi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf
> Of Easy Talk
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 6:00 AM
> To: tabi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [tabi] Fw: Update on Freedom scientific and GWmicro law suit
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Easy Talk <mailto:easytalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: fcb-l@xxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:58 AM
> Subject: Update on Freedom scientific and GWmicro law suit
>
> Go GW
>
> Lawsuit Leads to Reconsideration of Patent The U.S.  Patent and Trademark
> Office has re-examined a patent held by the maker of a screen reader for
> blind computer users in connection with an infringement lawsuit filed
> against a competing company.  Reliable sources hailed the move as a
> significant victory for the defendant.
> The
> Document Placemarker patent
> , held by
> Freedom Scientific, Inc.
> , covers a specialized screen reading capability that allows a blind 
> person
> to save their position on a Web page and return to the same place at a 
> later
> time.  The company's Job Access With Speech (JAWS) screen reading software
> incorporates this feature.
> In a July 15, 2008
> complaint
> filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida,
> Tampa Division, the self-proclaimed "world's leading manufacturer of
> assistive technology products for those who are vision impaired" accused 
> GW
> Micro, the maker of the competing Window-Eyes screen reader, of deliberate
> patent infringement, claiming their placemarker technology is the same as
> that described in the patent.  According to court documents, Freedom
> Scientific is seeking an injunction requiring GW Micro to stop including 
> the
> placemarker feature in their product, asks for significant unspecified
> financial compensation for the infringement and requests recovery of legal
> fees.
> "I believe that this technology shouldn't have been patented to begin 
> with,"
> said Doug Geoffray, Vice President of Development with GW Micro, Inc . 
> "It
> obviously was around way before what they've done.  We have stated that 
> our
> version, Window-Eyes 3.1 back in 1999, had previous position capability."
> The U.S.  Patent and Trademark Office agreed.  In a re-examination of 
> Freedom
> Scientific's patent, at the request of GW Micro's attorneys, the office
> rejected all claims to the invention.
> "A person shall be entitled to a patent unless the invention was patented 
> or
> described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in 
> public
> use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of
> application for patent in the United States," stated a published document
> describing the re-examination as the basis for the patent's rejection on 
> the
> grounds that the technology had already been invented.
> The document also cited two existing patents and the availability of IBM's
> Home Page Reader, a product employing place marker technology prior to the
> Freedom Scientific patent, in its reasoning behind the decision.
> "We take that as a positive sign," Geoffray said.
> "It's a victory," said Dennis Karjala, Jack E.  Brown Professor of Law,
> Faculty Fellow, Center for the Study of Law, Science, & Technology at
> Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law .  "There's 
> no
> question that, if the re-examination decision is upheld, that's the end of
> it.  There is no patent."
> He said Freedom Scientific may still have some cards to play in this case.
> "The patent owner in a re-examination proceeding may appeal," Karjala 
> said.
> "It goes to an appeals board within the Patent Office and then they can
> later seek judicial review.  This thing could go on for awhile."
> According to the re-examination document, the Patent Office must receive a
> response from Freedom Scientific by Oct.  28 if it wishes to appeal the
> decision.
> Karjala said the legal trend points to a probable GW Micro victory.
> "Because the Supreme Court has been reviewing so many of their cases with 
> an
> obvious eye to overturning them, the Patent Office is pretty sensitive now
> that they're being accused of being too patent friendly," said Karjala. 
> "My
> guess is once you got a ruling by the examiner that the patent is invalid,
> I'd say the chances are pretty good it will be upheld by the board in the
> Patent Office.  If it's upheld by the board, the chances that a court 
> would
> overturn it in this atmosphere are pretty slim."
> Freedom Scientific representatives declined to comment, citing the ongoing
> litigation.
> Notes:
> The examiner cited
> Patent 6085161
> describing the invention of a system for assigning and playing specific
> sounds when a Web page changes or the user encounters a specific Web page
> element such as a header or list.  All of the claims in Freedom 
> Scientific's
> patent were rejected based on the positioning techniques described in this
> "sonification" system.
> The examiner also cited
> Patent 7058887
> describing a means of determining the position on a Web page according to
> user-defined settings, including the page's domain.  This IBM patent was
> referenced in the re-examination as clarification for the rejection of the
> sixth claim.
> The examiner also referred to the
> IBM Home Page Reader Version 2.5 Manual
> .
> Ex Parte Re-examination, Control Number 90/010,473, Central Re-examination
> Unit, U.S.  Patent and Trademark Office.  Visit the Patent Application
> Information Retrieval  Web site and enter the specified control number to
> obtain this document.  The Patent Office provides this document only in
> scanned image PDF, which is inaccessible to blind readers.  An accessible
> copy  of this document has been made available using Kurzweil K1000 
> Version
> 11.03 optical character recognition software.
> An accessible copy of Freedom Scientific's complaint was made available in
> the July 24, 2008 article  about the lawsuit.
> Posted by Darrell at
> 11:22 AM
> email-post.g?blogID=9635497&postID=8847572991238343813
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BCT mailing list
> BCT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.blind-planet.com/mailman/listinfo/bct_lists.blind-pl
> anet.com
> blind_html
> To unsubscribe, please send a blank email to
> blind_html-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with unsubscribe in the subject line.
> To access the archives, please visit:
> http://www.freelists.org/archive/blind_html
>
> Thanks 

blind_html
To unsubscribe, please send a blank email to
blind_html-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with unsubscribe in the subject line.
To access the archives, please visit:
http://www.freelists.org/archive/blind_html

Thanks

blind_html
To unsubscribe, please send a blank email to
blind_html-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with unsubscribe in the subject line.
To access the archives, please visit:
http://www.freelists.org/archive/blind_html

Thanks

Other related posts:

  • » blind_html Unsubscribe from list. - Jimmy Podsim