TRACKER: REVEALED! A lesson in two parts
> are deliberately distorting the facts.
> Where is the failure?Only in your distorted eyes or a deliberate attmpt to
> lead readers astray.
Whoa! First, you are wrong, and I will prove it. But second, you resorted to personal insult: that was a mistake. So even though I am happily out of this stock since this morning (which ordinarily terminates my interest in posting here) you deserve this.
First let's remember where you are coming from. This is from this list in late February:
> our sources say that Tracker has been actively been recruiting staff
> in Florida and we suspect[please notice our phraseology]that an
> announcement regarding the Florida project should be forhcoming in
> the near future with a rollout beginning in April
Your sources? Your sources? You're either leaking inside information, or dangerously puffing a company long ago proved hopeless. It's recruiting staff FOR WHAT? Your statement gives the impression that Tracker DOES something and it doesn't. It has NO operations. NO revenue. Nobody wants what it has.
"Beginning April" will be here very soon - and the credibility of your sources have exactly that long to redeem themselves.
But before I begin my real history lesson, let's look at another of your statements:
> Tracker owns the patents for RETRIEVAL and WARRANTY Protection
Incorrect.
Barcodes are an old way of tracking things. All Tracker owns a patent on a PARTICULAR SYSTEM of using them. Coming up with a non-infringing system is possible - in fact, somehow the entire world has been tracking inventory without Tracker's help. The only part of Tracker's (or any) patent that matters is the "claims" section - the part that details which part of its system the patent covers.
Okay, now let's look at Tracker's patent claims. Here's the URL to them:
patents.ibm.com
There are 30 claims. The first thing I observe is EACH one is premised a "method for identifying PERSONAL possessions". That means that even if the patent cannot be easily gotten around by a non-infringing system, Tracker's patent has ZERO applicability to business. NONE! It doesn't even claim to - and at most it covers what is says it covers. It doesn't even mention the word Warranty. Ha!
Before we leave the patent, let's look at another of your statements about it:
> Tracker owns the patents for RETRIEVAL and WARRANTY Protection
> This was confirmed by their victory in a challenge in court.
Nope. The infringement case was AGAINST Tracker. The infringement case was dismissed. The press release saying so is dated May 20, 1999.
Maybe it means that the patent of the company that sued Tracker isn't very strong. But what does that mean about the strength of TRACKER's patent? NADA:
- At best, it means is that Tracker's activities - whatever it makes, uses, or sells, to use precise patent language - did not at the time of the lawsuit infringe the other company's patent. But Tracker doesn't make, use or sell a whole lot of anything.
- At worst, this lawsuit is bad news - it means there's two patents that cover different processes for achieving similar things - similar enough for their to be a jury trial about infringement. Or to be plainer: this suggests Tracker's patent isn't so easy to get around.
So in any event Tracker's victory does not say anything positive about its patent. Okay, enough with patents. Now let's get really educated. I'll continue this in my next post.
- Charles |
